Re: What's the best package manager for single-package upgrades?
> Please, stop complaining, and do your research
Actually, your comments here are demonstrating just how inadequate the
apt-get documentation is. Because I read through it a dozen times -- and
was already making notes to suggest cleaning it up -- and I never saw
anything about the 'policy' command you're using here.
So yes, I needed more information. But the public documentation didn't
have anything about these commands, or how to use them appropriately.
> if you make an
> $ apt-get update
> $ apt-get upgrade
>
> (or dist-upgrade) it will tell you "XXX packages have been held back."
> These packages have new versions, but for some reason or another (maybe
> dependencies problems) can not be upgraded without manual intervention.
And there's no way to know what they are or why they were held back, that I
can determine.
> Most backport sites offer the possibility to add a line to your
> sources.list, so after you "apt-get update" their information is in the
> apt database, and dependencies are properly handled.
>
> For an excellent browser, try galen 1.2 (e.g. from
> http://www.fs.tum.de/~bunk/packages/woody/bunk-1.html )
Galeon does not work. Again, if I want a browser that simply doesn't
display whole paragraphs of CSS text, I could use old Mozilla.
> > Oh, and no -- there is no modern Mozilla backports. The most modern
> > backport is 1.4b4. That's nearly 9 months old.
>
> Wrong: http://source.backports.org/debian/dists/woody/mozilla/binary-i386/
> has mozilla 1.5.
How is one to find this? I didn't find a link to that site anywhere on the
debian main sites, nor from google searches. I would love to do my
research, if it was possible without being part of the 'in crowd' ;-)
> Aside, mozilla 1.5 was released some 2-3 weeks ago, you
> need to leave some time for the people to do the packaging, right?
Mozilla 1.4 was released what, 6 months ago? Still no version of 1.4 other
than a pre-release beta that I could find in any backport site.
> Your are right for Mozilla, but ...
>
> $ apt-cache policy konqueror
> konqueror:
> Installed: (none)
> Candidate: 4:2.2.2-14.7
> I don't think konqueror 3.1.3 is 2 years old ..., and mozilla-firebird
> is in testing (see above).
But Konquerer doesn't handle perfectly valid HTML, and has decided that it
would rather not try to fix those bugs, but instead wait for the world to
come around to its point of view. That's useless in a production
environment.
--
Joe Rhett Chief Geek
JRhett@Isite.Net Isite Services, Inc.
Reply to: