Re: apt-get install aspell fails?
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:51:50PM -0500 or thereabouts, Michael B Allen wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>
> With Debian you have choice. If you wish a cutting edge system use Unstable
> (Sarge),
> or one less cutting edge use Testing (Sid). If you insist on wanting
> a new version of Aspell that's not in Stable <snip>
THERE IS NO ASPELL *AT ALL* IN STABLE.
Let me rephrase that:
IN STABLE, THERE IS NO ASPELL *AT ALL*.
Are you "getting it" yet?
--
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: