[Fwd: Re: [Th] Upgrade apport - jak rozumieć ten błąd?]

[Tomasz Mateja]

Elan Ruusamäe pisze:
> On Wednesday 09 April 2008 20:33, Tomasz Mateja wrote:
>> Translated:
>>
>> I've tried to check what hurts AC:
>> 1. During the instalation from bootdisk-net, basic instalation, the
>> SysVinit package wasn't installed - result nonbooting system, when
>> manually installed - it works
> recommended way of installing is chroot install, and there it is you who says 
> what to install. the "installer" might had worked for Ra, it was put  to Ac 
> only because there doesn't exist anything else.
And that was one of WORKING methods while freezing AC - so while it is 
stable it should work.

> and what did it install afterall? as rc-scripts which is needed for quite 
> everything is dependencies:
> $ ac-requires SysVinit
> rc-scripts-0.4.1.18-1.i686
Try yourself in vmware or virtualbox

>> 2. Upgrade AC, it fails when upgrading rpm with the message of missing
>> lzma, when manully install the lzma package it installs but fails on
>> rebuilding rpm database.
> upgrade to ac from what?
Upgrade AC to AC+updates with
poldek> upgrade * (most users do that)
> 
> 'poldek --upgrade-dist' works fine here (having only ac,ac-updates trees 
> enabled)

>> 3. after reboot:
>> locale: Cannot set LC_CTYPE to default locale: No such file or directory
>> locale: Cannot set LC_MESSAGES to default locale: No such file or directory
>> locale: Cannot set LC_ALL to default locale: No such file or directory
>> stty: invalid argument `-utf8'
>> Try `stty --help' for more information.
> missing context. what did issue this message?
Dunno, what context do you want?, simply try basic installation from 
bootdisk-net and upgrade after that (not editing nor configuring anything)

>> 4. By the way who !@#!$@^%&*(&^%$% put kernel-2.6.22 to AC?????
> 
> it is in ac-ready, using ac-test or ac-ready is your own risk, as quite some 
> developers can send pkgs there, so it's contents are not ftp admin 
> decision/control.
> 
> and instead of living out your feelings, report bugs what is wrong with 2.6.22 
> kernel (in lists or http://bugs.pld-linux.org/). 2.6.16 is at least three 
> years old kernel. upstream is near 2.6.25 already. and th/ti do have 2.6.22 
> kernel, do you shout there too?
So what?
Why not upgrade glibc in ac to 2.7? and XFree to xorg - they are also 
very old. This is STABLE so minor updates or security updates are 
welcome. bugs.pld-... is not the place for this request.

>> 5. Not mentioning the fact that not everything in AC is signed and
>> default config demands signed packages
> don't enable such trees then. signed in ac are 'ac' and 'ac-updates' 
> and 'ac-supported' trees only.
Yes I mean only ac and ac-updates

>> AC was intended as STABLE!!!!!!!
> definition of stable can vary.
> 
>> To AC RM (whoever it is) if you wanna sandbox play with HEAD or make
>> another fork like Ti but please leave STABLE pld as stable.
>> This changes are making users which are for years with pld leaving us.
> reporting bugs early might get them resolved. just whining won't lead you 
> anywhere.
> 
> and if you definition of stable is old packages, why bother upgrading packages 
> from ac-updates afterall?
updates was intended to security, bugfix updates. whats the difference 
between ac/ti/th when you can update everything?? Maybe let's update RA 
to kernel 2.6.25

Best regards.
-- 
T.