Re: Unable to resolve addresses only with some tools
I solved my problem by reinstalling libnss-mdns_0.8-6.1_amd64.deb !! How come I was able to uninstall it without being notified that it was crucial?! -Pascal On 1/12/07, Pascal Giard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did something broke in latest update? I'm unable to resolve addresses with some e.g. gaim, xchat, apt-get. I'm able to resolve addresses with others e.g. ping, firefox, amule, mail-notification. I'm having a hard time trying to figure what happened and how to fix it. Having a broken apt-get is somewhat of a painful constraint. thanks for any tips or help you can provide, -Pascal -- Homepage (http://organact.mine.nu) Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org) École de technologie supérieure (http://www.etsmtl.ca) -- Homepage (http://organact.mine.nu) Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org) École de technologie supérieure (http://www.etsmtl.ca)
Re: Fwd: Unable to resolve addresses only with some tools
[ Please Cc: me, I'm not on [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Fri, Jan 12, 2007, Pascal Giard wrote: I solved my problem by reinstalling libnss-mdns_0.8-6.1_amd64.deb !! How come I was able to uninstall it without being notified that it was crucial?! Versions 0.8-6 and 0.8-6.1 (my first NMU of the package) did not remove the entries for mdns of nsswitch.conf. I knew this fact when I uploaded the NMU but did not address it as the maintainer of the package had described this fact explicitely in README.Debian which explained this would result in an unnoticable delay; from 0.8-6/nss-mdns-0.8/debian/README.Debian: Note: this is never removed once installed, the side-effect of not removing the entry is that there is a slight delay (similiar to how the Standard C libraries searches for optimised versions) during program startup and execution It turned out to cause problems to leave this entries, and I re-added a postrm snippet based on work by Joey Hess in his 0.8-4.2 NMU of the package. I've re-added the removal in my second NMU, 0.9-0.1. You probably removed the package in version 0.8-6.1, if you upgrade and remove it in version 0.9-0.1, it should not cause the side effects you noticed. -- Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DNS resolve problem
I did an upgrade today, and later shut down my amd64 box. Since rebooting it, address resolution does no longer work: No common programm (lynx, wget, firefox, gaim...) can resolve names via dns anymore. Interesting is, however, the fact that resolving network names via ping works, I'm not sure how to explain that. (Most propably ping does not use libc routines to resolve network names.) I've tried everything, my /etc/resolv.conf is alright, tried resolvconf -u as well as resovconf -a eth0 ..., but nothing changed. Resolving network names works just well in my i386 chroot, as you can see, I'm writing this mail using 32-bit mozilla in a chroot debian environment. My first guess was that it was some bug /updating problem in the new libc6 packages, so I downgraded them to 2.3.6.ds1-9 from 2.3.6.ds1-10, but nothing changed. I'm running debian amd64 unstable. Do you have any suggestions? Sincerly, Marcus Müller
Re: DNS resolve problem [solved.]
Solved the issue, after I found the following in the mailing list: Another user experienced similar problems, and he reinstalled libnss-mdns in the old 8.6. version, and everything's just fine. Thanks for your attention, sincerly, Marcus Müller
Re: Fwd: Unable to resolve addresses only with some tools
On 1/12/07, Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ Please Cc: me, I'm not on [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Note: this is never removed once installed, the side-effect of not removing the entry is that there is a slight delay In my case it was worst than a slight delay... actually i was then unable to use apt-get to update packages... You probably removed the package in version 0.8-6.1 Yes. if you upgrade and remove it in version 0.9-0.1, it should not cause the side effects you noticed. Great! thanks for the explanation Loïc. -Pascal -- Homepage (http://organact.mine.nu) Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org) École de technologie supérieure (http://www.etsmtl.ca)
Re: compiz
Hello List, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Jo Shields wrote: in my experience, DRI JustWorks(tm) on intel kit - it's just not particularly usable (e.g. don't try playing any old games like unreal tournament or wolfenstein enemy territory) It works substantially better if you raise the vram size to, say, 128MB in xorg.conf. What is the option to increase vram size. The default is normally way too small for 3D. (Of course, you lose system memory doing this) Jerome -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
compiz: no spencil buffer
Hello List, yesterday my compiz install worked well: I decided to give a try to the last release version, but as I got into troubles, I came back the the distributed version as Packaged by Debian. But now, I got the message: no spencil-buffer Since a while I have goolgled to figure out how to manage the spencil-buffer: so far I get no fix. How can we st spencil-buffer ? Thanks in advance, Jerome -- Jerome BENOIT jgmbenoit_at_mailsnare_dot_net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2.6.20 ext3 fix backported to Debian?
Anyone know if the ext3 patch in 2.6.20 to fix filesystem corruption was backported to the Debian 2.6.19? Thanks, -s -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.6.20 ext3 fix backported to Debian?
Le 12.01.2007 22:21:08, Stephen Olander Waters a écrit : Anyone know if the ext3 patch in 2.6.20 to fix filesystem corruption was backported to the Debian 2.6.19? Is there a 2.6.19 in Debian? Thanks, -s Jean-Luc pgpIkCyXHWWzs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 2.6.20 ext3 fix backported to Debian?
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 10:32:23PM +0100, Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh) wrote: Is there a 2.6.19 in Debian? I don't think so yet. I beleive the decision is that etch will use 2.6.18, which means unstable isn't too likely to move past 2.6.18 until etch is released. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.6.20 ext3 fix backported to Debian?
Le 12.01.2007 23:14:48, Lennart Sorensen a écrit : On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 10:32:23PM +0100, Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh) wrote: Is there a 2.6.19 in Debian? I don't think so yet. I beleive the decision is that etch will use 2.6.18, which means unstable isn't too likely to move past 2.6.18 until etch is released. My question was because the original question (see title) asked about a backport of a 2.6.20 fix to the _Debian_ 2.6.19. It seems that 2.6.19 has some bugs not fixed for the moment and probably harf to fix. Maybe 2.6.19 will be skipped? Jean-Luc pgpuQPbKODtHx.pgp Description: PGP signature
