Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #172729 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-24 15:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-09-24 23:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 81 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:30 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2016-09-24 15:50 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 17:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-09-24 20:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Seeker <seeker5528@comcast.net> - 2016-09-24 21:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-09-30 09:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-09-28 17:10 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-09-28 17:50 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-09-28 20:00 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2016-09-28 20:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-09-29 11:10 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-09-29 11:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-09-29 13:30 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-09-29 13:50 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-09-28 20:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2016-09-28 21:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-09-29 11:10 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-09-28 22:00 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-09-28 22:30 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2016-09-28 23:10 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2016-09-28 23:50 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-09-29 11:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-09-29 11:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Andre Majorel <aym-naibed@teaser.fr> - 2016-09-28 22:00 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-09-28 22:30 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2016-09-28 23:10 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-09-29 11:00 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-09-29 14:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-09-30 01:10 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-09-30 11:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-09-30 15:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-10-04 09:10 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 11:50 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 00:00 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> - 2016-10-05 21:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 15:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 16:30 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 16:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Andre Majorel <aym-naibed@teaser.fr> - 2016-09-30 21:10 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2016-10-01 20:00 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-10-04 09:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-10-04 09:30 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 16:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 07:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 00:00 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-10-07 16:50 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2016-10-07 22:30 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 01:10 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2016-10-13 01:50 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-12-07 16:10 +0100
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 00:50 +0100
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-12-16 12:50 +0100
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-12-16 19:10 +0100
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-12-19 12:40 +0100
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-12-19 20:00 +0100
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-12-20 01:40 +0100
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 20:00 +0100
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-12-21 21:20 +0100
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-12-16 20:00 +0100
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 07:30 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 18:00 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 18:30 +0200
Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 01:50 +0200
Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2016-10-10 03:20 +0200
Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-10-10 10:10 +0200
Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 13:20 +0200
Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 13:20 +0200
Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-10-10 20:10 +0200
Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 23:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-09-30 17:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2016-09-30 20:10 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> - 2016-10-01 10:30 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-09-24 15:50 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 18:00 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Glenn English <ghe2001@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 18:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de> - 2016-09-24 18:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@galactic.demon.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 20:30 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-09-24 20:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Glenn English <ghe2001@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 19:00 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-09-24 20:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2016-09-24 23:40 +0200
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 18:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sqoG5-66q-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173340 |
On Sunday 09 October 2016 06:23:49 claude juif wrote: > This way of answering is really bad. If you have nothing to say, don't > write a mail. I hope that in future you intend to follow your own advice! Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 18:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sqp98-6vV-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173353 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
2016-10-09 17:57 GMT+02:00 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com>: > On Sunday 09 October 2016 06:23:49 claude juif wrote: > > This way of answering is really bad. If you have nothing to say, don't > > write a mail. > > I hope that in future you intend to follow your own advice! > > Yep for sure. I unsubscribe in a second and left you in your self importance. Lisi > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 01:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <sqw0V-2bC-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173357 |
On Sunday 09 October 2016 17:22:07 claude juif wrote: > 2016-10-09 17:57 GMT+02:00 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com>: > > On Sunday 09 October 2016 06:23:49 claude juif wrote: > > > This way of answering is really bad. If you have nothing to say, don't > > > write a mail. > > > > I hope that in future you intend to follow your own advice! > > > > Yep for sure. I unsubscribe in a second and left you in your self > > importance. Assuming that you haven't yet carried out your threat, isn't it a bit dramatic and OTT to unsubscribe from the list just to get rid of me? Why not just killfile me and go on reading everyone else? Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 03:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <sqxq1-37Y-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173366 |
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Lisi Reisz wrote: > Why not just killfile me and go on reading everyone else? Umm...cuz he doesn't know how to do that? Perhaps? One thing's fer sure, he's giving the time-honored tradition of killfiles a bad name! -- IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humour or irrational metaphysical beliefs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 10:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <sqDON-7eY-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173368 |
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:11:07 -0400 (EDT) Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> wrote: > On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > Why not just killfile me and go on reading everyone else? > > Umm...cuz he doesn't know how to do that? Perhaps? > > One thing's fer sure, he's giving the time-honored tradition of > killfiles a bad name! > He's right though, isn't he? The wheel which squeaks, gets the oil. Without complaints, things improve slowly, if at all. A formal complaint about a piece of software is the bug report, but much of the time, things go wrong and there is insufficient data or reproducibility to waste developers' time with an incomplete report. Just about the only thing to do then is to moan about it publicly. If it's finger trouble, you find that out very quickly. If nobody replies, you have something peculiar to your own system, or at least, not widespread. Live with it. If there's a chorus of 'yes, I've got that too, but I didn't like to moan', then enough collective data may surface to make a bug report practical, or at least to come to the notice of one of the developers, who may be able to shed further light. The alternatives of putting up with a problem in silence, or going [back] to Windows, are not optimal. As for fixing the problem yourself, you are either: a) a systems programmer, but you probably knew that already, or b) a user, who could learn enough to contribute usefully in a year or two, if you didn't have a living to earn. Fixing a bug so it doesn't happen again, and fixing a bug in a way that doesn't break *anything* else, are two very different things. I have enough trouble going back to my own (non-system) programming of a year or more ago, and finding out how it works well enough to change something without breaking it. It doesn't matter how many comments I left, I have to get back into the same mindset as when I wrote it, and I haven't worked out how to achieve that with comments. Details are easy to see, it's the overall architecture that needs to be understood fully. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 13:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <sqGMF-zG-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173373 |
On Monday 10 October 2016 09:07:14 Joe wrote: > On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:11:07 -0400 (EDT) > > Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > Why not just killfile me and go on reading everyone else? > > > > Umm...cuz he doesn't know how to do that? Perhaps? > > > > One thing's fer sure, he's giving the time-honored tradition of > > killfiles a bad name! > > He's right though, isn't he? The wheel which squeaks, gets the oil. > Without complaints, things improve slowly, if at all. > > A formal complaint about a piece of software is the bug report, but > much of the time, things go wrong and there is insufficient data or > reproducibility to waste developers' time with an incomplete report. > Just about the only thing to do then is to moan about it publicly. > > If it's finger trouble, you find that out very quickly. If nobody > replies, you have something peculiar to your own system, or at least, > not widespread. Live with it. If there's a chorus of 'yes, I've got > that too, but I didn't like to moan', then enough collective data may > surface to make a bug report practical, or at least to come to the > notice of one of the developers, who may be able to shed further light. > > The alternatives of putting up with a problem in silence, or going > [back] to Windows, are not optimal. > > As for fixing the problem yourself, you are either: > a) a systems programmer, but you probably knew that already, or > b) a user, who could learn enough to contribute usefully in a year or > two, if you didn't have a living to earn. > > Fixing a bug so it doesn't happen again, and fixing a bug in a way that > doesn't break *anything* else, are two very different things. I have > enough trouble going back to my own (non-system) programming of a year > or more ago, and finding out how it works well enough to change > something without breaking it. It doesn't matter how many comments I > left, I have to get back into the same mindset as when I wrote it, > and I haven't worked out how to achieve that with comments. Details are > easy to see, it's the overall architecture that needs to be understood > fully. I quite agree with the idea that squeaks are needed. But there is a limit to how OFTEN it is useful to say it in the one thread. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 13:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <sqGMF-zG-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173373 |
On Monday 10 October 2016 09:07:14 Joe wrote: > On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:11:07 -0400 (EDT) > > Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > Why not just killfile me and go on reading everyone else? > > > > Umm...cuz he doesn't know how to do that? Perhaps? > > > > One thing's fer sure, he's giving the time-honored tradition of > > killfiles a bad name! > > He's right though, isn't he? The wheel which squeaks, gets the oil. > Without complaints, things improve slowly, if at all. > > A formal complaint about a piece of software is the bug report, but > much of the time, things go wrong and there is insufficient data or > reproducibility to waste developers' time with an incomplete report. > Just about the only thing to do then is to moan about it publicly. > > If it's finger trouble, you find that out very quickly. If nobody > replies, you have something peculiar to your own system, or at least, > not widespread. Live with it. If there's a chorus of 'yes, I've got > that too, but I didn't like to moan', then enough collective data may > surface to make a bug report practical, or at least to come to the > notice of one of the developers, who may be able to shed further light. > > The alternatives of putting up with a problem in silence, or going > [back] to Windows, are not optimal. > > As for fixing the problem yourself, you are either: > a) a systems programmer, but you probably knew that already, or > b) a user, who could learn enough to contribute usefully in a year or > two, if you didn't have a living to earn. > > Fixing a bug so it doesn't happen again, and fixing a bug in a way that > doesn't break *anything* else, are two very different things. I have > enough trouble going back to my own (non-system) programming of a year > or more ago, and finding out how it works well enough to change > something without breaking it. It doesn't matter how many comments I > left, I have to get back into the same mindset as when I wrote it, > and I haven't worked out how to achieve that with comments. Details are > easy to see, it's the overall architecture that needs to be understood > fully. I accepted that analogy too easily. In this case, the wheel isn't squeaking. He dislikes the colour and design of the wheel. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 20:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <sqNbr-4sV-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173380 |
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:20:22 +0100 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote: > > I accepted that analogy too easily. In this case, the wheel isn't > squeaking. He dislikes the colour and design of the wheel. > Or perhaps it has been squeaking for so long that nobody hears it any more. Aptitude does a great job of routine upgrades, but if I've left an unstable for a month or more without upgrading, I wouldn't consider using it, it doesn't deal gracefully with hundreds of upgrades. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 23:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <sqQsF-6lg-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173409 |
On Monday 10 October 2016 19:04:22 Joe wrote: > On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:20:22 +0100 > > Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote: > > I accepted that analogy too easily. In this case, the wheel isn't > > squeaking. He dislikes the colour and design of the wheel. > > Or perhaps it has been squeaking for so long that nobody hears it any > more. Aptitude does a great job of routine upgrades, but if I've left > an unstable for a month or more without upgrading, I wouldn't consider > using it, it doesn't deal gracefully with hundreds of upgrades. I accept that. But I would also suggest that jacks of all trades are usually masters of none, and perhaps Aptitude is the wrong tool for you for that particular job. Libre Office does word processing MUCH better than Kwrite. Does this mean that Kwrite is a squeaky tool because it is bad at WP, or does it mean that I oughtn't to try to use it for that purpose? (LO, conversely,is bad at script editing, for which I love Kwrite.) Horses for courses. If Aptitude is not the ideal tool for everything, that doesn't make it a squeaky wheel. It just means that it shouldn't be used for everything. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 17:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sn7Ls-3r4-33@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172906 |
Vincent Lefevre writes: > It's a pity that Aptitude is so poorly designed. Aptitude was designed to be used with *Stable*. People who use Unstable are expected to know what they are doing and be able to deal with problems. Trying to make Aptitude so intelligent that it could buffer naive users from the vagaries of Unstable would a hopeless waste of effort. There is a reason why complex transitions are planned and announced (the announcement for this one was accidently delayed). -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 20:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <snapX-5oq-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172985 |
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016, John Hasler wrote: > Vincent Lefevre writes: > > It's a pity that Aptitude is so poorly designed. > > Aptitude was designed to be used with *Stable*. People who use Unstable I didn't get that memo... as far as I am concerned, aptitude is the only interactive apt frontend that is usable for unstable (note: apt-get is non-interactive). It does indeed need a *dependency resolver* layer tune-up, though. Most often the *second* choice it presents is the more appropriate one... -- Henrique Holschuh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 10:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <snnQd-5Ie-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172897 |
On Sep 28, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Andre Majorel <aym-naibed@teaser.fr> wrote: > On 2016-09-28 10:46 -0500, John Hasler wrote: >> Vincent Lefevre writes: >>> Things like that should not happen. But this is not a bug in the perl >>> packages. This is a misfeature of apt / aptitude, which want to remove >>> packages instead of holding the new packages (well, AFAIK, aptitude >>> has improved, but is still not perfect). >> >> Aptitude can't read your mind. When you tell it to install >> something it assumes that you mean what you say and proposes >> solutions to any conflicts based on various heuristics. > > When there's some kind of conflict during a package installation > or upgrade, the first solutions proposed by aptitude almost > invariably involve large numbers of package removals. The > simple solution that upgrades/installs what can be and leaves > the rest alone is usually there but buried under at least three > -- and sometimes tens of -- very disruptive ones. In situations like this, I’ve found it very useful to use the “r” response when aptitude tells me “the following actions will resolve these conflicts” listing one or more deletions that I don’t like. It allows me to “reject” a particular action. After that, the rejected action will not appear in future presented solutions. Does that help? Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 15:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <skVv3-1Az-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172729 |
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 09:26:36 AM Cindy-Sue Causey wrote: > Good morning! Just a heads up that upgrading the following two > packages attempts to remove 141 unrelated packages in Sid/Unstable > this morning: ... > Just sharing because I was in a hurry and almost let it happen. I > don't want anyone else to accidentally do the same. For newcomers, > *always* protect yourself by making sure you backup your current state > before upgrading, specifically for days like today. For my own education, I'm not sure what you mean by "backup your current state before upgrading"--does that mean a full backup of your system, or is there a way to somehow save the current "state" of the package list on your system so that you can easily request those packages be restored if something goes wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 18:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <skXwR-2P2-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172731 |
On 9/24/16, rhkramer@gmail.com <rhkramer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 09:26:36 AM Cindy-Sue Causey wrote: >> Good morning! Just a heads up that upgrading the following two >> packages attempts to remove 141 unrelated packages in Sid/Unstable >> this morning: > >> Just sharing because I was in a hurry and almost let it happen. I >> don't want anyone else to accidentally do the same. For newcomers, >> *always* protect yourself by making sure you backup your current state >> before upgrading, specifically for days like today. > > For my own education, I'm not sure what you mean by "backup your current > state > before upgrading"--does that mean a full backup of your system, or is there > a > way to somehow save the current "state" of the package list on your system > so > that you can easily request those packages be restored if something goes > wrong? I don't always express myself in the best of ways. It just means get into the very regular habit of backing up *EVERYTHING* in such a way that, should things ever fail (AND THEY DO), five minutes and a new hard drive later (for example), you're already back in action. I write that regularly because both my cognitive [disability] and financial situation are such that backups didn't/don't occur as they should. Don't to do what I do. Protect yourself as best you can by backing up everything that's important very regularly. How to do so is a personal *_CHOICE_* each user makes. I use rsync but have seen others have reasonable objections as to why they don't and why they use other programs successfully. Searching the Debian-User email archives is one route to go to see what others prefer. On searching the email archives, there are a couple of us who have experienced a glitch where we don't get good results by searching directly through the Debian website. My favored alternative is to search Debian's archives via a search engine. I enter pertinent keywords, e.g. "backup", then additionally something like "lists.debian.org" or "debian-user" into that search engine's query. Depending on what I need, I'll alternatively type in "wiki.debian.org" instead. Cindy :) -- Cindy-Sue Causey Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA * runs with duct tape *
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Glenn English <ghe2001@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 18:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <skXQd-3em-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172731 |
> On Sep 24, 2016, at 7:44 AM, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: > > For my own education, I'm not sure what you mean by "backup your current state > before upgrading"--does that mean a full backup of your system, or is there a > way to somehow save the current "state" of the package list on your system so > that you can easily request those packages be restored if something goes > wrong? I think that saving the contents of /var/cache/apt/archive(s?) will save copies of all the .debs installed on your machine. OTOH, it also gets .debs that *used* to be on your machine. If you're running sid, bring a big thumbdrive... -- Glenn English
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 18:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <skY9A-3kN-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172744 |
On 09/24/2016 06:02 PM, Glenn English wrote:
>> On Sep 24, 2016, at 7:44 AM, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> For my own education, I'm not sure what you mean by "backup your current state
>> before upgrading"--does that mean a full backup of your system, or is there a
>> way to somehow save the current "state" of the package list on your system so
>> that you can easily request those packages be restored if something goes
>> wrong?
>
> I think that saving the contents of /var/cache/apt/archive(s?) will
> save copies of all the .debs installed on your machine. OTOH, it also
> gets .debs that *used* to be on your machine. If you're running sid,
> bring a big thumbdrive...
Note that the new apt wrapper removes .debs after installation by
default. (apt-get and aptitude will keep the .deb files though.)
So if you use
apt install foo
or
apt upgrade
then the packages that were downloaded won't be there after the
installation completed successfully. (They will be in the cache
directory after download and before the installation is done.)
You can change that behavior via:
echo 'Binary::apt::APT::Keep-Downloaded-Packages "true";' \
> /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/01keep-debs
(See also /usr/share/doc/apt/NEWS.Debian.gz for details.)
Regarding the original problem: I'd recommend to anyone running
sid to also have testing in their sources.list - so they can
force the installation of an older package version while a
transition is still ongoing. Also, it's IMHO a good idea to
subscribe to debian-release for anyone running pure sid, so they
can have an overview over currently active transitions.
Regards,
Christian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@galactic.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 20:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <skZS2-4ro-33@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172746 |
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 06:36:21PM +0200, Christian Seiler wrote: > > Regarding the original problem: I'd recommend to anyone running > sid to also have testing in their sources.list - so they can > force the installation of an older package version while a > transition is still ongoing. Also, it's IMHO a good idea to > subscribe to debian-release for anyone running pure sid, so they > can have an overview over currently active transitions. > > Regards, > Christian There is a large scale Perl transition going on - up to 400 packages will be affected - a note's just been posted to the debian-devel mailing list. Don't file bugs - do expect some breakage - there is a published transition plan. Usual course of affairs for sid and to be expected from time to time: as Cindy-Sue has already mentioned. Leave it for a week / ten days and it will settle or update daily and watch breakage gradually decrease. IMHO - Including testing will just produce a Frankendebian where you can never be sure what you have from where and which _will_ burn you at some point. All the best, Andy C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 20:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sl01H-4uy-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172750 |
Christian Seiler wrote: > it's IMHO a good idea to subscribe to debian-release for anyone > running pure sid, so they can have an overview over currently active > transitions. It's also a good idea to subscribe to debian-devel-announce. This transition was announced there, but the announcement unfortunately was delayed. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Glenn English <ghe2001@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 19:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <skYsV-3rl-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172729 |
> On Sep 24, 2016, at 7:26 AM, Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> wrote: > > Am on dialup and have to be > selective about the order in which packages are upgraded Have you considered a local, partial mirror? A 64G thumbdrive doesn't cost much, it'd hold a lot of .debs, the local mirror can be added at the top of your apt sources file, and cron could run the update at night. There are scripts readily available to do this. The script I use is pretty old, but it keeps my mirror up to date, and it's a good sport about being stopped and starting again where it left off. -- Glenn English
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <skZIm-4oj-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172747 |
Package: cron-apt Status: install ok installed Priority: optional Section: admin Installed-Size: 43 Maintainer: Ola Lundqvist <opal@debian.org> Architecture: all Version: 0.9.3 Depends: apt Recommends: liblockfile1, mailx, cron | cron-daemon Conffiles: /etc/cron.d/cron-apt 293b1638131468f398152865bac245d4 /etc/logrotate.d/cron-apt a733dd41a64a7cc134ef258e852d135f /etc/cron-apt/action.d/0-update bd7e303bb529e32e21411dab0e365376 /etc/cron-apt/action.d/3-download 5a3653966fa49e0ab13a83e005cf5ed1 /etc/cron-apt/config 4cec1bc433bbc073eec573c94d5f9f2e Description-en: automatic update of packages using apt-get Contains a tool that is run by a cron job at regular intervals. By default it just updates the package list and downloads new packages without installing. You can instruct it to run anything that you can do with apt-get (or aptitude). . It can optionally send mail to the system administrator on errors, log to syslog or a separate log file. . Observe that this tool may be a security risk, so you should not set it to do more than necessary. Automatic upgrade of all packages is NOT recommended unless you are in full control of the package repository. Description-md5: 2e64c2fc7f0c5ac0fd844be065a8a152 -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web