Re: Unstable packages on Stable distr.

2001-02-28 Thread Colin Watson
Carl Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 12:06:08PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote: >> The reason is that the unstable packages seem to have the assumption >> built into them that they will never be used on a stable distr system >> -- that is they have dependencies on later version

Re: Unstable packages on Stable distr.

2001-02-28 Thread Colin Watson
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The reason is that the unstable packages seem to have the assumption >built into them that they will never be used on a stable distr system >-- that is they have dependencies on later versions of basic packages. Consider this for a moment; how should unsta

Re: Unstable packages on Stable distr.

2001-02-28 Thread Carl Fink
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 12:06:08PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote: > The reason is that the unstable packages seem to > have the assumption built into them that they > will never be used on a stable distr system -- > that is they have dependencies on later versions > of basic packages. This has irri

Re: Unstable packages on Stable distr.

2001-02-28 Thread Dave Carrigan
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In many cases these seem to be frivolous assumptions. > It seems very implausible to me (for example) > that compiling libsdl1.1 _really_ requires > libc6 >= 2.1.97. I'm pretty sure that, installing > from source, libc6 version 2.1.3 (in Debian 2.2) > w

Unstable packages on Stable distr.

2001-02-28 Thread Terry Hancock
Hi, I have only one computer (working anyway), which I use for fairly important information. So, I use the stable Debian distribution on it. However, I also do development on this machine, so I often need later versions of libraries and so on that I'm using in my projects. If I could just install