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

Re: Curious thing about 1.1 -> 1.2 upgrade problems

Rick Macdonald writes:
> I've been living off the unstable tree for almost a year. Back when the
> version was 0.95r6 or something like that.

I believe this is a problem. People, who have "fat pipes" to get their 
upgrades from the FTP sites, can live off of the "unstable" tree and have 
their systems incrementally upgraded. Those of us with "thin pipes" have to 
either make do with long download times or use CDROMs to do our incremental 
upgrade. The difference is the size of the increment.
> I really haven't had any problems to speak about, and certainly
> not all the problems that people are writing about when upgrading
> 1.1 -> 1.2.

Keeping in step with the development team has it's advantages 8-)
> One reason may be that I just don't have as many packages installed,
> but I was wondering if anybody had any other explainations as to why many
> small incremental upgrades over the months seems to be more stable (in the
> sense of installations not breaking) than making larger leaps from
> point release to point release.

I agree, stable only from the point of view of less dependency problems. 
IMHO, grabbing from the unstable tree has a higher _risk_ of bugs in the 

I believe that, prior to official release, the "frozen" tree should be tested 
in two ways: 1) complete load from scratch (looking for breakage) 2) complete 
upgrade from an existing older release (again, looking for breakage). It is
hard to sell someone on the "professional" aspects of Debian Linux, when it
breaks at installation time (not to mention the "egg on face").

While I'm at it, XF86Config -- I've notice this odd behavior while configuring
X windows, if I specify the memory of the video card as it should be, the
screen is all screwed up for all resolutions. However, if I specify the memory
at twice what it is, then all screen look beautiful. I tried this on two
different machines. Each machine has a different video card with different
amounts of memory. And both machines displayed this odd behavior. One has a
generic VGA card with 256K, and the other has a Trident 9440 w/512K memory.
I configured & reconfigured a dozen times trying to figure out what was wrong.
8-) On the last try, I "lied" to the config program and specified twice the
memory. Lo and behold. 8-)

-= Sent by Debian 1.2 Linux =-
Thomas Kocourek  KD4CIK

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com

Reply to: