On Thu, Aug 26, 1999 at 03:38:50PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which reminds me, building source packages is really not as easy as
one would hope it to be.
I had to go through some contortions to build the potato ssh-1.2.27
package on slink. Example: The perl5 dependency had to be
. . . why? What's the purpose of making everything on machines
running stable un-upgradable until some obscure Perl bug is worked
out? I just don't follow.
Which reminds me, building source packages is really not as easy as
one would hope it to be.
I had to go through some contortions to
From: Brad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Daniel Barclay wrote:
From: Brad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
..
That's the choice Debian offers: a rock-solid system with _slightly_
out-of-date software (although you're free to upgrade it), or a
state-of-the-art system with all the
Brian Servis wrote:
If you want something that is only available in the unstable tree you
can always build the source archive against your current setup, it is
fairly straight forward with the Debian source archives.
but there are problems with some packages, e.g. postfix-0.0.19990627
refuses
*- On 31 Jul, Daniel Barclay wrote about Re: No KDE/GNOME for stable?
From: Brad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
..
That's the choice Debian offers: a rock-solid system with _slightly_
out-of-date software (although you're free to upgrade it), or a
state-of-the-art system with all the bugs inherent
On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Daniel Barclay wrote:
From: Brad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
..
That's the choice Debian offers: a rock-solid system with _slightly_
out-of-date software (although you're free to upgrade it), or a
state-of-the-art system with all the bugs inherent in the bleeding edge.
** Brad == Brad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brad On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Daniel Barclay wrote:
But why not build the latest-and-greatest version of add-on
packages against BOTH the stable and the latest-and-greatest
unstable distribution?
Then later versions of software (even if they're not
From: Brad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
..
That's the choice Debian offers: a rock-solid system with _slightly_
out-of-date software (although you're free to upgrade it), or a
state-of-the-art system with all the bugs inherent in the bleeding edge.
But why not build the latest-and-greatest version of
.
. . . why? What's the purpose of making everything on machines
running stable un-upgradable until some obscure Perl bug is worked
out? I just don't follow.
Is there a way to try KDE/GNOME on stable that I'm missing? I did
some fairly extensive searches via www.debian.org's package search
engine. I
Did you look at:
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/gnome
Supposedly there are a bunch of Slink built gnome progs.
--
Eric G. Miller
Powered by the POTATO (http://www.debian.org)!
Carl Fink wrote:
Is there a way to try KDE/GNOME on stable that I'm missing? I did
some fairly extensive searches via www.debian.org's package search
engine. I should specify that I want a reasonably new release of
either, not the alpha GNOME in stable.
Doing a search on the archives
*- On 24 Jul, Carl Fink wrote about No KDE/GNOME for stable?
Pardon me if this has been hashed and rehashed: I haven't seen it on
the Usenet linux.debian.user, but I know not every message gets
gatewayed. I did a search on the archive and found nothing.
Add the following to your apt
is to avoid and work out bugs, they can appear -
particularly if (as in this case) a large number of packages are
affected and need to be synced.
In any case, you don't need to do a full upgrade - you'll only be bitten
by the perl change if you upgrade perl related packages.
Is there a way to try KDE/GNOME
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999, Carl Fink wrote:
It seems to me that there's no way to install either KDE or GNOME
using the current stable release. Apparently once a release is
frozen all new versions of .deb archives are created for unstable,
which in this case means using glibc 2.1 . . . which means
15 matches
Mail list logo
