Re: Testing upgrade and consequences
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
> It's like this. You upgraded to a not-yet-released, beta quality version
> of debian.
This I *now* know. Before upgrading I was given to understand that
testing was a relatively problem-free upgrade to undertake -- not the
rat's nest of incompatibilities and error-messages I ran into.
> You seem to have done some pretty horrendous hacking to work
> around dependancy problems, instead of reporting them:
Why horrendous? Stuff broke. I fixed it. (For my own system.)
And just how does one report a blanket suggestion that 452 system files
be removed in one go?
> > This I declined; and proceeded to (re-)install packages individually
> > from an apt-get --just-print dist-upgrade list.
>
> And things broke. This is a suprise?
Yes.
Shouldn't it be? Please explain.
(This is the method I have used to incrementally upgrade my installation
for the past two years -- without problem.)
Why should I expect things to break using this method?
[This is a genuine query. Don't understand your stance. Really.]
> This will all get fixed if you file sane bug reports on each item (sane
> == including enough information for the developer to reproduce your
> problem). If you just rant, you will be ignored.
No -- I've already had a response from someone whose judgment and
opinions I usually tend to respect :)
(And ranting is good for the soul when you've just spent 10 days doing
an almost total rebuild of a complex system. Thank your lucky stars
you're not Andrew -- as my nearest developer contact, he had to put up
with the phone calls every night.)
But I doubt whether any developer could reproduce this system exactly
without an accurate image of my machine state; so I'll start with the
big problem (apache) and try to send in a fuller description of all the
problems encountered once I've sussed how to do 'proper' bug reports,
and where to send them.
msw
--
Martin Wheeler - StarTEXT - Glastonbury - BA6 9PH - England
[1] mwheeler@startext.co.uk http://www.startext.co.uk/
Reply to: