Re: testing upgrade = dog's breakfast
Thanks for at least looking at a fairly irate posting. Actually, I
installed stable in February using the netinstall sarge disk.
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:43:26PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
> "Jon Dowland" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> [🔎] 20060509145221.GC19424@alcopop.org">news:[🔎] 20060509145221.GC19424@alcopop.org...
> >At 1147164438 past the epoch, Art Edwards wrote:
> >>On Friday night I updated a stable box to a testing box. Afterwards:
> >What upgrade method did you use?
> >>1. Lilo was promoted to the default boot loader
> >With a stable install (sarge) lilo should not be installed in the first
> >place, let alone upgraded.
> >>I should also point out that stable installed exim, instead of exim4
> >>so I had forzen messages for 8 weeks under mutt. This is under stable.
> >Sarge (stable) defaults to exim4 for your MTA.
> >These two things lead me to believe you have some kind-of hybrid or
> >partially updated woody system rather than sarge -> etch.
> I think he may have accidentally skipped sarge entirely, trying a
> woody->etch transition.
> That may explain some of these problems.
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact