[ message reformatted for easier reading ]
[ Please don't top post -- thank you ;-) ]
> > > Somehow the Debian Developers don't see this as a problem (having to
> > > manually install the meta package). I reported this in March [1] when
> > > it appeared to me to be a problem many users would hav
Joey Hess wrote:
> Ralph Katz wrote:
>> I hope Etch will install the meta package by default.
>
> It does.
Perfect! Thanks.
Regards,
Ralph
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thursday, June 29, 2006 1:55 PM -0500, Owen Heisler wrote:
> So this isn't installed by default? No? Why not?!
Because!
On Thursday, June 29, 2006 1:09 PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Ralph Katz wrote:
> > I hope Etch will install the meta package by default.
>
> It does.
Great news. Tha
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 13:02 -0500, Seth Goodman wrote:
> On Thursday, June 29, 2006 9:58 AM -0500, Ralph Katz wrote:
> > On 06/29/2006, Linas Žvirblis wrote:
> > > Why should it? Many people prefer to manually choose their
> > > kernels, as this is not something you can upgrade at any given
> > > t
Ralph Katz wrote:
> I hope Etch will install the meta package by default.
It does.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thursday, June 29, 2006 9:58 AM -0500, Ralph Katz wrote:
> On 06/29/2006, Linas Žvirblis wrote:
>
> > Why should it? Many people prefer to manually choose their
> > kernels, as this is not something you can upgrade at any given
> > time. It is not a problem either way - installing or removing a
On (29/06/06 10:57), Ralph Katz wrote:
> On 06/29/2006, Linas ?virblis wrote:
>
> > Why should it? Many people prefer to manually choose their kernels, as
> > this is not something you can upgrade at any given time. It is not a
> > problem either way - installing or removing a meta package is not
On 06/29/2006, Linas Žvirblis wrote:
> Why should it? Many people prefer to manually choose their kernels, as
> this is not something you can upgrade at any given time. It is not a
> problem either way - installing or removing a meta package is not that
> hard, is it?
Hi Linas,
You are correct t
Great, thank you for your help.
I knew there was something I was missing.
From: Linas Žvirblis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Sarge Kernel Image Package Question
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:48:09 +0300
Ralph Katz wrote:
> Somehow the Debian Develop
Ralph Katz wrote:
> Somehow the Debian Developers don't see this as a problem (having to
> manually install the meta package). I reported this in March [1] when
> it appeared to me to be a problem many users would have since the meta
> package, kernel-image-2.6-686, was /not/ installed in the de
> Kenneth Bond wrote:
>
>> I was under the impression that running apt-get update, apt-get upgrade
>> would upgrade my installed kernel packages - for example from
>> kernel-image-2.6.8-2-686===> kernel-image-2.6.8-3-686? Or do I need to
>> perform a manual kernel-image package installation when n
Kenneth Bond wrote:
> I was under the impression that running apt-get update, apt-get upgrade
> would upgrade my installed kernel packages - for example from
> kernel-image-2.6.8-2-686===> kernel-image-2.6.8-3-686? Or do I need to
> perform a manual kernel-image package installation when new kerne
Hello,
I am hoping that you can help me.
I currently manage several Debian GNU/Linux servers which act as high volume
intranet servers for a large global consulting firm. All of these servers
are running Sarge.
Before Tuesday, each of these servers were running the
kernel-image-2.6.8-2-686 (2.
13 matches
Mail list logo
