On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 04:27:13PM +0100, Niall Brady wrote:
>
> I apologise whore-hartedly four my crazy engrish. foo.
er, *gulp*, I should :-)
Sorry, brainfry must have hit when I was writing that email, and
the apt paragraph became part of the bsd one. What I was trying
to say is:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 12:43:24PM +0930, Tom Cook wrote:
> >
> > > incantation is if it exists) to update a package and all it's
> > > dependencies at the moment, safely.
> >
> > zap safely :-) Can't be done at all...
>
> If there is a new version available in the sources defined in
> /etc/apt
On 0, Niall Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> bah... I get dozy if I get up too early :-)
>
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 07:48:42PM +0100, Niall Brady wrote:
> >
> > The problem is (and I'm not too hot on apt, so forgive me if I'm
> > wrong :-) that by default you can do 'apt upgrade' (or whatever
bah... I get dozy if I get up too early :-)
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 07:48:42PM +0100, Niall Brady wrote:
>
> The problem is (and I'm not too hot on apt, so forgive me if I'm
> wrong :-) that by default you can do 'apt upgrade' (or whatever the
s/can/can\'t/
> incantation is if it exists) to upd
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 08:29:56PM -0400, Sean wrote:
>
> The BSD ports system is one where you download source instead of
> binaries. The Gentoo distribution has a similar system, with it's
> portage and emerge programs.
To be more precise it
* Is all based around Makefiles
* Do
On Sat, 2002-04-13 at 01:29, Sean wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 19:58, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > This is a vaild point, in my mind. Implementing a BSD-style ports
> > > structure would help to get around this in my mind.
> >
> > Explain this one? I'm unfamiliar with ports.
> >
>
>
On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 20:49, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> * Sean ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> ...
> > Somebody once told me that if you come to the table with complaints and
> > no ideas for solutions for your complaints then you're part of the
> > problem, not the solution.
>
> I heard
* Sean ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
...
> Somebody once told me that if you come to the table with complaints and
> no ideas for solutions for your complaints then you're part of the
> problem, not the solution.
I heard it's "precipitate" rather than "problem".
The problem is that t
(I seem to be missing Dima's post. All I have is what Paul quoted.)
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 03:39:42PM -0700, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
| On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
|
| > Basically, Debian project seems to be moving towards
| > more feechoorz, more luser-friendly helper apps e
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 08:29:56PM -0400, Sean wrote:
| On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 19:58, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
| >
| > > This is a vaild point, in my mind. Implementing a BSD-style ports
| > > structure would help to get around this in my mind.
| >
| > Explain this one? I'm unfamiliar with por
On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 19:58, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
>
> > This is a vaild point, in my mind. Implementing a BSD-style ports
> > structure would help to get around this in my mind.
>
> Explain this one? I'm unfamiliar with ports.
>
The BSD ports system is one where you download source inst
begin Paul 'Baloo' Johnson quotation:
>
> RPM *still* puts files in the wrong places, and you *still* have to find
> packages and resolve dependancies by hand.
up2date-nox
Oh, I'm not trying to say it compares to apt-get; Debian still blows
RedHat out of the water on package management. Howev
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 01:05:24AM +0100, Simon Hepburn wrote:
> Sean wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 18:39, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> > > > 1. I've nothing against helper apps. as long as they *can
> > > > be turned off*. Dexconf cannot be t
Sean wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 18:39, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> > > 1. I've nothing against helper apps. as long as they *can
> > > be turned off*. Dexconf cannot be turned off (don't get
> > > me started on general idiocy behind dexconf. Or
On 12 Apr 2002, Sean wrote:
> Choosing to stagnate is never a successful option.
True, but it's a better option than offering bloat.
> don't want to, but they're still available. Just because it cramps the
> style of some people is not a valid reason to eliminate major categories
> of a general
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 03:39:42PM -0700, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> > 1. I've nothing against helper apps. as long as they *can
> > be turned off*. Dexconf cannot be turned off (don't get
> > me started on general idiocy behind dexconf. Or alsaconf).
On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 18:39, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
>
> > Basically, Debian project seems to be moving towards
> > more feechoorz, more luser-friendly helper apps etc.
> > Most software engineers believe that this exactly the
> > wrong thing to do:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> Basically, Debian project seems to be moving towards
> more feechoorz, more luser-friendly helper apps etc.
> Most software engineers believe that this exactly the
> wrong thing to do: more complexity => unforseen
> interactions between the parts => mor
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> I also used Debian for half a decade, and I don't like where it
> is going any more that you do. However,
I've been using Debian ever since my DOS disks died in 1997 and I was
left without operating system. Other than having to beat myself in the
head
19 matches
Mail list logo
