Hi I am looking for a way to upgrade from SUSE 10.0 to 10.1 using apt. But if I edit sources.list (change to SuSE/10.1-i386) and I do "apt-get update" and "apt-get dist-upgrade", it would work, but it would uninstall "apt" and "apt-libs". Apt tells me that this would be harmful and that I do not really want to do that. Otherwise, I would have to write a confirmation sentence. The following packages would be uninstalled: apt apt-libs kernel-default-nongpl openldap2-back-ldap openldap2-back-monitor Beside these packages, the upgrade would work: 395 upgraded, 4 newly installed, 5 uninstalled und 2 not upgraded. Are "apt" and "apt-libs" not in "base" anymore? Thanks for help, Dani
Hello, Am Montag, 2. Januar 2006 08:50 schrieb Daniel Bertolo:
I am looking for a way to upgrade from SUSE 10.0 to 10.1 using apt. But if I edit sources.list (change to SuSE/10.1-i386) and I do "apt-get update" and "apt-get dist-upgrade", it would work, but it would uninstall "apt" and "apt-libs". [...] Are "apt" and "apt-libs" not in "base" anymore?
They are replaced by smart - which you could also use for doing the upgrade ;-) Regards, Christian Boltz -- File Not Found.....Loading something that looks similar
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Christian Boltz wrote:
Am Montag, 2. Januar 2006 08:50 schrieb Daniel Bertolo:
I am looking for a way to upgrade from SUSE 10.0 to 10.1 using apt. But if I edit sources.list (change to SuSE/10.1-i386) and I do "apt-get update" and "apt-get dist-upgrade", it would work, but it would uninstall "apt" and "apt-libs". [...] Are "apt" and "apt-libs" not in "base" anymore?
They are replaced by smart - which you could also use for doing the upgrade ;-)
Thanks to Mauricio Teixeira the upcoming version of SMART may even have support for YaST repositories. I'm currently looking into applying his patch to our current SMART package. With RPM 4.4.2 and SMART 0.41 things have gotten much better by the way ;) Regards Christoph
Op donderdag 5 januari 2006 10:37, schreef Christoph Thiel:
With RPM 4.4.2 and SMART 0.41 things have gotten much better by the way
Are you definately sure that smart performs as well as apt did? What I read on this ML is that SMART uses a lot of memory (too much) in case many packages are to be installed! Perhaps apt can still be provided via the online repository (not on the CDs) as a fallback in case SMART does not performs as expected...? -- Richard Bos Without a home the journey is endless
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Richard Bos wrote:
Op donderdag 5 januari 2006 10:37, schreef Christoph Thiel:
With RPM 4.4.2 and SMART 0.41 things have gotten much better by the way
Are you definately sure that smart performs as well as apt did?
Well, I never used apt intensively, but yes, the SMART performance could be much better. One option could be to just call rpm instead of using python-rpm to perform the installation of packages (like YaST does it ;)).
What I read on this ML is that SMART uses a lot of memory (too much) in case many packages are to be installed! Perhaps apt can still be provided via the online repository (not on the CDs) as a fallback in case SMART does not performs as expected...?
I would rather like to stick with SMART and get a much testing on SMART as possible. Because at the end of the day, we will have a mature package manager(tm) then. Let's face it: As long as there is apt, nobody is going to use SMART -- and we both know that apt-rpm doesn't have a bright future... Regards Christoph
Hi, On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Christoph Thiel wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Richard Bos wrote:
Op donderdag 5 januari 2006 10:37, schreef Christoph Thiel:
With RPM 4.4.2 and SMART 0.41 things have gotten much better by the way
Are you definately sure that smart performs as well as apt did?
Well, I never used apt intensively, but yes, the SMART performance could be much better. One option could be to just call rpm instead of using python-rpm to perform the installation of packages (like YaST does it ;)).
What I read on this ML is that SMART uses a lot of memory (too much) in case many packages are to be installed! Perhaps apt can still be provided via the online repository (not on the CDs) as a fallback in case SMART does not performs as expected...?
I would rather like to stick with SMART and get a much testing on SMART as possible. Because at the end of the day, we will have a mature package manager(tm) then. Let's face it: As long as there is apt, nobody is going to use SMART -- and we both know that apt-rpm doesn't have a bright future...
So then let's hope for a better future for smart, and please continue supporting apt until then. At least below tne unsupported directory. You know if I say please I mean PLEASE. You should, in the sense of you HAVE TO. Cheers -e -- Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote: [...]
I would rather like to stick with SMART and get a much testing on SMART as possible. Because at the end of the day, we will have a mature package manager(tm) then. Let's face it: As long as there is apt, nobody is going to use SMART -- and we both know that apt-rpm doesn't have a bright future...
So then let's hope for a better future for smart, and please continue supporting apt until then. At least below tne unsupported directory.
As I said before, as long as there is an "official" apt version, SMART won't get the testing it needs to get to the level of maturity that apt is at. I.e. we have SMART now and it something doesn't work as expected, please file a bugreport... Again, apt is dead, there is no maintainership upstream -- let's leave this sinking ship NOW. Regards Christoph
Hi, On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Christoph Thiel wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
I would rather like to stick with SMART and get a much testing on SMART as possible. Because at the end of the day, we will have a mature package manager(tm) then. Let's face it: As long as there is apt, nobody is going to use SMART -- and we both know that apt-rpm doesn't have a bright future...
So then let's hope for a better future for smart, and please continue supporting apt until then. At least below tne unsupported directory.
As I said before, as long as there is an "official" apt version, SMART won't get the testing it needs to get to the level of maturity that apt is at.
This is a faschist position.
I.e. we have SMART now and it something doesn't work as expected, please file a bugreport... Again, apt is dead, there is no maintainership upstream -- let's leave this sinking ship NOW.
Don't forget we are on the sea and not at the harbour. So leaving the ship will end in the water as long as the new ship is not ready. Cheers -e -- Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)
On Friday 06 January 2006 17:15, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
So then let's hope for a better future for smart, and please continue supporting apt until then. At least below tne unsupported directory.
As I said before, as long as there is an "official" apt version, SMART won't get the testing it needs to get to the level of maturity that apt is at.
This is a faschist position.
No, it's a distro moving forward. If you need long time maintenance, there's SLES. It delivers a stable platform for 5 years.
Hi, On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Silviu Marin-Caea wrote:
On Friday 06 January 2006 17:15, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
So then let's hope for a better future for smart, and please continue supporting apt until then. At least below tne unsupported directory.
As I said before, as long as there is an "official" apt version, SMART won't get the testing it needs to get to the level of maturity that apt is at.
This is a faschist position.
No, it's a distro moving forward. If you need long time maintenance, there's SLES. It delivers a stable platform for 5 years.
You missed the point. Here an "old" tool gets discarded before the "new" tool is ready. Cheers -e -- Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org)
On 06/01/06, Eberhard Moenkeberg
Hi,
You missed the point. Here an "old" tool gets discarded before the "new" tool is ready.
Two points, One is having experiences many years of Novell's admin tools this really won't surprise me. Yea I know openSUSE isn't really Novell but you get my point. My second is, is smart supposed to superceed YaST, to be honest I'm not really sure (after installing and spending a whole 20 seconds using it) how it's better than YaST? If it's just a choice thing then that's cool. A link to a complete discussion of smart versus YaST would be lovely :) have fun Marcus -- Photos : www.flickr.com/photos/marcusc Blog : marcusbrain.blogspot.com
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 18:00:11 +0000, Marcus Cooper wrote:
My second is, is smart supposed to superceed YaST, to be honest I'm not really sure
It's not supposed to superseed YaST as YaST is *much* more then just a package manager. Philipp
Em Sex, 2006-01-06 às 00:57 +0100, Christoph Thiel escreveu:
be much better. One option could be to just call rpm instead of using python-rpm to perform the installation of packages (like YaST does it ;)).
That wouldn't solve the real issue: cache. This is what makes Smart slow most of the time, but the cache is a necessary evil, since it's from where Smart gathers all data in order to calculate transactions, fetch files, show info, etc. IMHO Smart is doing the right way: dealing directly with rpm libs and not being a wrapper. In theory it's faster than calling an external comand (since there is less forking, memory allocation, etc), and is less susceptible to changes on the external command output (don't forget it's intended to run regardless of distribution). But, who am I to judge? :) BTW, I work with a very slow laptop, and I realized that after I started using Smart with YaST2 reps instead of APT it got much much faster. I think that's because it doesn't have to deal with apt indexes, which are bziped (and slow to uncompress) and bigger than yast indexes.
I would rather like to stick with SMART and get a much testing on SMART as possible. Because at the end of the day, we will have a mature package
So very true. If you always have apt available, there would be less people testing and helping Smart growing. Besides, there would always be the 3rd party packagers, who could still make it available regardless of the distro decision.
to use SMART -- and we both know that apt-rpm doesn't have a bright future...
What future? :) -- % Mauricio Teixeira (netmask) % mteixeira{a}webset{d}net <> Maceio/AL/BR % TI+Telecom Analyst <> Linux Specialist % http://mteixeira.webset.net <> http://pmping.sf.net % [D0CE 6BD4 526B B7D1 6F4E 85FA A7A0 1A6F B23A A9EE]
Op zondag 8 januari 2006 23:40, schreef Mauricio Teixeira:
I would rather like to stick with SMART and get a much testing on SMART as possible. Because at the end of the day, we will have a mature package
So very true. If you always have apt available, there would be less people testing and helping Smart growing.
This is wrong way. People should be using because others are telling it is better than apt. What you otherwise would get is that people are using smart once and go back to:
Besides, there would always be the 3rd party packagers, who could still make it available regardless of the distro decision.
Indeed to 3rd party providers... Now suse take on the challenge and provide apt, that would make smart better and it would be better faster! -- Richard Bos Without a home the journey is endless
Am Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2006 22:33 schrieb Richard Bos:
Perhaps apt can still be provided via the online repository (not on the CDs) as a fallback in case SMART does not performs as expected...?
This is an idea which i can support, even if its for another reason: I prefer to work with a mouse and smart with its gui is (for me) in its present state definitely not a replacement for apt/synaptic. I dont see any advantage of smart-gui over synaptic, so i will not use it. If apt/synaptic will not be delivered with the official suse-distribution in the future it is sad, but its the same like in every suse until 10, and i have to get it by myself like before. regards, Jens
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Jens Nixdorf wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2006 22:33 schrieb Richard Bos:
Perhaps apt can still be provided via the online repository (not on the CDs) as a fallback in case SMART does not performs as expected...?
This is an idea which i can support, even if its for another reason: I prefer to work with a mouse and smart with its gui is (for me) in its present state definitely not a replacement for apt/synaptic. I dont see any advantage of smart-gui over synaptic, so i will not use it.
So, if you don't like smart-gui in it's current state, could you please share your dislikes -- otherwise it might never get better. I guess Gustavo will be happy to get feedback on SMART. Regards Christoph
Am Freitag, 6. Januar 2006 14:49 schrieb Christoph Thiel:
So, if you don't like smart-gui in it's current state, could you please share your dislikes -- otherwise it might never get better. I guess Gustavo will be happy to get feedback on SMART.
Yes, you're right, only nagging is not a good way. The answer is very easy, i want to have synaptic. Even for smart. Thats all ;) regards, Jens
So, if you don't like smart-gui in it's current state, could you please share your dislikes -- otherwise it might never get better. I guess Gustavo will be happy to get feedback on SMART.
The two grumbles I have about smart at this point are: 1. It doesn't show me what version I already have installed (as Synaptic and Aptitude do). To me this is somewhat of a "deal breaker"... this really needs to be included in Smart-gui to make it useful/usable. 2. I was able to "double" install an application using Smart. I tagged an app for update in Smart and I let it do it's thing. All looked OK until I fired up Synaptic, and the very first thing Synaptic did was pop up a window telling me there were multiple versions of that rpm installed and that I needed to fix the problem before continuing. It was easy enough to correct, but it really shook my confidence in the whole Smart idea. Currently using 0.41-2.guru.suse100 of smart and smart-gui C.
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Clayton wrote:
So, if you don't like smart-gui in it's current state, could you please share your dislikes -- otherwise it might never get better. I guess Gustavo will be happy to get feedback on SMART.
The two grumbles I have about smart at this point are:
1. It doesn't show me what version I already have installed (as Synaptic and Aptitude do). To me this is somewhat of a "deal breaker"... this really needs to be included in Smart-gui to make it useful/usable.
I don't understand. Could you please provide a screenshot or a more detailed "how to reproduce"? Which "view" are you using in smart-gui?
2. I was able to "double" install an application using Smart. I tagged an app for update in Smart and I let it do it's thing. All looked OK until I fired up Synaptic, and the very first thing Synaptic did was pop up a window telling me there were multiple versions of that rpm installed and that I needed to fix the problem before continuing. It was easy enough to correct, but it really shook my confidence in the whole Smart idea.
I haven't seen that kind of problem yet - are you able to reproduce? If yes, please report a bug! Regards Christoph
1. It doesn't show me what version I already have installed (as Synaptic and Aptitude do). To me this is somewhat of a "deal breaker"... this really needs to be included in Smart-gui to make it useful/usable.
I don't understand. Could you please provide a screenshot or a more detailed "how to reproduce"? Which "view" are you using in smart-gui?
I'm thinking in terms of how Synaptic (or Aptitude) presents the information about installed applications. If I filter the view so I just see upgradable packages, I'm shown two columns... Package and Version. What does this tell me? The version available or the version installed? It doesn't say (although from my own experience it looks like it's showing the available version). Also... assuming it's showing the available version, I can't easily see what version I already have installed (in fact, I can't see any obvious way at all to find out what version is already installed for those packages that are flagged as upgradable). Look at how Synaptic presents the same info... Package, Installed Version, Available version. It's this installed vs repository version comparison I'm missing. I would hazard a guess that a lot of other people will be missing that same info....
2. I was able to "double" install an application using Smart. I tagged an app for update in Smart and I let it do it's thing. All looked OK
I haven't seen that kind of problem yet - are you able to reproduce? If yes, please report a bug!
I haven't reproduced it on 0.41, but I also have to admit that I haven't used Smart since this has happened. I will start using it a lot more now... hopefully I won't encounter this again :-) I do have an uncanny ability to find creative ways to break software (that's why they always get me to test the software where I work). C
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Clayton wrote:
1. It doesn't show me what version I already have installed (as Synaptic and Aptitude do). To me this is somewhat of a "deal breaker"... this really needs to be included in Smart-gui to make it useful/usable.
I don't understand. Could you please provide a screenshot or a more detailed "how to reproduce"? Which "view" are you using in smart-gui?
I'm thinking in terms of how Synaptic (or Aptitude) presents the information about installed applications.
If I filter the view so I just see upgradable packages, I'm shown two columns... Package and Version. What does this tell me? The version available or the version installed? It doesn't say (although from my own experience it looks like it's showing the available version). Also... assuming it's showing the available version, I can't easily see what version I already have installed (in fact, I can't see any obvious way at all to find out what version is already installed for those packages that are flagged as upgradable).
Look at how Synaptic presents the same info... Package, Installed Version, Available version. It's this installed vs repository version comparison I'm missing. I would hazard a guess that a lot of other people will be missing that same info....
I like smart a lot (use it every day) but I miss the same info: I sometimes do a rpm -q <package> to find this info...
2. I was able to "double" install an application using Smart. I tagged an app for update in Smart and I let it do it's thing. All looked OK
I haven't seen that kind of problem yet - are you able to reproduce? If yes, please report a bug!
I haven't reproduced it on 0.41, but I also have to admit that I haven't used Smart since this has happened. I will start using it a lot more now... hopefully I won't encounter this again :-) I do have an uncanny ability to find creative ways to break software (that's why they always get me to test the software where I work).
I had the same problem with early releases of 0.40 as packaged by guru. In the latest 0.40 delta there was a patch to work around the problem. It has to do with the used rpm version by SUSE. This rpm version is upgraded with 10.1 so then the workaround is not needed anymore. In my experience this problem is solved with 0.41. Have a nice weekend, Aschwin Marsman -- aschwin@marsman.org http://www.marsman.org
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Aschwin Marsman wrote:
1. It doesn't show me what version I already have installed (as Synaptic and Aptitude do). To me this is somewhat of a "deal breaker"... this really needs to be included in Smart-gui to make it useful/usable.
I don't understand. Could you please provide a screenshot or a more detailed "how to reproduce"? Which "view" are you using in smart-gui?
I'm thinking in terms of how Synaptic (or Aptitude) presents the information about installed applications.
If I filter the view so I just see upgradable packages, I'm shown two columns... Package and Version. What does this tell me? The version available or the version installed? It doesn't say (although from my own experience it looks like it's showing the available version). Also... assuming it's showing the available version, I can't easily see what version I already have installed (in fact, I can't see any obvious way at all to find out what version is already installed for those packages that are flagged as upgradable).
Look at how Synaptic presents the same info... Package, Installed Version, Available version. It's this installed vs repository version comparison I'm missing. I would hazard a guess that a lot of other people will be missing that same info....
I like smart a lot (use it every day) but I miss the same info: I sometimes do a rpm -q <package> to find this info...
Alright, I'll take this to Gustavo. Regards Christoph
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 15:24 +0100, Clayton wrote:
1. It doesn't show me what version I already have installed (as Synaptic and Aptitude do). To me this is somewhat of a "deal breaker"... this really needs to be included in Smart-gui to make it useful/usable.
I don't understand. Could you please provide a screenshot or a more detailed "how to reproduce"? Which "view" are you using in smart-gui?
I'm thinking in terms of how Synaptic (or Aptitude) presents the information about installed applications.
If I filter the view so I just see upgradable packages, I'm shown two columns... Package and Version. What does this tell me? The version available or the version installed? It doesn't say (although from my own experience it looks like it's showing the available version). Also... assuming it's showing the available version, I can't easily see what version I already have installed (in fact, I can't see any obvious way at all to find out what version is already installed for those packages that are flagged as upgradable).
Look at how Synaptic presents the same info... Package, Installed Version, Available version. It's this installed vs repository version comparison I'm missing. I would hazard a guess that a lot of other people will be missing that same info....
This is my only complaint using smart. How hard can it be to add another column showing the installed version so a comparison can be made? -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998
Em Sex, 2006-01-06 às 15:24 +0100, Clayton escreveu:
columns... Package and Version. What does this tell me? The version available or the version installed? It doesn't say (although from my
If you mean "Hide non-upgrades" it's quite easy to understand that the version show is the available. How? (a) you selected to view the packages that would upgrade something (so why should it show an old version?) and (b) the package is NOT selected (so it's not installed, but it only shows because it's intended to upgrade some other installed package).
Also... assuming it's showing the available version, I can't easily see what version I already have installed (in fact, I can't see any obvious
Select the package, the check the "Relations" tab. You wouldn't see this information directly on text mode either, unless you do "smart upgrade --explain".
Look at how Synaptic presents the same info... Package, Installed Version, Available version. It's this installed vs repository version
It's just a choice of interface, but it could obviously be changed if enough reasons are given. You're free to fill a request for it.
now... hopefully I won't encounter this again :-) I do have an uncanny ability to find creative ways to break software (that's why they always
People like you are always welcome to test. :) -- % Mauricio Teixeira (netmask) % mteixeira{a}webset{d}net <> Maceio/AL/BR % TI+Telecom Analyst <> Linux Specialist % http://mteixeira.webset.net <> http://pmping.sf.net % [D0CE 6BD4 526B B7D1 6F4E 85FA A7A0 1A6F B23A A9EE]
Em Sex, 2006-01-06 às 15:04 +0100, Clayton escreveu:
1. It doesn't show me what version I already have installed (as
Issue a request on: http://tracker.labix.org/
until I fired up Synaptic, and the very first thing Synaptic did was pop up a window telling me there were multiple versions of that rpm
You need to check if this package is marked as 'multi-version' (smart flag multi-version). Either Smart or APT would allow two versions of the same package installed if (a) the package is marked 'multi-version' (or 'allow-duplicates' in APT), (b) the version is hardcoded on the name or (c) there is an inconsistency on the rpmdb. -- % Mauricio Teixeira (netmask) % mteixeira{a}webset{d}net <> Maceio/AL/BR % TI+Telecom Analyst <> Linux Specialist % http://mteixeira.webset.net <> http://pmping.sf.net % [D0CE 6BD4 526B B7D1 6F4E 85FA A7A0 1A6F B23A A9EE]
Em Sex, 2006-01-06 às 01:03 +0100, Jens Nixdorf escreveu:
present state definitely not a replacement for apt/synaptic. I dont see any advantage of smart-gui over synaptic, so i will not use it.
Smart developers are still working hard to provide the best package management possible, in the sense of features. Yes, the GUI needs a lot of work, and it's quite the same since the early days, but every single help and suggestion is very much appreciated. You're invited to join the mailing list and share your thoughts. I'm sure the way Smart is being developed you could even get better results than with APT in the future. -- % Mauricio Teixeira (netmask) % mteixeira{a}webset{d}net <> Maceio/AL/BR % TI+Telecom Analyst <> Linux Specialist % http://mteixeira.webset.net <> http://pmping.sf.net % [D0CE 6BD4 526B B7D1 6F4E 85FA A7A0 1A6F B23A A9EE]
Op zondag 8 januari 2006 23:45, schreef Mauricio Teixeira:
You're invited to join the mailing list and share your thoughts. I'm sure the way Smart is being developed you could even get better results than with APT in the future.
Hmm, I get a strange feeling reading this. Smart is better than apt in the future and apt is left out of suse now? This clearly states that suse left apt out of distro to soon. -- Richard Bos Without a home the journey is endless
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Monday 09 January 2006 11:40, Richard Bos wrote:
This clearly states that suse left apt out of distro to soon.
huh? When was it ever in?
apt-rpm was part of SUSE Linux 10.0, but has been dropped with the incorporation of SMART (and YUM) at the time of SUSE Linux 10.1 Alpha1 (or 2). This has been discussed extensively and I remeber Richard being quite supportive of this decision back then ;) Regards Christoph
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 02:33:05PM +0100, Christoph Thiel wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Monday 09 January 2006 11:40, Richard Bos wrote:
This clearly states that suse left apt out of distro to soon.
huh? When was it ever in?
apt-rpm was part of SUSE Linux 10.0, but has been dropped with the incorporation of SMART (and YUM) at the time of SUSE Linux 10.1 Alpha1 (or 2). This has been discussed extensively and I remeber Richard being quite supportive of this decision back then ;)
That was for repodata. Unfortenately not a lot is happening (at least I don't see it) in this area.... Where are the milestones, when can we expect something? Concerning smart: I see that it has the potential to fully replace apt. But sofar it misses apt functionality, like signature checking, log creation and such. When this is addressed I have no problems at all to use smart. I really hope that the feedback that I have given will be remembered. Perhaps it is feedback from a really advanced apt user, but there are people out there that want to use that functionality. -- Richard
Em Seg, 2006-01-09 às 11:40 +0100, Richard Bos escreveu:
Hmm, I get a strange feeling reading this. Smart is better than apt in the future and apt is left out of suse now? This clearly states that suse left
You missinterpreted my comment. I said that if you join the list, share you thoughts, ideas and suggestions we could make Smart better than APT in all aspects you are asking for. Smart is already better than APT in many aspects, but of course not every single one. Some things already exist but they're different, some things need to be implemented, some others need to be changed, but if no one asked for them up to now, maybe the current user base doesn't need it, so you're completely free to ask, and we'll work on them whenever possible. -- % Mauricio Teixeira (netmask) % mteixeira{a}webset{d}net <> Maceio/AL/BR % TI+Telecom Analyst <> Linux Specialist % http://mteixeira.webset.net <> http://pmping.sf.net % [D0CE 6BD4 526B B7D1 6F4E 85FA A7A0 1A6F B23A A9EE]
participants (16)
-
Anders Johansson -
Aschwin Marsman -
Christian Boltz -
Christoph Thiel -
Clayton -
Daniel Bertolo -
Eberhard Moenkeberg -
Jens Nixdorf -
Ken Schneider -
Marcus Cooper -
Mauricio Teixeira -
Mauricio Teixeira (netmask)
-
Philipp Thomas -
radoeka -
Richard Bos
-
Silviu Marin-Caea