The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 1.1 upgrade addendum..

On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, Ian Jackson wrote:

> Dale Scheetz writes ("1.1 upgrade addendum.."):
> > While I couldn't get dselect to work I went ahead and used my script to 
> > install the base packages. When I then tried to use dselect to upgrade 
> > the rest, it appeared to have no knowledge that the base packages had 
> > already been installed and tried, unsuccessfuly to reinstall some of 
> > them. I this also tied to the out-of-date packages file?
> 
> What do you mean it `tried, unsuccessfully, to reinstall some of them'
> ?
This was early in the testing, and I didn't have an up to date packages file.
> 
> It might be tied to an out of date packages file, yes.
> 
Exactly. I'm confused about the packages file. When dselect does an 
"Update Packages File", what is it actually doing? If there is a packages 
file, why does dselect go looking in any directory path it can find for 
more packages?

In the above debacle, binary/base had a sub directory binary/base/holding 
where conflicting, out of date, and replaced packages were being held. 
Dselect dove down into holding and tried to install whatever it could 
find there.

It seems to me logical to either, install from the packages file or, 
search the tree and ask the operator which, of several, packages to 
install. Installing from the packages file and the available directory 
tree seems counter productive.

It is quite clear that dselect does a better job, installing a new, bare, 
uncluttered system, than it is at upgrading an existing system. One of 
the things that would help conciderably, would be for dselect to acquire 
a better understanding of the packages currently installed on the system, 
coupled with a clear picture of the package archive, so that a partial 
upgrade can be done with dpkg, followed by more upgrading with dselect.

Am I making any sense?

Dwarf

------------                                          --------------

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 877-0257
      Flexible Software              Fax:     NONE 
      Black Creek Critters           e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net

------------ If you don't see what you want, just ask --------------