[Comm-en] Introduction

[Alex Negulescu]

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.
Regarding the error, maybe it sees it but does not access it correctly. 
Anyway, let's see if it works with 5.0.
I'll probably back up stuff here and make a big upgrade to 5.0 to see 
how it works.

Alex

Michael Shigorin wrote:
> 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.
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.altlinux.org/pipermail/community-en/attachments/20090517/c6e65a8d/attachment.html>