From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on sa.int.altlinux.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 13:28:29 +0300 From: Michael Shigorin To: "ALT Linux users (in English only)" Message-ID: <20090517102829.GD15370@osdn.org.ua> Mail-Followup-To: "ALT Linux users (in English only)" References: <4A0FD30D.2080905@kikinovak.net> <20090517091936.GY15370@osdn.org.ua> <4A0FDF29.8030407@kikinovak.net> <4A0FE40D.2040808@wdu.ro> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A0FE40D.2040808@wdu.ro> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Subject: Re: [Comm-en] Introduction X-BeenThere: community-en@lists.altlinux.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: shigorin@gmail.com, "ALT Linux users \(in English only\)" List-Id: "ALT Linux users \(in English only\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 10:28:47 -0000 Archived-At: List-Archive: On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 01:16:45PM +0300, Alex Negulescu wrote: > Now I've got for desktops a mix-up of packages from 4.1.1 and > sisyphus too, that works like a charm Lucker they'd say :) It's really more safe to stay within any chosen branch (like 4.1/branch or 5.0/branch, or even unstable Sisyphus) than to mix things. I've _occasionally_ got my share of troubles with binary "point upgrades" of that nature being lazy enough to build a package backport, and way too often saw people having theirs. So while you might have enough experience to make right decisions and handle any weird things that might happen then, it's really not a good advice to mix repo _versions_ together (this holds true for e.g. 4.0+4.1 or 4.1+5.0, too). Sometimes apt might just throw hands up feeling dizzy of that mess of packages and deps... > some servers with 4.0 at my clients (without virtualization), > 1 virtual server (Sisyphus) that also works like a charm > (runnin' 2.6.26 built by Lakostis) Just for the record, I run a few desktops (mostly 5.0/branch by now), a virtualized office/terminal server (ALTSP in an OpenVZ container with Server 4.0 on hardware node), a Sisyphus-based build server with slight use of virtualization for convenience, and the rest of servers runs Server 4.0 employing OpenVZ extensively. There's also at least one production VE with Master 2.4-based root still running, and probably another standalone system with Spring 2001 on it (at least it was alive and in service a few years ago). :) > Regarding your error, I never got that, even on new systems. > Maybe it does not see the drives or does not access them > correctly (too new board?). IIRC without any drives there would be a message while trying to proceed with any choice, be it autoparitioning or custom. -- ---- WBR, Michael Shigorin ------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/