Sam Kuper wrote:
With apologies for cross-posting.
Dear all,
I have copied below the text of a blog post* I wrote a few minutes
ago, because it addresses an issue in Debian and Debian-derived
distros that I've encountered several times, and which no doubt many
people encounter frequently.
Sam Kuper [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A number of comments missed my main point, which was:
When 'stable' packages don't work, or are inadequately documented,
it's a pain because the upstream developers (who are otherwise often
the first port of call for help and documentation) may no longer
Dear all,
I'm grateful for your comments on this thread. I've learned about a few
parts of the Debian system I wasn't aware of before (volatile/sloppy) and
have been pleased to see a range of perspectives, including from upstream of
the distro.
A number of comments missed my main point, which
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:13:42AM +, Sam Kuper wrote:
When 'stable' packages don't work, or are inadequately documented, it's a
pain because the upstream developers (who are otherwise often the first port
of call for help and documentation) may no longer support the version of the
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 5:40 AM, Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is very common for software developers to plow ahead without thinking
much about the versions the distros provide.
You may want to contact them and see how they would expect users to use
their software effectively.
It's
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 02:41:52AM +, Sam Kuper wrote:
Hi Doug,
Thanks for your comments.
2008/11/5 Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Or, are you saying that you are trying to implement a psad recipe from
the internet that doesn't apply to the version of psad supplied in
Ubuntu?
Johannes Wiedersich (2008-11-05 11:31 +0100) wrote:
Sam Kuper wrote:
Ubuntu has LTS (Long-Term Support) releases, which roughly translate
to Stable.
Yes, but IIRC it is still based on debian sid. Ie. it never
transitioned debians unstable - testing - stable queue. IIRC it just
means that
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Sam Kuper wrote:
2008/11/5 Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Or, are you saying that you are trying to implement a psad recipe from
the internet that doesn't apply to the version of psad supplied in
Ubuntu?
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 12:58:15PM +0200, Teemu Likonen wrote:
Johannes Wiedersich (2008-11-05 11:31 +0100) wrote:
Sam Kuper wrote:
Ubuntu has LTS (Long-Term Support) releases, which roughly translate
to Stable.
Yes, but IIRC it is still based on debian sid. Ie. it never
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Sam Kuper wrote:
2008/11/5 Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Or, are you saying that you are trying to implement a psad recipe from
the internet that doesn't apply to the version of psad supplied in
Ubuntu?
Essentially correct. But not
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 01:26:31AM +, Sam Kuper wrote:
When stability is pointless
===
Many Linux distributions (and other software environments too) use
package managers to facilitate the installation, upgrading and
uninstallation of software packages
* Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008 Nov 05 06:05 -0600]:
Why have package managers?
--
Are package managers necessary? Well, no.
What We need this to keep consistency, ...
One way of managing software
is simply to install individual software
Are package managers necessary? Well, no.
What We need this to keep consistency, ...
One way of managing software
is simply to install individual software programs/libraries as needed,
and allow each item to handle its own updating or uninstallation (or
even just leave that to
Koh Choon Lin wrote:
It seems to me the cleanest form of manual package management is still
the old DOS style. All the files of a single program lies in one
directory and to uninstall the program would just involve a simple
removal of the directory.
If I recall correctly a few years ago,
On 11/05/08 07:25, Koh Choon Lin wrote:
[snip]
It seems to me the cleanest form of manual package management is still
the old DOS style. All the files of a single program lies in one
directory and to uninstall the program would just involve a simple
removal of the directory.
That works only
Koh Choon Lin writes:
It seems to me the cleanest form of manual package management is still
the old DOS style. All the files of a single program lies in one
directory
Each with its own copy of all its dependencies, including libc and all
other libraries it calls and all the programs and
-
From: John Hasler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:01 AM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: When stability is pointless
Koh Choon Lin writes:
It seems to me the cleanest form of manual package management is still
the old DOS style. All the files
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 09:25:24PM +0800, Koh Choon Lin wrote:
Are package managers necessary? Well, no.
What We need this to keep consistency, ...
One way of managing software
is simply to install individual software programs/libraries as needed,
and allow each item to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Caruso wrote:
Please remove me from this chain of nonsense
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
;-)
Johannes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9
John Hasler wrote:
Koh Choon Lin writes:
It seems to me the cleanest form of manual package management is still
the old DOS style. All the files of a single program lies in one
directory
Each with its own copy of all its dependencies, including libc and all
other libraries it calls and
awareness of the issue, and to seek a
co-ordinated effort to tackle it.
Yours respectfully,
Sam Kuper
*URL: http://www.sampablokuper.com/blog/2008/11/05/when-stability-is-pointless/
When stability is pointless
===
Many Linux distributions (and other software
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 01:26:31AM +, Sam Kuper wrote:
[snip long preamble]
Sometimes, stability lets you down.
My perception is that the greatest problems with the system of
stability practised by Debian and other Linux communities arise when
the upstream developer has not maintained
Hi Doug,
Thanks for your comments.
2008/11/5 Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Or, are you saying that you are trying to implement a psad recipe from
the internet that doesn't apply to the version of psad supplied in
Ubuntu?
Essentially correct. But not just any old set of psad
Hello,
Sam Kuper wrote:
Hi Doug,
Thanks for your comments.
2008/11/5 Douglas A. Tutty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Or, are you saying that you are trying to implement a psad recipe from
the internet that doesn't apply to the version of psad supplied in
Ubuntu?
Essentially correct. But not just any
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 11:48:05AM +0800, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
Define working (or tweaking). My experience with some packages in
Etch suggest that Debian sometimes has problems like this too.
So far I can understand, Etch is not yet stable.
Etch is so stable, it will soon be old-stable. I
It is very common for software developers to plow ahead without thinking
much about the versions the distros provide.
You may want to contact them and see how they would expect users to use
their software effectively.
It's likely: They won't care.
Open-source suffers from not having the
26 matches
Mail list logo
