On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:47:11 -0500 Francis Gerund
wrote:
> Okay, thanks for the tip. Really gonna need to keep up with the
> security notices now.
>
> Or, if it gets too bad, I could just switch to something easier:
> https://www.gentoo.org
Gentoo? Is that the best you can do?
GNU/Linux from
On 1/26/16, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> John Hasler:
>> Adam Wilson writes:
>>> You should be running dist-upgrades in stable. apt-get upgrade only
>>> gets new package versions, leaving out upgrades which require new
>>> packages, old packages to be removed, dependency changes, etc.
>>> dist-upgrade
John Hasler:
> Adam Wilson writes:
>> You should be running dist-upgrades in stable. apt-get upgrade only
>> gets new package versions, leaving out upgrades which require new
>> packages, old packages to be removed, dependency changes, etc.
>> dist-upgrade is necessary if you want all the latest up
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 07:11:40PM -0500, Francis Gerund wrote:
> Hi Lisi.
>
> Just got your posting.
>
> Yes I did find and read this (among other references).
>
> It says:
> "If you notice that some packages are not upgraded you should also try
> apt-get dist-upgrade, but beware that this comm
On 1/26/16, Brian wrote:
> On Tue 26 Jan 2016 at 14:07:42 -0500, Francis Gerund wrote:
>
>> After carefully considering the warm, supportive, heartfelt posts of
>> support and encouragement in this and the other thread, I decided that
>> maybe testing isn't for me.
>>
>> So I upgraded to unstable.
On Tue 26 Jan 2016 at 14:07:42 -0500, Francis Gerund wrote:
> After carefully considering the warm, supportive, heartfelt posts of
> support and encouragement in this and the other thread, I decided that
> maybe testing isn't for me.
>
> So I upgraded to unstable.
You're a little devil on the sl
On 1/26/16, John Hasler wrote:
> Francis Gerund writes:
>> So I upgraded to unstable.
>
>> Let the breakage begin!
>
>> Uptime: 1:53 . . . and no breakage yet. Jealous? :-)
>
> I've been running Unstable ever since it was invented. You should
> subscribe to debian-devel, debian-changes, and deb
Francis Gerund writes:
> So I upgraded to unstable.
> Let the breakage begin!
> Uptime: 1:53 . . . and no breakage yet. Jealous? :-)
I've been running Unstable ever since it was invented. You should
subscribe to debian-devel, debian-changes, and debian-security .
--
John Hasler
jhas...@news
On 1/26/16, John Hasler wrote:
> I wrote:
>> You do not need dist-upgrade in Stable. The only changes to Stable are
>> new versions of packages already in it.
>
> Brian writes:
>> You are not expecting a Jessie-and a-half, then?
>
>> https://www.debian.org/News/2008/20080726
>
>Installation o
I wrote:
> You do not need dist-upgrade in Stable. The only changes to Stable are
> new versions of packages already in it.
Brian writes:
> You are not expecting a Jessie-and a-half, then?
> https://www.debian.org/News/2008/20080726
Installation of these additional packages is not required a
On Tue 26 Jan 2016 at 10:05:46 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Adam Wilson writes:
> > You should be running dist-upgrades in stable. apt-get upgrade only
> > gets new package versions, leaving out upgrades which require new
> > packages, old packages to be removed, dependency changes, etc.
> > dist-u
Adam Wilson writes:
> You should be running dist-upgrades in stable. apt-get upgrade only
> gets new package versions, leaving out upgrades which require new
> packages, old packages to be removed, dependency changes, etc.
> dist-upgrade is necessary if you want all the latest updates.
You do not
David Wright writes:
> Debian developers expend their efforts on the packages themselves.
> If you consider that being able to painlessly upgrade to testing
> is an important goal, then you are free to expend *your* effort in
> *that* direction; but you may not receive much help from others.
Const
Lisi writes:
> What has that got to do with anything?? download-only has its uses,
> but this does not appear to be one of them.
He thinks that if the power goes off in the midst of an upgrade his
system will be left in an unrecoverable state. This is not true, of
course, as the package manageme
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 19:11:40 -0500 Francis Gerund
wrote:
> So again, perhaps some automated mechanism for upgrading might be
> beneficial. Or at least some elaboration or amplification of the
> documentation on this subject. And how about a simple guide to "this
> is how you update to testing"?
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:54:14 +0300 Adam Wilson
wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 21:26:26 -0500 Francis Gerund
> wrote:
>
> > Hello . . .
> >
> > Is this mic on?
> >
>
> What?
>
Oh, I see. I didn't realise you were just being impatient.
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:12:09 -0500 Francis Gerund
wrote:
> Hi, Jochen.
>
> 1) You are correct. It should have been:
>
> >Then, I did:
>
> >sudo apt-get check
> >sudo apt-get update
> >sudo apt-get upgrade
> >sudo clean
> >sudo autoclean
> >sudo autoremove
>
> My mistake. Sorry.
>
>
> 2) R
On Tuesday 26 January 2016 03:02:09 Francis Gerund wrote:
> sudo apt-get --download-only dist-upgrade (electricity and
> networking can fail, you know)
What has that got to do with anything?? download-only has its uses, but this
does not appear to be one of them.
Lisi
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:34:09PM -0500, Francis Gerund wrote:
> >>
> >> -- or, would something else be better?
> >>
> >
> > Something else would be better- not using jessie-backports. If you're
> > already using testing, enabling jessie-backports is pointless and will
> > put you halfway into Fra
Francis Gerund:
> What was I thinking? (I have some distractions going on right now).
>
> dist-upgrades?
>
> Of course. Earlier in this sequence I did ask, to track testing
> permanently, should I do:
>
> sudo apt-get --download-only dist-upgrade
> sudo apt-get dist-upgrade
Sorry, but to me i
On Mon 25 Jan 2016 at 19:11:40 (-0500), Francis Gerund wrote:
> [...]
> It's not that simple. Years ago, I followed advice to upgrade to
> testing by just "edit your /etc/apt/sources.list changing 'stable' (or
> the current codename for stable) in the apt lines to 'testing' (or the
> current code
On 1/25/16, John Hasler wrote:
> Francis Gerund writes:
>> sudo apt-get --download-only dist-upgrade
>> sudo apt-get dist-upgrade
>
>> I presume that's what you meant. Is the answer yes, then? But if so,
>> wouldn't that only have to be done once, followed by periodically
>> doing:
>
>> sudo apt-
Francis Gerund writes:
> sudo apt-get --download-only dist-upgrade
> sudo apt-get dist-upgrade
> I presume that's what you meant. Is the answer yes, then? But if so,
> wouldn't that only have to be done once, followed by periodically
> doing:
> sudo apt-get update && apt-get upgrade
No. Testin
Hi Lisi.
Just got your posting.
Yes I did find and read this (among other references).
It says:
"If you notice that some packages are not upgraded you should also try
apt-get dist-upgrade, but beware that this command will also install
or remove packages, so do check carefully all proposed actio
What was I thinking? (I have some distractions going on right now).
dist-upgrades?
Of course. Earlier in this sequence I did ask, to track testing
permanently, should I do:
sudo apt-get --download-only dist-upgrade
sudo apt-get dist-upgrade
I presume that's what you meant. Is the answer yes,
On Monday 25 January 2016 23:12:09 Francis Gerund wrote:
>
> I don't feel like testing, unstable, etc. should be only for the
> nobles, and denied to the mere peasants (like me).
It isn't "only for the nobles". It's for everybody. But they _are_ Testing
and Unstable and you have to be prepare
Hi, Jochen.
1) You are correct. It should have been:
>Then, I did:
>sudo apt-get check
>sudo apt-get update
>sudo apt-get upgrade
>sudo clean
>sudo autoclean
>sudo autoremove
My mistake. Sorry.
2) Run dist-upgrades? No one mentioned that (to me), and I did not
know anything about that.
Ho
Francis Gerund:
>
> Then, I did:
>
> sudo check
> sudo update
> sudo upgrade
> clean
> autoclean
> autoremove
What are these supposed to do? I suppose they are apt operations, but
don't make us guess. Always quote the exact commands you are using.
> But, should I now do:
>
> sudo apt-get --dow
I have successfully (I hope) upgraded from Debian 8 (Jessie) stable to
permanent testing. I did:
sudo check
sudo update
sudo upgrade
then saved /etc/apt/sources.list as /etc/apt/sources.list.old.
Here was the original /etc/apt/sources.list:
-
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 22:34:09 -0500 Francis Gerund
wrote:
> Is this about right, to convert from stable to permanent testing? Or
> has having backports enabled already made it not doable?
I should think this would work.
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 21:26:26 -0500 Francis Gerund
wrote:
> Hello . . .
>
> Is this mic on?
>
What?
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:08:57 +0700 Ken Heard
wrote:
> Is it possible at this stage to use stretch instead of testing? Then
> when testing becomes stable it will not be necessary to change the
> sources.list again -- unless of course at that point you want to go
> directly to the new testing.
Ye
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:15:33 +1100 Keith Bainbridge
wrote:
> On 25/01/16 13:29, Adam Wilson wrote:
> > I would do something like this:
> >
> > deb http://http.debian.net/debian testing main
> > deb http://http.debian.net/debian testing-updates main
> > deb http://security.debian.org testing/updat
On 25/01/16 13:29, Adam Wilson wrote:
I would do something like this:
debhttp://http.debian.net/debian testing main
debhttp://http.debian.net/debian testing-updates main
debhttp://security.debian.org testing/updates main
Adam,
I'm interested that you haven't included the deb-src lines to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2016-01-25 09:29, Adam Wilson wrote:
> Something else would be better- not using jessie-backports. If
> you're already using testing, enabling jessie-backports is
> pointless and will put you halfway into FrankenDebian territory.
> Beware.
>
> I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2016-01-25 10:34, Francis Gerund wrote:
>>>
>>> -- or, would something else be better?
>>>
>>
>> Something else would be better- not using jessie-backports. If
>> you're already using testing, enabling jessie-backports is
>> pointless and will pu
>>
>> -- or, would something else be better?
>>
>
> Something else would be better- not using jessie-backports. If you're
> already using testing, enabling jessie-backports is pointless and will
> put you halfway into FrankenDebian territory. Beware.
>
> I would do something like this:
>
> deb http
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:57:09 -0500 Francis Gerund
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If I run debian 8 (jessie) stable, and this is
> my /etc/apt/sources.list :
>
>
> # deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 8.2.0 _Jessie_ - Official amd64 NETINST
> Binary-1 20150906-11:09]/ jessie main
>
> deb http://ftp.us.debian.
Hello . . .
Is this mic on?
Hi,
If I run debian 8 (jessie) stable, and this is my /etc/apt/sources.list :
# deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 8.2.0 _Jessie_ - Official amd64 NETINST
Binary-1 20150906-11:09]/ jessie main
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ jessiemain
contrib non-free
deb-src http://ftp.us.debi
40 matches
Mail list logo
