[
Date Prev
][
Date Next
] [
Thread Prev
][
Thread Next
] [
Date Index
] [
Thread Index
]
Re: Debian Backports are inconsistent - any ideas ?
To
:
debian-backports@lists.debian.org
Subject
: Re: Debian Backports are inconsistent - any ideas ?
From
: Jan Ingvoldstad <
frettled@gmail.com
>
Date
: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:11:04 +0100
Message-id
: <
[🔎]
CAEffzkweYGEEzQg9dpVFs6Yut0-2SQ1E9ioNk2i=ipG+ayYgTA@mail.gmail.com
>
In-reply-to
: <
[🔎]
4F28E7E7.3070707@gmail.com
>
References
: <
[🔎]
CAOJ6w=GZnBUZM7_mw9rFW1q35LfprpWtpeZzhp+3+VRixKk6cQ@mail.gmail.com
> <
[🔎]
4F28E7E7.3070707@gmail.com
>
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 08:21, dE .
<
de.techno@gmail.com
>
wrote:
This's expected. I take installing form backports itself as a warning.
Unfortunately, the OP has a point – this warning is missing from
http://backports.debian.org/
.
If I may use the the collective "we": we should make this abundantly clear, if it is something to be expected, it cannot be implicit.
--
Jan
Reply to:
debian-backports@lists.debian.org
Jan Ingvoldstad (on-list)
Jan Ingvoldstad (off-list)
Follow-Ups
:
Re: Debian Backports are inconsistent - any ideas ?
From:
Alexander Wirt <formorer@formorer.de>
References
:
Debian Backports are inconsistent - any ideas ?
From:
Alexey Eromenko <al4321@gmail.com>
Re: Debian Backports are inconsistent - any ideas ?
From:
"dE ." <de.techno@gmail.com>
Prev by Date:
Re: nvidia doesn't work on 3.x kernels
Next by Date:
Re: Debian Backports are inconsistent - any ideas ?
Previous by thread:
Re: Debian Backports are inconsistent - any ideas ?
Next by thread:
Re: Debian Backports are inconsistent - any ideas ?
Index(es):
Date
Thread