<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Yep, regarding mixing up, it's a lot safer to not mix, but I am either
lucky, or just know what to mix. I've done it on debian too.<br>
Regarding the error, maybe it sees it but does not access it correctly.
Anyway, let's see if it works with 5.0.<br>
I'll probably back up stuff here and make a big upgrade to 5.0 to see
how it works.<br>
<br>
Alex<br>
<br>
Michael Shigorin wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20090517102829.GD15370@osdn.org.ua" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 01:16:45PM +0300, Alex Negulescu wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Now I've got for desktops a mix-up of packages from 4.1.1 and
sisyphus too, that works like a charm
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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). :)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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?).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
IIRC without any drives there would be a message while trying
to proceed with any choice, be it autoparitioning or custom.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>