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

[Elan Ruusamäe]

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 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

> 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?

'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?

> 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?

> 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.

> 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?

> Best Regards



-- 
glen