Re: apt-get install aspell fails?
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:23:57PM -0500 or thereabouts, Michael B Allen wrote:
>> > We're trying to help you, but some people just will not read. Why do you
>> > need a backport? Becasue there isn't a package for Woody, well DUH!
>> >
>> > I told you to get a backport, there is a Aspell backport for Woody. I
>> > told you how to find it yesterday. For spoonfeeding, here you go:
>>
>> So basically your stance is "breaking dependencies is ok because you can just go
>> and dig up an alternative package from mysteryserver.org". I'm a bit concerned
>> by
>> your insistance that this problem is due to ignorance on my part. Or perhaps
>> you've had this conversation a few times already and you're trying to justify
>> your
>> own misguided beliefs.
>
> Listen I'm walking the walk -- if you want to install Aspell and keep
> Woody, you have no choice. There are no broken dependencies if you use a
> backport, that's what a backport is all about. If you're unsure as to
> what you're getting, don't do it. It's really quite simple.
>
> I've done this for two packages. Aspell and mutt, while running Woody.
You know I moved to Debian because I started to patch my RH 7.3 system with
rebuilt glibc 2.2 rpms from their glibc 2.3 source rpms. That was the only way to
get an up-to-date system. I thought Debian would take greater care in maintaining
a working up-to-date system for the long term. Listening to you say "if you want
to install Aspell and keep Woody, you have no choice" confirms my fear that this
is not the case.
--
A program should be written to model the concepts of the task it
performs rather than the physical world or a process because this
maximizes the potential for it to be applied to tasks that are
conceptually similar and, more important, to tasks that have not
yet been conceived.
Reply to: