Easy/Fast way to view a package's debian/changelog

[Henning Moll]

Hi!

Sometimes when there is a new version (not upstream version, internal debian
version only) i would like to know about the changes.

Is there any other way to view debian/changelog than to download the source
package?

Regards
Henning


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-request@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

[Colin Watson]

On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:00:48PM +0200, Henning Moll wrote:

> Sometimes when there is a new version (not upstream version, internal
> debian version only) i would like to know about the changes.
>
> Is there any other way to view debian/changelog than to download the
> source package?

Have you tried installing and using apt-listchanges? It does require
downloaded packages, but hooks into apt so that you don't have to do so
by hand.

--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-request@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

[Michael D. Schleif]

Also sprach Colin Watson (Mon 04 Aug 02003 at 03:16:03PM +0100):

> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:00:48PM +0200, Henning Moll wrote:

> > Sometimes when there is a new version (not upstream version, internal
> > debian version only) i would like to know about the changes.
> >
> > Is there any other way to view debian/changelog than to download the
> > source package?

>
> Have you tried installing and using apt-listchanges? It does require
> downloaded packages, but hooks into apt so that you don't have to do so
> by hand.

Normally, I'd agree with you. However, apt-listchanges was
automagically removed from my boxen several months ago. Worse,
installing apt-listchanges depends on python-apt, which -- in turn --
depends on two (2) virtual packages that do *not* exist:

libapt-inst-libc6.3-5-1.0
libapt-pkg-libc6.3-5-3.3

Personally, I'd love to be using apt-listchanges again ;>

What do you think?

--
Best Regards,

mds
mds resource
877.596.8237
-
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
-
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/LnRjLUOEaCtUQpwRAv7sAJ9jsMCtJc/lo3pb+63rAOep9MqN+QCgsGsP
rNGi03EzH/b926BM1+W7/yU=
=Uv6i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Colin Watson]

On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:57:39AM -0500, Michael D. Schleif wrote:

> Also sprach Colin Watson (Mon 04 Aug 02003 at 03:16:03PM +0100):

> > On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:00:48PM +0200, Henning Moll wrote:

> > > Sometimes when there is a new version (not upstream version, internal
> > > debian version only) i would like to know about the changes.
> > >
> > > Is there any other way to view debian/changelog than to download the
> > > source package?

> >
> > Have you tried installing and using apt-listchanges? It does require
> > downloaded packages, but hooks into apt so that you don't have to do so
> > by hand.

>
> Normally, I'd agree with you. However, apt-listchanges was
> automagically removed from my boxen several months ago.

(Only because you said yes to something asking you whether it was
allowed to do that, I should imagine.)

> Worse, installing apt-listchanges depends on python-apt, which -- in
> turn -- depends on two (2) virtual packages that do *not* exist:
>
> libapt-inst-libc6.3-5-1.0
> libapt-pkg-libc6.3-5-3.3

You're using testing, I bet. Bits of the dependency tree above apt are
broken there at the moment. It was nearly fixed recently but ran into
glibc problems due to a mistake.

Unstable is fine, though.

--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-request@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

[Michael D. Schleif]

Also sprach Colin Watson (Mon 04 Aug 02003 at 06:19:34PM +0100):

> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:57:39AM -0500, Michael D. Schleif wrote:

> > Also sprach Colin Watson (Mon 04 Aug 02003 at 03:16:03PM +0100):

> > > On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:00:48PM +0200, Henning Moll wrote:
> > > > Sometimes when there is a new version (not upstream version, internal
> > > > debian version only) i would like to know about the changes.
> > > >
> > > > Is there any other way to view debian/changelog than to download the
> > > > source package?
> > >
> > > Have you tried installing and using apt-listchanges? It does require
> > > downloaded packages, but hooks into apt so that you don't have to do so
> > > by hand.

> >
> > Normally, I'd agree with you. However, apt-listchanges was
> > automagically removed from my boxen several months ago.

>
> (Only because you said yes to something asking you whether it was
> allowed to do that, I should imagine.)

Of course ;> Although, I'd argue that I'd be missing alot of good stuff
if I hadn't let the other packages get upgraded -- sometimes, debian
asks us to trade good stuff for better stuff ;>

> > Worse, installing apt-listchanges depends on python-apt, which -- in
> > turn -- depends on two (2) virtual packages that do *not* exist:
> >
> > libapt-inst-libc6.3-5-1.0
> > libapt-pkg-libc6.3-5-3.3

>
> You're using testing, I bet. Bits of the dependency tree above apt are
> broken there at the moment. It was nearly fixed recently but ran into
> glibc problems due to a mistake.
>
> Unstable is fine, though.

I thought that you, Colin, adhered to stable ;>

Yes, I have a mixed system, preferring to stay with stable; but, I need
certain packages from testing and unstable . . .

However, it is python-apt that has the problem with the non-existent
libapt packages.

Nevertheless, I have stable, testing and unstable in sources.list, and
depend on apt.conf and preferences to give me the right stuff. Yet,
this is what I get:

# sudo apt-get -u install apt-listchanges python-apt=0.5.4.3
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:

Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
python-apt: Depends: python (< 2.2) but 2.2.3-3 is to be installed
E: Sorry, broken packages

# sudo apt-get -u install apt-listchanges python-apt=0.5.5.2
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:

Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
python-apt: Depends: libapt-inst-libc6.3-5-1.0
Depends: libapt-pkg-libc6.3-5-3.3
E: Sorry, broken packages

# sudo dpkg -l python
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
|
Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ Name Version Description
+++-==============-==============-============================================
ii python 2.2.3-3 An interactive high-level object-oriented la

So, what am I missing?

--
Best Regards,

mds
mds resource
877.596.8237
-
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
-
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/LqCVLUOEaCtUQpwRApwxAJwOje/yYEapsqTteSBA1X0lKMrPgQCeLhjb
dnkCPPbLzGsEDUSzDwFn79Y=
=Xr8E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Colin Watson]

On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 01:06:13PM -0500, Michael D. Schleif wrote:

> Also sprach Colin Watson (Mon 04 Aug 02003 at 06:19:34PM +0100):

> > On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:57:39AM -0500, Michael D. Schleif wrote:

> > > Worse, installing apt-listchanges depends on python-apt, which -- in
> > > turn -- depends on two (2) virtual packages that do *not* exist:
> > >
> > > libapt-inst-libc6.3-5-1.0
> > > libapt-pkg-libc6.3-5-3.3

> >
> > You're using testing, I bet. Bits of the dependency tree above apt are
> > broken there at the moment. It was nearly fixed recently but ran into
> > glibc problems due to a mistake.
> >
> > Unstable is fine, though.

>
> I thought that you, Colin, adhered to stable ;>

Me? Hell, no. Well, not always. My server and, for now, my workstation
at work run stable, but my laptop runs unstable and I do all my
development and almost all my home computer use there.

> # sudo apt-get -u install apt-listchanges python-apt=0.5.5.2
> Reading Package Lists... Done
> Building Dependency Tree... Done
> Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
> requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
> distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
> or been moved out of Incoming.
> The following information may help to resolve the situation:
>
> Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
> python-apt: Depends: libapt-inst-libc6.3-5-1.0
> Depends: libapt-pkg-libc6.3-5-3.3
> E: Sorry, broken packages

You want to install apt from unstable as well, which provides those
virtual packages. You'll need unstable's versions of libgcc1 and
libstdc++5.

Cheers,

--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-request@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

[Travis Crump]

Michael D. Schleif wrote:

> Yes, I have a mixed system, preferring to stay with stable; but, I need
> certain packages from testing and unstable . . .
>
> However, it is python-apt that has the problem with the non-existent
> libapt packages.
>
> Nevertheless, I have stable, testing and unstable in sources.list, and
> depend on apt.conf and preferences to give me the right stuff. Yet,
> this is what I get:
>
> # sudo apt-get -u install apt-listchanges python-apt=0.5.4.3
> Reading Package Lists... Done
> Building Dependency Tree... Done
> Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
> requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
> distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
> or been moved out of Incoming.
> The following information may help to resolve the situation:
>
> Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
> python-apt: Depends: python (< 2.2) but 2.2.3-3 is to be installed
> E: Sorry, broken packages
>
> # sudo apt-get -u install apt-listchanges python-apt=0.5.5.2
> Reading Package Lists... Done
> Building Dependency Tree... Done
> Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
> requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
> distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
> or been moved out of Incoming.
> The following information may help to resolve the situation:
>
> Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
> python-apt: Depends: libapt-inst-libc6.3-5-1.0
> Depends: libapt-pkg-libc6.3-5-3.3
> E: Sorry, broken packages
> So, what am I missing?
>

Grab python-apt=0.5.4.4 from snapshot.debian.net. It is the version
that is actually installable on the current testing.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - [url]http://enigmail.mozdev.org[/url]

iD8DBQE/LsVWlxHEcbyY0skRArBcAJ9MdlhYg5hUF0UwQ4ByHOs9Pf/SkwCfQtVx
qcBirnLjzo26PjAkrY72nPM=
=NusK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Michael D. Schleif]

Also sprach Colin Watson (Tue 05 Aug 02003 at 02:24:39AM +0100):

> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:08:01PM -0500, Michael D. Schleif wrote:

> > Also sprach Hugh Saunders (Tue 05 Aug 02003 at 01:25:45AM +0100):

> > > erm, why not just run unstable?? mixed stable/testing/unstable looks
> > > like a mess to me and probably doesnt help with getting security fixes
> > > for stuff either.

> >
> > Exactly! Since there are *no* un-stable security sources, I'd prefer to
> > stick with stable/testing ;<

>
> I think there might be a slight misunderstanding here.
>
> Stable gets security updates, but, if you have a version of the package
> in question from unstable installed, then the version in the stable
> security update will be less than the installed one, and therefore won't
> be installed.
>
> Testing gets *no security updates* apart from those that trickle in from
> unstable (or, very rarely, testing-proposed-updates). It is the least
> secure distribution. This is mainly a manpower problem on Debian's end,
> but it's nevertheless a reality.
>
> While unstable has no security team explicitly looking after it, it
> still gets security fixes, usually reasonably promptly, sometimes before
> stable if the maintainer happens to be on the ball, and certainly before
> testing.
>
> In your place, I would go for either stable plus backported bits and
> pieces or unstable, depending on the application. I think running mixed
> systems is unwise, except perhaps for testing plus bits from unstable,
> and even then I'm not sure. On my stable systems, the only
> not-from-stable packages I run are ones which I have compiled on stable
> from later source; this avoids the "whoops, I dragged in unstable's
> libc6 and the world blew up" problem. The sorts of packages that you
> most want to keep stable are often exactly the sorts of packages that
> dependencies in testing and unstable will force you to upgrade.

I really do want to understand this, because lately I'm being drawn more
and more into unstable. A couple months ago, I was drawn from
woody/stable into testing, and now my boxen are mostly testing:

apt.conf: APT::Default-Release "testing";

Nevertheless, empirically I know that these are valid sources:

deb [url]http://security.debian.org[/url] stable/updates contrib main non-free
deb [url]http://security.debian.org[/url] testing/updates contrib main non-free

And, this is *NOT* valid:

deb [url]http://security.debian.org[/url] unstable/updates contrib main non-free

Please, correct my misunderstandings, Colin; but, what I understand from
your message above is that, regardless of an unstable security source,
my boxen would be better off as totally, wholly un-stable?

What am I missing?

--
Best Regards,

mds
mds resource
877.596.8237
-
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
-
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/LxKXLUOEaCtUQpwRAkJLAJ9O42Ck6zwrb8D/qaGrwZG+Z1xCQACgnfhA
8V10ZZc4BSY1tEr7i0opD68=
=en4i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Colin Watson]

On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:08:01PM -0500, Michael D. Schleif wrote:

> Also sprach Hugh Saunders (Tue 05 Aug 02003 at 01:25:45AM +0100):

> > erm, why not just run unstable?? mixed stable/testing/unstable looks
> > like a mess to me and probably doesnt help with getting security fixes
> > for stuff either.

>
> Exactly! Since there are *no* un-stable security sources, I'd prefer to
> stick with stable/testing ;<

I think there might be a slight misunderstanding here.

Stable gets security updates, but, if you have a version of the package
in question from unstable installed, then the version in the stable
security update will be less than the installed one, and therefore won't
be installed.

Testing gets *no security updates* apart from those that trickle in from
unstable (or, very rarely, testing-proposed-updates). It is the least
secure distribution. This is mainly a manpower problem on Debian's end,
but it's nevertheless a reality.

While unstable has no security team explicitly looking after it, it
still gets security fixes, usually reasonably promptly, sometimes before
stable if the maintainer happens to be on the ball, and certainly before
testing.

In your place, I would go for either stable plus backported bits and
pieces or unstable, depending on the application. I think running mixed
systems is unwise, except perhaps for testing plus bits from unstable,
and even then I'm not sure. On my stable systems, the only
not-from-stable packages I run are ones which I have compiled on stable
from later source; this avoids the "whoops, I dragged in unstable's
libc6 and the world blew up" problem. The sorts of packages that you
most want to keep stable are often exactly the sorts of packages that
dependencies in testing and unstable will force you to upgrade.

Cherrs,

--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-request@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

[Colin Watson]

On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:12:39PM -0500, Michael D. Schleif wrote:

> Also sprach Colin Watson (Tue 05 Aug 02003 at 02:24:39AM +0100):

> > In your place, I would go for either stable plus backported bits and
> > pieces or unstable, depending on the application. I think running mixed
> > systems is unwise, except perhaps for testing plus bits from unstable,
> > and even then I'm not sure. On my stable systems, the only
> > not-from-stable packages I run are ones which I have compiled on stable
> > from later source; this avoids the "whoops, I dragged in unstable's
> > libc6 and the world blew up" problem. The sorts of packages that you
> > most want to keep stable are often exactly the sorts of packages that
> > dependencies in testing and unstable will force you to upgrade.

>
> I really do want to understand this, because lately I'm being drawn more
> and more into unstable. A couple months ago, I was drawn from
> woody/stable into testing, and now my boxen are mostly testing:
>
> apt.conf: APT::Default-Release "testing";
>
> Nevertheless, empirically I know that these are valid sources:
>
> deb [url]http://security.debian.org[/url] stable/updates contrib main non-free
> deb [url]http://security.debian.org[/url] testing/updates contrib main non-free

Valid? Well, technically. The first is fine, sure, but while the second
of those exists, it is vanishingly rare for it to have anything useful
in it. AFAIK, the last time it was used was during the woody freeze.

> And, this is *NOT* valid:
>
> deb [url]http://security.debian.org[/url] unstable/updates contrib main non-free

It doesn't need one. Uploads go straight into unstable, so there's no
need for a separate security archive.

> Please, correct my misunderstandings, Colin; but, what I understand from
> your message above is that, regardless of an unstable security source,
> my boxen would be better off as totally, wholly un-stable?

Either that or stable plus backports. The latter is safer but possibly
more work.

Cheers,

--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email]debian-user-request@lists.debian.org[/email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email]listmaster@lists.debian.org[/email]

[Hugh Saunders]

On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:54:38PM -0500, Michael D. Schleif wrote:

> I don't think I want to do this ;>
>
> # sudo apt-get -u install apt=0.5.8
> Reading Package Lists... Done
> Building Dependency Tree... Done
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
> apt-utils aptitude synaptic
> The following packages will be upgraded
> apt
> 1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 3 to remove and 29 not
> upgraded.
> Need to get 718kB of archives. After unpacking 4123kB will be freed.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
> Abort.

erm, why not just run unstable?? mixed stable/testing/unstable looks
like a mess to me and probably doesnt help with getting security fixes
for stuff either.

my 2p ;-)

--
hugh

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/LvmJ5JvGD505VVARAgQdAKDuU8KeOFnqh7M+N5KzlaYRWWPYaw CdGPkt
JzGRRpiw8u+ppxfc5VAwx0I=
=pP6E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Michael D. Schleif]

Also sprach Hugh Saunders (Tue 05 Aug 02003 at 01:25:45AM +0100):

> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:54:38PM -0500, Michael D. Schleif wrote:

> > I don't think I want to do this ;>
> >
> > # sudo apt-get -u install apt=0.5.8
> > Reading Package Lists... Done
> > Building Dependency Tree... Done
> > The following packages will be REMOVED:
> > apt-utils aptitude synaptic
> > The following packages will be upgraded
> > apt
> > 1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 3 to remove and 29 not
> > upgraded.
> > Need to get 718kB of archives. After unpacking 4123kB will be freed.
> > Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
> > Abort.

>
> erm, why not just run unstable?? mixed stable/testing/unstable looks
> like a mess to me and probably doesnt help with getting security fixes
> for stuff either.

Exactly! Since there are *no* un-stable security sources, I'd prefer to
stick with stable/testing ;<

--
Best Regards,

mds
mds resource
877.596.8237
-
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
-
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/LwNxLUOEaCtUQpwRArdOAJkB5xMx8n2+V9DJHZDtXd3WslR01A Cfe4kI
sHlrCbXQnF+ip38FQzhDmQk=
=sJ1q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Michael D. Schleif]

Also sprach Colin Watson (Mon 04 Aug 02003 at 09:03:03PM +0100):

> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 01:06:13PM -0500, Michael D. Schleif wrote:

> > Also sprach Colin Watson (Mon 04 Aug 02003 at 06:19:34PM +0100):

> > > On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:57:39AM -0500, Michael D. Schleif wrote:
> > > > Worse, installing apt-listchanges depends on python-apt, which -- in
> > > > turn -- depends on two (2) virtual packages that do *not* exist:
> > > >
> > > > libapt-inst-libc6.3-5-1.0
> > > > libapt-pkg-libc6.3-5-3.3
> > >
> > > You're using testing, I bet. Bits of the dependency tree above apt are
> > > broken there at the moment. It was nearly fixed recently but ran into
> > > glibc problems due to a mistake.
> > >
> > > Unstable is fine, though.

<snip />

> > # sudo apt-get -u install apt-listchanges python-apt=0.5.5.2
> > Reading Package Lists... Done
> > Building Dependency Tree... Done
> > Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
> > requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
> > distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
> > or been moved out of Incoming.
> > The following information may help to resolve the situation:
> >
> > Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
> > python-apt: Depends: libapt-inst-libc6.3-5-1.0
> > Depends: libapt-pkg-libc6.3-5-3.3
> > E: Sorry, broken packages

>
> You want to install apt from unstable as well, which provides those
> virtual packages. You'll need unstable's versions of libgcc1 and
> libstdc++5.

I don't think I want to do this ;>

# sudo apt-get -u install apt=0.5.8
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following packages will be REMOVED:
apt-utils aptitude synaptic
The following packages will be upgraded
apt
1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 3 to remove and 29 not
upgraded.
Need to get 718kB of archives. After unpacking 4123kB will be freed.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
Abort.

# sudo apt-get -u install -t unstable apt/unstable
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
Selected version 0.5.8 (Debian:unstable) for apt
The following packages will be REMOVED:
apt-utils aptitude synaptic
The following packages will be upgraded
apt
1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 3 to remove and 29 not
upgraded.
Need to get 718kB of archives. After unpacking 4123kB will be freed.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
Abort.

I do not want to do without apt-utils, aptitude, and synaptic . . .

What else am I missing?

--
Best Regards,

mds
mds resource
877.596.8237
-
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
-
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/LtYdLUOEaCtUQpwRAiKXAKCAQLSa1gG7PFi6ob8VfcnTW2fJRw CeJPye
6e1DJiyAIRnzk39Uv7DYCe0=
=y6QN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Michael D. Schleif]

Also sprach Chris Metzler (Mon 04 Aug 02003 at 06:05:25PM -0400):

> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:54:38 -0500
> "Michael D. Schleif" <mds@helices.org> wrote:

> >

> [ much snipping ]

> >
> > I do not want to do without apt-utils, aptitude, and synaptic . . .
> >
> > What else am I missing?

>
> Upgrading those to unstable as well?

Ack! Excellent point ;>

--
Best Regards,

mds
mds resource
877.596.8237
-
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
-
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/LtueLUOEaCtUQpwRAq7iAKCm/vP+8QwMIhzyhZUN8VMN9j7J2gCfdols
AUDD/artD6cdB1k9czxkpaY=
=U39K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Chris Metzler]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:54:38 -0500
"Michael D. Schleif" <mds@helices.org> wrote:

>

[ much snipping ]

>
> I do not want to do without apt-utils, aptitude, and synaptic . . .
>
> What else am I missing?

Upgrading those to unstable as well?

-c

--
Chris Metzler [email]cmetzler@speakeasy.snip-me.net[/email]
(remove "snip-me." to email)

"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/LtiwEqzZtgaaqqERApVgAJ9wpXmfUlGU8cvEXUL7UNK8cgjeLg CdHZT+
1aqtZRyN2QH/GX05l2O7pO0=
=qfnc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----