[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Packages removed from testing

On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 05:18:10PM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 10:40:13AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 11:31:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 
> > >   lilo     |   1:21.6-2 | source, i386
> > 
> > Without these, it pretty much makes testing uninstallable using current
> > boot-floppies. Is that really the intention of testing? Does removing
> > these really help anything other than your numbers?
> disks-<arch> is empty in testing, so the 'official' way of getting testing
> will be via upgrading. Unfortunately, the lilo in testing will wreck your
> configuration and very probably leave you with a system that doesn't boot
> unless you manually repair the damage. So, yes, removing lilo indeed helps.
> It's in the interest of everyone upgrading to woody who doesn't want to be
> left with a fscked up system.

Then how about downgrading the woody version to be the same as the
potato version? That makes more sense to me. Atleast then I can create
CD's with just woody, regardless of if there are boot-floppies
available. As it stands now, if I have a slink install or a
potato-post-release install, and I suddennly point to testing, then lilo
will be marked as obsolete, and not upgraded to the latest actual stable
version (the one in potato).

See the problem?

/  Ben Collins  --  ...on that fantastic voyage...  --  Debian GNU/Linux   \
`  bcollins@debian.org  --  bcollins@openldap.org  --  bcollins@linux.com  '

Reply to: