Re: debian's gnus package older than its emacs builtin gnus?

Re: debian's gnus package older than its emacs builtin gnus?

[Rémi Letot]

Marcus Frings <iam-est-hora-surgere@fuckmicrosoft.com> writes:

> * Martin Schmitz <dosenfleisch@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> If you really want to 'freshen' your gnus than go to
>> http://www.gnus.org/ and get the latest tarball of Oort.
>
> Or do it the Debian-way:
> http://people.debian.org/~srivasta

Not updated since oort is in unstable. A better way now is to add
unstable in sources.list and pin to stable. That way you can upgrade
just the packages you want to the unstable version, like gnus.

-- 
Rémi 

Re: debian's gnus package older than its emacs builtin gnus?

[Marcus Frings]

* hobbes@easynet.be (Rémi Letot) wrote:

> Marcus Frings <iam-est-hora-surgere@fuckmicrosoft.com> writes:
>> Or do it the Debian-way:
>> http://people.debian.org/~srivasta

> Not updated since oort is in unstable. A better way now is to add

Manoj's current version is gnus_5.9.0-0.CVS.2003.01.02.1_all.deb at his
Debian homepage.

> unstable in sources.list and pin to stable. That way you can upgrade
> just the packages you want to the unstable version, like gnus.

Sorry, I don't agree. apt-pinning is pretty worthless these days because
too many packages depend on the new libc6 in unstable which makes it
quite useless to get Sid-packages for Woody as you certainly don't want
to import libc6-2.3.1-x from Sid to Woody. Okay, the Gnus package is an
exception concerning this dependency.
I prefer to get the source from Sid and do a backporting for Woody.

Regards,
Marcus
-- 
Fight fight fight, just push it away, fight fight fight, just push until it
breaks, fight fight fight, don't cry at the pain, fight fight fight, or watch
yourself burn again, fight fight fight, don't howl like a dog and never stop.

Re: debian's gnus package older than its emacs builtin gnus?

[Rémi Letot]

Marcus Frings <iam-est-hora-surgere@fuckmicrosoft.com> writes:

> * hobbes@easynet.be (Rémi Letot) wrote:
>
>> Marcus Frings <iam-est-hora-surgere@fuckmicrosoft.com> writes:
>>> Or do it the Debian-way:
>>> http://people.debian.org/~srivasta
>
>> Not updated since oort is in unstable. A better way now is to add
>
> Manoj's current version is gnus_5.9.0-0.CVS.2003.01.02.1_all.deb at his
> Debian homepage.

Argh, I should have checked. There was a period when this package was
not updated, so I dropped the source in sources.list.

>> unstable in sources.list and pin to stable. That way you can upgrade
>> just the packages you want to the unstable version, like gnus.
>
> Sorry, I don't agree. apt-pinning is pretty worthless these days because
> too many packages depend on the new libc6 in unstable which makes it
> quite useless to get Sid-packages for Woody as you certainly don't want
> to import libc6-2.3.1-x from Sid to Woody. Okay, the Gnus package is an
> exception concerning this dependency.

The question was precisely about gnus.

<couic>

-- 
Rémi

Re: debian's gnus package older than its emacs builtin gnus?

[Marcus Frings]

* hobbes@easynet.be (Rémi Letot) wrote:

> Argh, I should have checked. There was a period when this package was
> not updated, so I dropped the source in sources.list.

The reason why there haven't been any updates for some weeks is that
Manoj relocated and had no internet connection from his ISP. Usually his
snapshots appear daily for they are automatically generated.

> The question was precisely about gnus.

Yes, I thought so. Therefore I stated that in this case Gnus is really
an exception.

Regards,
Marcus
-- 
I know that I don't love you but I tell you that I do
But I only buy you flowers if I want anything from you
You think that if you'll leave me it will put me on a shelf
But I don't need you girl, I just need myself.

Re: debian's gnus package older than its emacs builtin gnus?

[Kai Großjohann]

Dan Jacobson <jidanni@dman.ddts.net> writes:

> What is the justification for a standalone package for gnus if one
> need emacs to run gnus, and that emacs has a newer gnus inside?

Maybe the Gnus package should say that it conflicts with emacs21.
That would in fact be a good idea, IMVHO.

How about reporting a bug against that package?
-- 
Do not be ashamed of ambibibentism.