Re: Woody upgrading problems, LILO and debconf
On Tue, 22 May 2001, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Monday 21 May 2001 18:33, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 May 2001, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > > A. Why, on an upgrade, should LILO do anything more complex than
> > > > replace the binary files it contains? The system is running, so the
> > > > boot process is most likely the one the administrator wishes to keep.
> > >
> > > I believe that the current version addresses this issue. If you have
> >
> > The version that is currently installed (following the upgrade that
> > originated this report) is 1:21.7.1-4, which is the same version reported
> > in apt's current Packages listing. (I did an update just now, before
> > checking the Packages file)
>
> Really? The below is from an update I did almost 24 hours ago...
>
> Package: lilo
> Priority: important
> Section: base
> Installed-Size: 267
> Maintainer: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
> Architecture: i386
> Version: 1:21.7.5-0
So, where did you get it? My woody Packages files, updated yesterday from
http.us.debian.org and non-us.debian.org. They still show the older
version.
>
> > Unless there is a newer version somewhere in incoming, I can't agree with
> > your statement.
>
> Actually the newer version was in unstable before you posted that message.
> Is a web cache getting in your way? Or are you using a mirror that is slow
> to update?
>
Don't know...
If woody = unstable, then I'm pretty sure it isn't there.
> > > problems with the current version in unstable then please report them to
> > > me via private email or the BTS and they will be fixed ASAP.
> >
> > Discussion on -devel seems to be out of the question according to your
> > stated conditions...
>
> There has been discussion on -devel of issues which are appropriate for
> -devel, such as the issue of packages depending on lilo and forcing the grub
> users to have lilo installed as well.
>
> What does it gain us if people flame package maintainers in -devel and claim
> that it's "discussion"? People who refuse to provide details of the problems
> where they are new issues and also refuse to accept that bugs have been fixed
> really don't gain anything.
The implication is that my report was a flame. I resent this suggestion,
as I was simply trying to report my experiences to the group. When such a
report is greeted as non-constructive, and rude to the poor inocent
maintainer, I can do nothing but object.
>
> > > > Look; I reported a problem I had. Others agreed that they had these
> > > > problems too.
> > > >
> > > > OK, you have two possible replies. 1: That problem is fixed in the xxx
> > > > release; or 2: Thanks for the report, could you submit a bug report
> > > > against this issue, so I don't forget to fix it. (You can obviously
> > > > also just ignore it and hope it goes away...)
> > >
> > > I have been using options 1 and 2 for replying to all bug reports, and I
> > > believe that I have fully addressed all issues you raised multiple times!
> >
> > Unless "fully addressed" means "fixed" then no, you haven't.
>
> You haven't tried the latest version.
This "latest version" is not in the woody archives that I have access to.
I'll be more than happy to try the new version, just stop telling me it is
my refusal that is getting in the way.
My report was a good faith effort to help resolve a problem. Calling it
lies and slander is just not a good way to gain my cooperation in this
effort. I have seen you make several unwarranted assumptions about other
peoples intentions. Please stick to the facts. Suggesting that someones
comments are "intended" to hurt or disrupt under these circumstances does
nothing to resolve the issues under discussion.
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux" _-_-_-_-_-_-
_- _-
_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _-
_- e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-
_- _-
_-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_-
available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/
Reply to: