Re: What is consensus for meaning of stable/unstable? (Re: Does everything depend on everything?)

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:10:37 +1300 Chris Bannister wrote: > AIUI, that _is_ the meaning. Think, stable - unchanging. esp in > resp to API's etc. > > unstable - changing frequently at random. > > Not to be confused with "buggy ness" or "more likely to crash" etc. > The best place to get an answ

What is consensus for meaning of stable/unstable? (Re: Does everything depend on everything?)

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 09:46:20PM +0200, Micha wrote: > My experience over the last 12 years or so is that stable, testing, > unstable talks more about how volatile the distribution is rather than > how stable it actually is. AIUI, that _is_ the meaning. Think, stable - unchanging. esp in resp

Re: maturedebs: sightly stable unstable

Mike Bird: > > I can understand not updating Stable but the lack of migrations to Testing > means that we have to run bleeding edge Sid 2.6.24 kernels on nine-month > old production laptops (Thinkpad T61) which have been supported by the > kernel since 2.6.23 was released four months ago. (We had

Re: maturedebs: sightly stable unstable

On Thu February 7 2008 01:14:40 Jochen Schulz wrote: > Yes. :) It's just that the rules for a package to move from unstable to > testing are quite tough. Which they should be, because every transition > to testing might be the last one for a package before the release. This is particularly a probl

Re: maturedebs: sightly stable unstable

Paul Dwerryhouse: > On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 01:48:14PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Gentlemen, why not let the others get cut on the cutting edge of >> Debian sid whilst we relax and wait oh, say 72 hours for the packages >> we want to stabilize? Slightly stable unstabl

Re: maturedebs: sightly stable unstable

On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 01:48:14PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Gentlemen, why not let the others get cut on the cutting edge of > Debian sid whilst we relax and wait oh, say 72 hours for the packages > we want to stabilize? Slightly stable unstable, but not too stable as > to

maturedebs: sightly stable unstable

Gentlemen, why not let the others get cut on the cutting edge of Debian sid whilst we relax and wait oh, say 72 hours for the packages we want to stabilize? Slightly stable unstable, but not too stable as to be stale as stable. Sure, man apt.conf mentions Max-Age, but that is only for index files

Re: Is Xen for Stable/Unstable distro a good idea?

Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > I've followed this thread a bit and maybe you all can help me. I've > got a winxp partition that I have to boot into only occaisionally to > get some archived data from an old quickbooks file. Can I > use one of these solutions to do that? QEMU can run WinXP, althou

Re: Is Xen for Stable/Unstable distro a good idea?

On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 08:05:33PM +0300, Linas ??virblis wrote: > David Baron wrote: > > > Qemu is a fairly simple virtualizer. Since a virtual machine sport > > differing > > "hardware" (emulated) than the real one, running off a real filesystem is > > kind of dangerous. Feeding qemu the real

Re: Is Xen for Stable/Unstable distro a good idea?

David Baron wrote: > Qemu is a fairly simple virtualizer. Since a virtual machine sport differing > "hardware" (emulated) than the real one, running off a real filesystem is > kind of dangerous. Feeding qemu the real thing is rejected. It will play off > diskettes and live CDs. QEMU can run of

Re: Is Xen for Stable/Unstable distro a good idea?

On Wednesday 28 June 2006 09:48, Angel L. Mateo wrote: > El mar, 27-06-2006 a las 18:01 +0300, David Baron escribió: > > > 1. Is Xen mainly for sharing multiple operating systems running > > > together, or are there some other really interesting uses? > > > > Xen is an advanced virtual machine. Yo

Re: Is Xen for Stable/Unstable distro a good idea?

El mar, 27-06-2006 a las 18:01 +0300, David Baron escribió: > > 1. Is Xen mainly for sharing multiple operating systems running together, > > or are there some other really interesting uses? > > Xen is an advanced virtual machine. You can run one version of linux or such > inside your installed

Re: Is Xen for Stable/Unstable distro a good idea?

Let's stop some of the misinformation within your post shall we? I am part of the Xen packaging team. David Baron wrote: 1. Is Xen mainly for sharing multiple operating systems running together, or are there some other really interesting uses? Xen is an advanced virtual machine. You

Re: Is Xen for Stable/Unstable distro a good idea?

> 1. Is Xen mainly for sharing multiple operating systems running together, > or are there some other really interesting uses? Xen is an advanced virtual machine. You can run one version of linux or such inside your installed version. Useful for testing the new version out, running things in a

Is Xen for Stable/Unstable distro a good idea?

I have a few questions:1.  Is Xen mainly for sharing multiple operating systems running together, or are there some other really interesting uses?2.  If you want to run Etch when it is stable, but need a package in Unstable is it better to.   a.)   Use "unofficially" supported backports?  b

Re: use stable/unstable source at the same time

On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 04:14:31AM -0800, Rodney wrote: >On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 12:00:10 +0100, Magnus Therning wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 10:11:53AM +, John Halton wrote: >>>On 03/02/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >[edit-delete] >>>My understanding was that if you have mor

Re: use stable/unstable source at the same time

On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 02:36:05PM +, L.V.Gandhi wrote: >On 2/3/06, Magnus Therning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> AFAIK setting APT::Default-Release is an easier way than pinning. >> Personally I avoid pinning as far as possible... >> >> >The exact configuration then depends on which of the t

Re: use stable/unstable source at the same time

On 2/3/06, Magnus Therning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > AFAIK setting APT::Default-Release is an easier way than pinning. > Personally I avoid pinning as far as possible... > > >The exact configuration then depends on which of the three repositories > >you want to prioritise - i.e. do you want to

Re: use stable/unstable source at the same time

On 2006-02-03, John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My understanding was that if you have more than two repositories then > it is better to use pinning, using /etc/apt/preferences, so you can > set different priorities for each of the non-default releases. > > The exact configuration then depe

Re: use stable/unstable source at the same time

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 12:00:10 +0100, Magnus Therning wrote: > On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 10:11:53AM +, John Halton wrote: >>On 03/02/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [edit-delete] >>> >>My understanding was that if you have more than two repositories then it >>is better to use pinning, usi

Re: use stable/unstable source at the same time

On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 10:11:53AM +, John Halton wrote: >On 03/02/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > could I use stable and unstable sources list at the same time as this in >> > /etc/apt/sources.list? >> > >> > deb ftp://ftp.linuxforum.net/debian/ stable main >> > deb ftp://ftp.lin

Re: use stable/unstable source at the same time

On 03/02/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > could I use stable and unstable sources list at the same time as this in > > /etc/apt/sources.list? > > > > deb ftp://ftp.linuxforum.net/debian/ stable main > > deb ftp://ftp.linuxforum.net/debian/ unstable main > > Yes. I think you should incl

Re: use stable/unstable source at the same time

> could I use stable and unstable sources list at the same time as this in > /etc/apt/sources.list? > > deb ftp://ftp.linuxforum.net/debian/ stable main > deb ftp://ftp.linuxforum.net/debian/ unstable main Yes. I think you should include testing as well. Then you need to put *one* of the followi

use stable/unstable source at the same time

Hi,   could I use stable and unstable sources list at the same time as this in /etc/apt/sources.list?   deb ftp://ftp.linuxforum.net/debian/ stable maindeb ftp://ftp.linuxforum.net/debian/ unstable main   

Re: Stable, Unstable, Testing

On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 06:22:18AM +0200, Matthijs wrote: > ... > I think I'm as much a newbie as you are and recognize you're problem > with the package management. I'm used to a windows environment. You > want a new application? Go to the website, download the setup.exe and > execute - you're don

Re: Stable, Unstable, Testing

On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 06:22:18AM +0200, Matthijs wrote: > I think I'm as much a newbie as you are and recognize you're problem > with the package management. I'm used to a windows environment. You > want a new application? Go to the website, download the setup.exe and > execute - you're done. Us

Re: Stable, Unstable, Testing

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:50:12 +0200, Matt Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You rule! Finally! Man, I'm not sure what to think of Debian yet. I'm > having a hard time picking up the package management system for some reason. You're welcome! I think I'm as much a newbie as you are and recogni

Re: Stable, Unstable, Testing

You rule! Finally! Man, I'm not sure what to think of Debian yet. I'm having a hard time picking up the package management system for some reason. Also, testing distro doesn't seem to have the libc-client2002edebian package, but an install of the unstable package worked fine. While, I am at

Re: Stable, Unstable, Testing

Yep, the same thing is happening with POP3 as well. Thanks a bunch, I will give this a try. Matthijs wrote: On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:10:09 +0200, Matt Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So, I have having problems getting unstable and testing versions of uw-impad Debian packages working. The vers

Re: Stable, Unstable, Testing

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:10:09 +0200, Matt Krause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, I have having problems getting unstable and testing versions of > uw-impad Debian packages working. The version numbers are > 7:2002edebian1-3 and 7:2002ddebian1-4 respectivly. With these two > packages installed

Stable, Unstable, Testing

So I have been struggling/messing with uw-imapd and uw-imapd-ssl for a couple of weeks and am having some problems. I have also at the same time been learning Debian (RedHat man most of my life), so I am learning all about dselect, apt-get, and dpkg. So, I have having problems getting unstable

Re: proper use of aptitude in stable/unstable mixed systems

also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.01.17.1124 +0100]: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 08:34:07PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > > Debian's nice in terms of dependency handling, but this really > > only applies to stable. I wonder why we don't accept the fact > > that a lot of users run a

Re: proper use of aptitude in stable/unstable mixed systems

On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 08:34:07PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > Debian's nice in terms of dependency handling, but this really only > applies to stable. I wonder why we don't accept the fact that a lot > of users run a total mixture, like a stable base, with packages from > testing and unstable

Re: proper use of aptitude in stable/unstable mixed systems

also sprach Travis Crump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.01.05.0330 +0100]: > The testing/unstable version of aptitude supports 'aptitude -t testing > install ...'. Thanks, this is good to know. I still wonder why aptitude can't fulfill the dependencies. If I have myapp=1.0 in stable and myapp=2.0 in

Re: proper use of aptitude in stable/unstable mixed systems

martin f krafft wrote: I can kinda understand why aptitude doesn't do it, and why `apt-get install -t testing` is the only way to achieve the goal. However, then again I don't. The above output from aptitude is plain wrong and all the information necessary to fulfill the dependencies are there. So

proper use of aptitude in stable/unstable mixed systems

Dear all, I have been using aptitude for a while now and prefer it greatly to dselect when it comes to making custom changes to the installation base of my various systems. All these systems run a mixture of stable/testing/unstable, and I use pinning to set the default to either stable or testing.

Re: Stable? Unstable?

KRF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On the advice of some compadres I have ordered the 7 CD package so > that I can try Debian. If the label says "Debian 3.0" (or 3.0r1, or 3.0r2), or "woody", then it's stable. That is, in fact, a 7-CD set, though you get two choices for the first CD (so CheapByte

Re: Stable? Unstable?

*official* debian cds are stable. After you install upgrading to unstable or testing is easy and painless. I use unstable because I love having up2date (excuse the rh pun) software and I dont like waiting for milestone releases from other dists ie. redhat/mandrake. Upgrading to unstable or testi

Re: Stable? Unstable?

* KRF ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031007 17:22]: > On the advice of some compadres I have ordered the 7 CD package so that I can > try Debian. I currently run RH 7.x and 9 and was griping about RedHat > always moving stuff from to some oddball location and having to reregister > every thirty days to

Stable? Unstable?

On the advice of some compadres I have ordered the 7 CD package so that I can try Debian. I currently run RH 7.x and 9 and was griping about RedHat always moving stuff from to some oddball location and having to reregister every thirty days to use their site. I have been trying to follow this

Re: xmms, esound in mixed stable/unstable

"Johann" == Johann Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Johann> Shyamal Prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> for how to check this out. To enable DMA on boot up try >> >> apt-get install hwtools >> editor /etc/init.d/hwtools Johann> hdparm is in it's own packag

Re: xmms, esound in mixed stable/unstable

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 18:25:49 -0500 Shyamal Prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "John" == John Holland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > John> I just switched my laptop to Debian. I'm using a mix of > John> stable and unstable. Sound works with ogle, but with xmms or > John> xine it

Re: xmms, esound in mixed stable/unstable

"John" == John Holland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: John> I just switched my laptop to Debian. I'm using a mix of John> stable and unstable. Sound works with ogle, but with xmms or John> xine it is very choppy. A common mistake people make with Debian starting out is not enabling D

xmms, esound in mixed stable/unstable

I just switched my laptop to Debian. I'm using a mix of stable and unstable. Sound works with ogle, but with xmms or xine it is very choppy. Also I think some of the libraries that xmms wants to install esound etc are the source of problems. At this point I've reinstalled the OS a few times and ha

Re: error while upgrading stable->unstable

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 13:56:02 +0200 Attila Csosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm trying to upgrade from stable to unstable but I've got the followin > error message: > > E: Internal Error, Could not perform immediate configuration (2) on > libpam0g > > How to solve this? > I've tried

Re: error while upgrading stable->unstable

On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 01:56:02PM +0200, Attila Csosz wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to upgrade from stable to unstable but I've got the followin > error message: > > E: Internal Error, Could not perform immediate configuration (2) on libpam0g > > How to solve this? > I've tried the "apt-get -f i

error while upgrading stable->unstable

Hi, I'm trying to upgrade from stable to unstable but I've got the followin error message: E: Internal Error, Could not perform immediate configuration (2) on libpam0g How to solve this? I've tried the "apt-get -f install" and the force-loopbreak option but nothing happened. Thanks Attila

Re: libpam-modules dependency loop stable-->unstable

On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 06:10:29PM -0700, Brian K McDonald wrote: > After a fresh "stable" install, after adding "unstable" lines to > /etc/apt/sources.list, and performing the following sequence: > > dselect update > dselect select (immediatetly Q[uit]) > dselect install > > I get the following

libpam-modules dependency loop stable-->unstable

After a fresh "stable" install, after adding "unstable" lines to /etc/apt/sources.list, and performing the following sequence: dselect update dselect select (immediatetly Q[uit]) dselect install I get the following: E: This installation run will require temporarily removing the essential packag

X instability in mixed stable/unstable/testing system

I've been having problems with X instability for a long time. I'll do something in a app (usually mozilla, firebird or galeon) and X will freeze, not responding to keyboard commands or mouse movement. I can still ssh into the machine, run top and find out that X is consuming 99% of my CPU cycles.

Re: Security concerns on stable/unstable

Thanks everybody for the help. Now it is clearer for me! Cheers, Bruno. On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 21:49, nate wrote: > Bruno Diniz de Paula said: > > > the unstable version. This would mean that, in terms of solved bugs in the > > *sofware* that could cause a security flaw, both woody and sid are ex

Re: Security concerns on stable/unstable

Bruno Diniz de Paula said: > the unstable version. This would mean that, in terms of solved bugs in the > *sofware* that could cause a security flaw, both woody and sid are exactly > equal. Is it that? in an ideal situation yes. sometimes even sid is updated before woody is. but there are package

Re: Security concerns on stable/unstable

On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 07:37:55PM -0500, Bruno Diniz de Paula wrote: > On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 15:20, nate wrote: > > official security updates are ONLY available for stable and potato(at the > > moment). unstable gets updates like normal, they include security updates > > but are not specifically a

Re: Security concerns on stable/unstable

On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 07:37:55PM -0500, Bruno Diniz de Paula wrote: > So what you mean is that if someone finds a security flaw on any > package, the security team of Debian is informed and consequently the > maintainer of that package is informed. Then the maintainer updates the > package at woo

Re: Security concerns on stable/unstable

On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 15:20, nate wrote: > official security updates are ONLY available for stable and potato(at the > moment). unstable gets updates like normal, they include security updates > but are not specifically advertised as so. It's up to the user to manage the > security. So what you m

Security concerns on stable/unstable

Hi, I have a doubt concerning security issues on stable and unstable branchs of Debian. First question, are the security updates also applied to the unstable packages? If so, is it "secure" to have a 24x7 Debian box running unstable? The point is that I want it to be both a HTTP/NFS/NIS/DB server

Re: stable-->unstable (or how far to throw the disks?)

On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 09:48:23PM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 07:56:29PM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote: > > At 09:48 AM 02/20/02 -0600, Rob VanFleet wrote: > > >Ok, I am now better informed. It does say alot about the upgrade > > >process that I have not been doing that and hav

Re: stable-->unstable (or how far to throw the disks?)

On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 10:40:34PM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote: > >Use IDEPCI image. You may not even use driver disks. :) > > Yes, I wondered. Any idea of a rtl8139 network driver is in that image? Not as compiled in kernel but as module, I think but not sure. Nice thing is its driver-disk is 2-

Re: stable-->unstable (or how far to throw the disks?)

At 09:48 PM 02/20/02 -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote: >There will be "incident" if you upgrade many times. That is why it is >called "testing", or "unstable". "incident" can be dealt with minimum >trouble if you know how. > > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/quick-reference/ I've read that. Nice work

Re: stable-->unstable (or how far to throw the disks?)

On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 07:56:29PM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote: > At 09:48 AM 02/20/02 -0600, Rob VanFleet wrote: > >Ok, I am now better informed. It does say alot about the upgrade > >process that I have not been doing that and have gone through several > >stable->testing->unstable upgrades without

Re: stable-->unstable (or how far to throw the disks?)

At 09:48 AM 02/20/02 -0600, Rob VanFleet wrote: >> Both I and the release notes normally recommend upgrading dpkg and apt >> by hand first, yes. > >Ok, I am now better informed. It does say alot about the upgrade >process that I have not been doing that and have gone through several >stable->testi

Re: stable-->unstable

On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 06:10:42PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote: [...] > > chris watson has, in the past, suggested that the first thing to be > > upgraded > > are the apt tools because, apparrently, those in potato differ from those > > in > > woody and sid. > > Both I and the release notes norm

Re: stable-->unstable

On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 12:33:06AM -0800, ben wrote: > On Tuesday 19 February 2002 12:45 pm, Rob VanFleet wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 11:22:38PM -0700, debian wrote: > > > After I edit my sources.list and run: 'apt-get update', what packages am > > > I supposed to install prior to running: '

Re: stable-->unstable

On Tuesday 19 February 2002 12:45 pm, Rob VanFleet wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 11:22:38PM -0700, debian wrote: > > After I edit my sources.list and run: 'apt-get update', what packages am > > I supposed to install prior to running: 'apt-get dist-upgrade' ?? > > You shouldn't have to install an

Re: stable-->unstable

On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 11:22:38PM -0700, debian wrote: > After I edit my sources.list and run: 'apt-get update', what packages am > I supposed to install prior to running: 'apt-get dist-upgrade' ?? You shouldn't have to install anything - dist-upgrade will take care of that for you. I would sugg

stable-->unstable

After I edit my sources.list and run: ‘apt-get update’, what packages am I supposed to install prior to running: ‘apt-get dist-upgrade’ ??   I created a local mirror of both the stable and unstable branch for use on my LAN (I don’t have high-speed).  Thanks for the help in advance.   Ch

Re: Wisdom of mixing stable + unstable/testing?

On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 11:33:15AM +1000, Charles Thornhill-Cole wrote: > There are a couple of packages from unstable and testing that I would > like to use on a production server running stable. Should I just > compile them and play it safe? apt-get -b source has been my friend for a while now.

RE: Wisdom of mixing stable + unstable/testing?

On 30-Mar-2001 Charles Thornhill-Cole wrote: > Hi, > > If one were to install the libc6 package from unstable on top of a stable > install, would it break things? how badly? > > There are a couple of packages from unstable and testing that I would like to > use on a production server running sta

Wisdom of mixing stable + unstable/testing?

Hi,   If one were to install the libc6 package from unstable on top of a stable install, would it break things? how badly?   There are a couple of packages from unstable and testing that I would like to use on a production server running stable. Should I just compile them and play it safe?  

Re: APT and stable/unstable packages

On 02 Dec 2000 22:14:57 EST, mikpolniak said: > > On Sat, 2 Dec 2000 19:04:14 -0800 (PST), Yuri Niyazov said: > > > Please reply to my email address also, I am not subscribed to the list yet. > > I am currently running a hacked and hacked-over again old unstable > version of 2.2. > > O

Re: APT and stable/unstable packages

since unstabled moved to a new glibc version a couple months ago, attempting to install virtually any package from unstable will most likely fail because the glibc does not match. unless you upgrade your glibc to woody's release, maybe it can run potato software. if it were my system though i wou

Re: APT and stable/unstable packages

On Sat, 2 Dec 2000 19:04:14 -0800 (PST), Yuri Niyazov said: > Please reply to my email address also, I am not subscribed to the list yet. > I am currently running a hacked and hacked-over again old unstable version > of 2.2. > On a separate partition I am now installing 2.2 stable, and have a

APT and stable/unstable packages

Please reply to my email address also, I am not subscribed to the list yet. I am currently running a hacked and hacked-over again old unstable version of 2.2. On a separate partition I am now installing 2.2 stable, and have a question: I have an NVidia graphics card that requires XFree86 4.0 to

re: stable -> unstable upgrade

I upgraded from stable to unstable, and now whenever I continue the upgrade, debconf is complaining about perl. Error is below.. Setting up debconf (0.2.58) ... Can't locate overload.pm in @INC (@INC contains: . /usr/lib/perl5/5.005/i386-linux /usr/lib/perl5/5.005 /usr/local/lib/site_perl/i386-li

Re: bo, hamm, stable, unstable

Jens Ritter wrote: > You don´t have to. I always run my production system as bo (but ok, I > have got an unstable system, too. That´s because I want to take part > in the development.) The advantages/disadvantages of a hamm system are: > > 1) glibc6 > 2) New source format for packages > 3) A lot o

Re: bo, hamm, stable, unstable

Ben Gertzfield wrote: > > "William" == William D Rendahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > William> How about Sid (the "Happy child")? > > Do we want to seem evil? :) > Well, there's always Mrs. Nesbit (Buzz in drag) . . . -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubsc

Re: bo, hamm, stable, unstable

> "William" == William D Rendahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: William> How about Sid (the "Happy child")? Do we want to seem evil? :) -- Brought to you by the letters U and T and the number 14. "I put my feet on the Ottoman.. Empire." -- Moxy Fruvous Ben Gertzfield

Re: bo, hamm, stable, unstable

Dale Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > bo and hamm are just code names. bo has been unstable when rex was stable > > and hamm will become stable with the next release. The names actually are > > names of figures from Pixar's movie Toy Story. Bruce Perens, who used to > > be the project leade

Re: bo, hamm, stable, unstable

> bo and hamm are just code names. bo has been unstable when rex was stable > and hamm will become stable with the next release. The names actually are > names of figures from Pixar's movie Toy Story. Bruce Perens, who used to > be the project leader, works at Pixar. A bit of a silly question, but

Re: bo, hamm, stable, unstable

On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Markus Lechner wrote: > Maybe this question is really stupid, but anyway: > > bo, hamm, stable, unstable, etc. What's this? Hamm means unstable or > untested - concerning to the kernel or only to the software packages? I > feel a bit outdated when run

Re: bo, hamm, stable, unstable

Hallo Markus, Posted and mailed. Markus Lechner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Maybe this question is really stupid, but anyway: > > bo, hamm, stable, unstable, etc. What's this? > Hamm means unstable or untested - concerning to the kernel or only to > the software pa

bo, hamm, stable, unstable

Maybe this question is really stupid, but anyway: bo, hamm, stable, unstable, etc. What's this? Hamm means unstable or untested - concerning to the kernel or only to the software packages? I feel a bit outdated when running bo and it looks like the amount of problems is mostly the same

bo, hamm, stable, unstable

Maybe this question is really stupid, but anyway: bo, hamm, stable, unstable, etc. What's this? Hamm means unstable or untested - concerning to the kernel or only to the software packages? I feel a bit outdated when running bo and it looks like the amount of problems is mostly the same

Re: Stable/Unstable Frustration ...

On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Adam Shand wrote: > Now in order to compile KDE I have to have libgif* which require xlib6g > etc etc... this is a bit frustrating as I am somewhat reluctant to put so > crucial a part of my system into the 'unstable' tree. Is it possible that > older versions of the non-free

Stable/Unstable Frustration ...

Hey... I've been wanting to play with some of the packages in unstable but have found that more and more this requires me to update to thte xlib6g and other 'g' packages. While often I can avoid this by sticking with the 'stable' tree that's not always possible when I want to use packages from n