Re: debian packages in ftp.gnome-db.org

[Akira TAGOH <at gclab org>]

>>>>> On Sat, 2 Dec 2000 10:35:48 +0100,
>>>>> "HT" == Holger Thon <holger gidayu max uni-duisburg de> wrote:

HT> Hi!
HT> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 01:41:32PM +0900, Akira TAGOH wrote:
>> I think that it doesn't label potato. people can installed
>> Helix GNOME in potato. but Helix GNOME based on woody at the
>> time.

HT> Oops, you are right, it's just for woody. It's a deb-src line...
HT> But still there are the 2 other sources: 
HT> - Linuxland distribution
HT>   http://www.linuxland.de/katalog/01_linuxdistri_bs/debian/5_debian22nurcds/framify
HT> - ftp://ftp.fsn.hu/pub/CDROM-Images-mounted/debian-unofficial-cd/potato-i386-extra.raw/
HT>   or
HT>   ftp://ftp.fsn.hu/pub/CDROM-Images/debian-unofficial-cd/potato-i386-extra.raw

Sorry, because I don't know it, I can't comment.

>> if you put those packages in ftp.gnome-db.org, you should
>> change it to the debian version that it doesn't conflict
>> with all the things that those packages are provided.

HT> It's just a patch release more for bonobo and oaf and gconf, so there should
HT> be no version conflicts (still bonobo 0.28, oaf 0.6.1 and gconf 0.11).

Don't you make those a deb packages, and put it on
ftp.gnome-db.org? I thought so... but if so, the people
which download those patch will end up by compile.

>> potato is stable version. Why do you use potato? to get the
>> environment for which to become stable? if so, you are
>> understood why those *unstable* packages aren't put on the
>> tree?

HT> Yes. The main reason why i didn't dist-upgrade to woody is, that first there
HT> is an unstable gcc version and second the bleeding edge version of glibc 2.2.
HT> And i couldn't just set gcc and glibc to keep, because these are needed by
HT> the other packages.
HT> Thus i have the stable packages installed and a handful of unstable packages
HT> which i know of. :-)

gcc is not unstable for woody. gcc contatined in woody is
the same as potato.

Regards,
--
Akira TAGOH