On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 10:06:25PM +0100, somethin2cool wrote: > Joe Hart wrote: > >I warn you again though, this is not a good idea. You'd be better off > >downloading the tarball from the developers' web site and compiling it > >that you would by trying to use apt to pull in a package from sarge. > >The packages there are old, and have very different dependencies. > > Yeah I know. My argument would be that I'm tired of sepnding every > evening and weekend trying to install things. I *could* rant about that, > but instead I think I will log my experiences and turn it into a guide. Well - you do seem very active on this list. But without more information, I cannot help here... But by mixing sarge and etch and home-rolled tarballs, you're heading for problems the rest of us rarely encounter... > If i use a tarball, i have to wait for an error message, go get a > dependancy, try again, get another, try again... and this is fine by all > developers minds. To mine it is not. There is a problem. Not necessarily - a decent tar-ball comes with a README file which details the dependencies... > Bet you'd all be shocked if I came up with the perfect solution ;-) A bit :-) We've got a great solution already: apt, aptitude, synaptic etc. But if you come up with something better, I'm willing to give it a go. But it's got to beat apt and aptitude! -- Karl E. Jorgensen email@example.com http://www.jorgensen.org.uk/ firstname.lastname@example.org http://karl.jorgensen.com ==== Today's fortune: Life is knowing how far to go without crossing the line.
Description: Digital signature