Re: apt/dpkg always upgrade still upgraded packages
Hi, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Remove the unofficial repository if you use the official one now. They contain the same packages but different builds of them, which confuses apt-get. the problem was, that I had the official testing repository in my /etc/apt/sources.list (to get the stuff for backporting) Only the official and my unoffical stable repositories = it works fine. Never thought that the solution is so quiet simple. Thanks Goswin, rgds Peter -- Unofficial repository for AMD64: PHP 5.1 - Postfix 2.2 - VNSTAT 1.4 deb http://peter.st/debian-amd64/ sarge main -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt/dpkg always upgrade still upgraded packages
Peter Stoehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jo Shields wrote: apt-get clean should help No not really. I also backported packages on Intel systems, but I never saw this issue there. Peter Remove the unofficial repository if you use the official one now. They contain the same packages but different builds of them, which confuses apt-get. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt/dpkg always upgrade still upgraded packages
Quoting Peter Stoehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): But, whenever I make apt-get update apt-get upgrade, apt want to upgrade Postfix and Vnstat again and again. Did I something wrong when building the packages? I have the exact same behaviour on one of my hosts with the libselinux1 package, which is an official Debian package, so it's not necessarily related to your own packages... No clue how to fix it tho'. Using dpkg --force-depends --purge and apt-get install again doesn't fix it either. -- | Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. | Why is top-posting such a bad thing? |Top-posting. | What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in email? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt/dpkg always upgrade still upgraded packages
Sander Smeenk wrote: Quoting Peter Stoehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): But, whenever I make apt-get update apt-get upgrade, apt want to upgrade Postfix and Vnstat again and again. Did I something wrong when building the packages? I have the exact same behaviour on one of my hosts with the libselinux1 package, which is an official Debian package, so it's not necessarily related to your own packages... No clue how to fix it tho'. Using dpkg --force-depends --purge and apt-get install again doesn't fix it either. apt-get clean should help -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt/dpkg always upgrade still upgraded packages
Jo Shields wrote: apt-get clean should help No not really. I also backported packages on Intel systems, but I never saw this issue there. Peter -- Unofficial repository for AMD64: PHP 5.1 - Postfix 2.2 - VNSTAT 1.4 deb http://peter.st/debian-amd64/ sarge main -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
apt/dpkg always upgrade still upgraded packages
Hi everyone, I have a strange problem with apt. I backported Postfix and vnstat, builded the Debian packages, installed them and put them into my repository. Everythings works fine. But, whenever I make apt-get update apt-get upgrade, apt want to upgrade Postfix and Vnstat again and again. Did I something wrong when building the packages? snip # apt-get upgrade Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following packages will be upgraded: postfix postfix-mysql vnstat 3 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 0B/1066kB of archives. After unpacking 0B of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] Preconfiguring packages ... (Reading database ... 46905 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to replace vnstat 1.4-2.1 (using .../vnstat_1.4-2.1_amd64.deb) ... Unpacking replacement vnstat ... Preparing to replace postfix 2.2.10-2 (using .../postfix_2.2.10-2_amd64.deb) ... Stopping Postfix Mail Transport Agent: postfix. Unpacking replacement postfix ... Preparing to replace postfix-mysql 2.2.10-2 (using .../postfix-mysql_2.2.10-2_amd64.deb) ... Unpacking replacement postfix-mysql ... Setting up vnstat (1.4-2.1) ... Setting up postfix (2.2.10-2) ... Postfix configuration was not changed. If you need to make changes, edit /etc/postfix/main.cf (and others) as needed. To view Postfix configuration values, see postconf(1). After modifying main.cf, be sure to run '/etc/init.d/postfix reload'. Running newaliases Stopping Postfix Mail Transport Agent: postfix. Starting Postfix Mail Transport Agent: postfix. Setting up postfix-mysql (2.2.10-2) ... # apt-get upgrade Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following packages will be upgraded: postfix postfix-mysql vnstat 3 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 0B/1066kB of archives. After unpacking 0B of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n Abort. snap Rgds, Peter -- Unofficial repository for AMD64: PHP 5.1 - Postfix 2.2 - VNSTAT 1.4 deb http://peter.st/debian-amd64/ sarge main -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: P-a-s: please allow amd64 for more packages
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 03:20:52PM -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: The amd64 autobuilder has been skipping several otherwise buildable packages due to out-of-date entries in Packages-arch-specific; could you please add amd64 to the following packages' architectures? drip joystick mindi mondo rscheme microcode.ctl [contrib] Done -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [SPAM] Re: two questions about packages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thierry Chatelet wrote: Wolfgang Mader wrote: Hello list, since a real long time, two months or so, aptitude always wants to upgrade the package libselinux from version 1.30-1 to version 1.30-1 This is not bad, I think but anoying. Has someone an idea. And another package is a bit strange. The new googleearth-package package. I installed it but this package seems to do nothing. It does not download any google-earth, installs an executable or does something else I was expecting from it. What to do which this thing. I want to try google-earth but if I execute the googleearth.bin I get the nice error: ./setup.sh: line 216: setup.data/bin/Linux/amd64/setup.gtk2: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden ./setup.sh: line 216: setup.data/bin/Linux/amd64/setup.gtk: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden The setup program seems to have failed on amd64 Fatal error, installer failed to run at all! So I wanted to try the package. Thank you in advance. W. Mader Hi, My german is not that good, but I think that, for googleearth, the installer is looking for xserver or something similar, and it does not fing it because you are running ./googleearthbin from root. Try it as a normal user, should work Thierry (die) Datei (-en) file(s) (das) Verzeichnis (se) directory (ies) This is the usual message that about lack of directory or files. - -- Fielder George Dowding, Chief Iceworm.^. Debian/GNU Linux dba Iceworm Enterprises, Anchorage, Alaska /v\ etch Testing Since 1976 - Over 30 Years of Service. /( )\ User Number 269482 ^^-^^ irad 301256 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEvyj+2kl99FX0AIkRApVnAJ92sCGk9QcXAFq/hYyfmeLXSMlBVQCfesKD mkk4qLAzCevuJVxPa49gIgc= =iQNm -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: two questions about packages
Wolfgang Mader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello list, since a real long time, two months or so, aptitude always wants to upgrade the package libselinux from version 1.30-1 to version 1.30-1 This is not bad, I think but anoying. Has someone an idea. Run aptitude clean and remove sarge from your sources.list. After that it should update it at most once more. And another package is a bit strange. The new googleearth-package package. I installed it but this package seems to do nothing. It does not download any google-earth, installs an executable or does something else I was expecting from it. What to do which this thing. I want to try google-earth but if I execute the googleearth.bin I get the nice error: ./setup.sh: line 216: setup.data/bin/Linux/amd64/setup.gtk2: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden That is a No such file or directory error for those not speaking german. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: two questions about packages
My german is not that good, but I think that, for googleearth, the installer is looking for xserver or something similar, and it does not fing it because you are running ./googleearthbin from root. Try it as a normal user, should work Thierry I tried as user and as root with exported display variable. Everytime the same problem... pgpwf5q6nf6aK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: two questions about packages
Am Mittwoch, 19. Juli 2006 20:05 schrieb Wolfgang Mader: My german is not that good, but I think that, for googleearth, the installer is looking for xserver or something similar, and it does not fing it because you are running ./googleearthbin from root. Try it as a normal user, should work Thierry I tried as user and as root with exported display variable. Everytime the same problem... You should install it as root. Then you can start it with googleearth whereever you are. Start it from a console like xterm in X, so you can see, what happens. Mostz errors are errors of rights. Best regards Hans P.S. Googlearth runs on 64-bit-systems, too ! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
two questions about packages
Hello list, since a real long time, two months or so, aptitude always wants to upgrade the package libselinux from version 1.30-1 to version 1.30-1 This is not bad, I think but anoying. Has someone an idea. And another package is a bit strange. The new googleearth-package package. I installed it but this package seems to do nothing. It does not download any google-earth, installs an executable or does something else I was expecting from it. What to do which this thing. I want to try google-earth but if I execute the googleearth.bin I get the nice error: ./setup.sh: line 216: setup.data/bin/Linux/amd64/setup.gtk2: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden ./setup.sh: line 216: setup.data/bin/Linux/amd64/setup.gtk: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden The setup program seems to have failed on amd64 Fatal error, installer failed to run at all! So I wanted to try the package. Thank you in advance. W. Mader pgpnr5WNfybiH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: two questions about packages
Wolfgang Mader wrote: Hello list, since a real long time, two months or so, aptitude always wants to upgrade the package libselinux from version 1.30-1 to version 1.30-1 This is not bad, I think but anoying. Has someone an idea. And another package is a bit strange. The new googleearth-package package. I installed it but this package seems to do nothing. It does not download any google-earth, installs an executable or does something else I was expecting from it. What to do which this thing. I want to try google-earth but if I execute the googleearth.bin I get the nice error: ./setup.sh: line 216: setup.data/bin/Linux/amd64/setup.gtk2: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden ./setup.sh: line 216: setup.data/bin/Linux/amd64/setup.gtk: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden The setup program seems to have failed on amd64 Fatal error, installer failed to run at all! So I wanted to try the package. Thank you in advance. W. Mader Hi, My german is not that good, but I think that, for googleearth, the installer is looking for xserver or something similar, and it does not fing it because you are running ./googleearthbin from root. Try it as a normal user, should work Thierry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
kernel error, packages, unstable
Hi I hope I am not forcing my solutions to the list. I have had the problem with kernel 2.6 14 and 2.6.15 (2.6.13 never installed) that the computer froze, most often during heavy simulation but also without anything happening. The same happened to some i386 machines as well. With kernels 2.6.12 and 2.6.16 it hasn't crashed a single time. I have decided several times to stick to Debian testing but unstable seems to be more usable and less problematic in many ways. After reading the incoming mails and talking to my Debian friends I think I should recommend two things: http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages On this homepage, all of the debian packages and their contents can be search in such a simple way that even I can do it. The tool dselect is a very handy tool to install packages. You can see the whole list of installed and available packages. A friend of min recommends aptitude but I haven't had the time to check it out properly. The only problem with dselect is that sometimes (when large unresolved upgrades occur) it want's to throw out several hundred packages at once and if I am not fast enough pressing x, then I need to press plus several hundred times. Pressing x and using apt-get under such circumstances works perfectly. Regards Gudjon Ps my old mailing list thread http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2006/02/msg00125.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel error, packages, unstable
Thanks for detailing your experience and for your patience. However, before moving, I decided to wait for the whole day, until a balanced view, which hopefully also takes into account the (problem ?) of /lib32. On Wednesday 12 July 2006 09:15, Gudjon I. Gudjonsson wrote: Hi I hope I am not forcing my solutions to the list. I have had the problem with kernel 2.6 14 and 2.6.15 (2.6.13 never installed) that the computer froze, most often during heavy simulation but also without anything happening. The same happened to some i386 machines as well. With kernels 2.6.12 and 2.6.16 it hasn't crashed a single time. I have decided several times to stick to Debian testing but unstable seems to be more usable and less problematic in many ways. After reading the incoming mails and talking to my Debian friends I think I should recommend two things: http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages On this homepage, all of the debian packages and their contents can be search in such a simple way that even I can do it. The tool dselect is a very handy tool to install packages. I found it difficult to use, but it may be my fault. You can see the whole list of installed and available packages. A friend of min recommends aptitude but I haven't had the time to check it out properly. I found it easier to use that dselect, and I use it. Probably, any such help is a limitation to what can be done if one knowns the system adequately. Which is not my case. I found #aptitude useful to get a broad view on the system. Cheers francesco The only problem with dselect is that sometimes (when large unresolved upgrades occur) it want's to throw out several hundred packages at once and if I am not fast enough pressing x, then I need to press plus several hundred times. Pressing x and using apt-get under such circumstances works perfectly. Regards Gudjon Ps my old mailing list thread http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2006/02/msg00125.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: samba: untrusted packages ???
helices [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006:06:04:08:22:41+0200] scribed: helices [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What do you think? I think you need to read more. Google a bit and read what errors and warnings you get from commands. Since I updated yesterday, and attempted the samba install, the repository went from this: # apt-cache policy samba samba: Installed: (none) Candidate: 3.0.22-1 Version table: 3.0.22-1 0 500 ftp://mirrors.kernel.org unstable/main Packages 3.0.14a-3 0 100 ftp://debian.csail.mit.edu sarge/main Packages 100 ftp://ftp.at.debian.org sarge/main Packages 100 ftp://mirror.espri.arizona.edu sarge/main Packages To this: # apt-cache policy samba samba-common samba-doc samba: Installed: 3.0.22-1 Candidate: 3.0.22-1 Version table: *** 3.0.22-1 0 700 ftp://mirrors.kernel.org etch/main Packages 700 ftp://mirrors.kernel.org testing/main Packages Those two are the same, testing is a link to etch. Having samba in etch makes 0 difference for the trust/untrust issue though. 500 ftp://mirrors.kernel.org unstable/main Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 3.0.14a-3 0 100 ftp://debian.csail.mit.edu sarge/main Packages 100 ftp://ftp.at.debian.org sarge/main Packages 100 ftp://mirror.espri.arizona.edu sarge/main Packages Better don't mix sarge and etch. That can confuse apt. Now, of course, the installation went without a hitch; and samba is installed and functioning. However, back to my original problem: what caused the original error? untrusted versions of the following packages will be installed Yes, I googled; and I found several indications of issues with gpg key. So, is this really an apt-key issue, again? How can this be? I have been installing from mirrors.kernel.org for a long time; and onto this new amd64 box for at least one week. Maybe the previous apt-get update call just fetched a broken Release.gpg file and thus failed to authenticate the mirror. Believe it or not, that happens far too often. Now, after the next mirror pulse has corrected the problem, you got a working one and the problem disapeared. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: samba: untrusted packages ???
* Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006:06:05:09:38:40+0200] scribed: snip / Better don't mix sarge and etch. That can confuse apt. snip / Where can I read up on the ramifications of this? On this very list, I was advised to use sarge to get kde onto my system. My understanding of apt, preferences and pinning -- although a meager understanding -- is that mixing issues can be mitigated. What am I missing? Maybe the previous apt-get update call just fetched a broken Release.gpg file and thus failed to authenticate the mirror. Believe it or not, that happens far too often. Now, after the next mirror pulse has corrected the problem, you got a working one and the problem disapeared. OK. Is it fair to suppose that I am not a lazy moron; and that this is a fair explanation; rather than that I do not fully understand the subject error message? -- Best Regards, helices - Dare to fix things before they break . . . - Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . . -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: samba: untrusted packages ???
helices [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006:06:05:09:38:40+0200] scribed: snip / Better don't mix sarge and etch. That can confuse apt. snip / Where can I read up on the ramifications of this? On this very list, I was advised to use sarge to get kde onto my system. My understanding of apt, preferences and pinning -- although a meager understanding -- is that mixing issues can be mitigated. What am I missing? That sarge and etch/sid have the same package/version but different md5sum because all packages got rebuild. You can end up with apt-get upgrading a package again and again every time you upgrade. Maybe the previous apt-get update call just fetched a broken Release.gpg file and thus failed to authenticate the mirror. Believe it or not, that happens far too often. Now, after the next mirror pulse has corrected the problem, you got a working one and the problem disapeared. OK. Is it fair to suppose that I am not a lazy moron; and that this is a fair explanation; rather than that I do not fully understand the subject error message? You just didn't read the previous error message when you run apt-get update. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: samba: untrusted packages ???
helices [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What do you think? I think you need to read more. Google a bit and read what errors and warnings you get from commands. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: samba: untrusted packages ???
* Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006:06:04:08:22:41+0200] scribed: helices [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What do you think? I think you need to read more. Google a bit and read what errors and warnings you get from commands. Since I updated yesterday, and attempted the samba install, the repository went from this: # apt-cache policy samba samba: Installed: (none) Candidate: 3.0.22-1 Version table: 3.0.22-1 0 500 ftp://mirrors.kernel.org unstable/main Packages 3.0.14a-3 0 100 ftp://debian.csail.mit.edu sarge/main Packages 100 ftp://ftp.at.debian.org sarge/main Packages 100 ftp://mirror.espri.arizona.edu sarge/main Packages To this: # apt-cache policy samba samba-common samba-doc samba: Installed: 3.0.22-1 Candidate: 3.0.22-1 Version table: *** 3.0.22-1 0 700 ftp://mirrors.kernel.org etch/main Packages 700 ftp://mirrors.kernel.org testing/main Packages 500 ftp://mirrors.kernel.org unstable/main Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 3.0.14a-3 0 100 ftp://debian.csail.mit.edu sarge/main Packages 100 ftp://ftp.at.debian.org sarge/main Packages 100 ftp://mirror.espri.arizona.edu sarge/main Packages Now, of course, the installation went without a hitch; and samba is installed and functioning. However, back to my original problem: what caused the original error? untrusted versions of the following packages will be installed Yes, I googled; and I found several indications of issues with gpg key. So, is this really an apt-key issue, again? How can this be? I have been installing from mirrors.kernel.org for a long time; and onto this new amd64 box for at least one week. The only difference that I see is: unstable/main Packages -- vs -- etch/main Packages So, I have to ask, are there _different_ keys required for etch and unstable? What do you think? Am I on the right track? -- Best Regards, helices - Dare to fix things before they break . . . - Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . . -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
samba: untrusted packages ???
I want to install samba on the new amd64 system. This is the current state: # apt-cache policy samba samba-common samba-doc samba: Installed: (none) Candidate: 3.0.22-1 Version table: 3.0.22-1 0 500 ftp://mirrors.kernel.org unstable/main Packages 3.0.14a-3 0 100 ftp://debian.csail.mit.edu sarge/main Packages 100 ftp://ftp.at.debian.org sarge/main Packages 100 ftp://mirror.espri.arizona.edu sarge/main Packages samba-common: Installed: 3.0.22-1 Candidate: 3.0.22-1 Version table: *** 3.0.22-1 0 500 ftp://mirrors.kernel.org unstable/main Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 3.0.14a-3 0 100 ftp://debian.csail.mit.edu sarge/main Packages 100 ftp://ftp.at.debian.org sarge/main Packages 100 ftp://mirror.espri.arizona.edu sarge/main Packages samba-doc: Installed: 3.0.22-1 Candidate: 3.0.22-1 Version table: *** 3.0.22-1 0 700 ftp://mirrors.kernel.org etch/main Packages 700 ftp://mirrors.kernel.org testing/main Packages 500 ftp://mirrors.kernel.org unstable/main Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 3.0.14a-3 0 100 ftp://debian.csail.mit.edu sarge/main Packages 100 ftp://ftp.at.debian.org sarge/main Packages 100 ftp://mirror.espri.arizona.edu sarge/main Packages When I do this: # sudo aptitude -P install samba then, I get this: WARNING: untrusted versions of the following packages will be installed! Untrusted packages could compromise your system's security. You should only proceed with the installation if you are certain that this is what you want to do. libnet-ldap-perl libnet-ssleay-perl libdigest-sha1-perl smbldap-tools liburi-perl libhtml-parser-perl libfont-afm-perl libunicode-string-perl libtimedate-perl libdigest-md4-perl libhtml-tree-perl libmailtools-perl libcompress-zlib-perl libconvert-asn1-perl samba libhtml-format-perl libcrypt-smbhash-perl libunicode-map-perl libunicode-map8-perl libhtml-tagset-perl libwww-perl libjcode-pm-perl libio-socket-ssl-perl libunicode-maputf8-perl Do you want to ignore this warning and proceed anyway? To continue, enter Yes; to abort, enter No: no I have not encountered this before; and I do NOT want to assume that I understand all of the ramifications. What do you think? -- Best Regards, helices - Dare to fix things before they break . . . - Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . . -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Problems with upgrading packages in unstable
When running unstable on my amd64 system, I am encountering problems upgrading five packages. The packages with the problems are docker, libbonobo2-0, libgtk2.0-bin, libselinux1, and openntpd. After upgrading them, they stay in the list of packages to be upgraded. Forcing a purge on them and reinstalling does not help the problem. This behavior started after moving from the archive on amd64.debian.net to the ftp.us.debian.org mirror. Here is the output from two subsequent aptitude upgrade runs: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo aptitude upgrade Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Reading extended state information Initializing package states... Done Reading task descriptions... Done Building tag database... Done The following packages will be upgraded: docker libbonobo2-0 libgtk2.0-bin libselinux1 openntpd 5 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 0B/306kB of archives. After unpacking 0B will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?] y (snipped output) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo aptitude upgrade Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Reading extended state information Initializing package states... Done Reading task descriptions... Done Building tag database... Done The following packages will be upgraded: docker libbonobo2-0 libgtk2.0-bin libselinux1 openntpd 5 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 0B/306kB of archives. After unpacking 0B will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?] y (snipped output same as above) Thanks for your help! -- Ed
PHP5 dotdeb packages - incorrect MySQL Client API version
Hello, I'm running Sarge on amd64 with php5 and mysql5 packages from the dotdeb repository. Recently, I've run into an issue where I'm unable to insert or update tables. PHP version is 5.1.2 and MySQL is 5.0.19. One thing I've noticed that is odd is that in phpinfo(), the mysql section shows: Client API version 4.1.15 The libmysqlclient14 (version 4.1.15) package is installed as a dependency of php5-mysql. If I try to remove it, it also wants to remove several other packages, including mysql-server-5.0 and mysql-client-5.0. Neither of these list libmysqlclient14 as a dependency only php5-mysql and php5-mysqli do. Is there anything I'm doing wrong here? Or does it look more like the packages in this are repository broken? If it is the latter, are there any other up-to-date php5 and mysql5 packages for amd64? I'd rather not build my own PHP, but I may have to. Thanks! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Propagation of packages and udebs for D-I Beta2
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 06:04:07PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 03:54:34PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: Urgent (?) hints are needed for: - linux-2.6/2.6.15-7 - udev/0.085-1# Fixes important issue on hppa (#353480) These hints are queued to be added on Sunday. It looks like the only action-items in this mail are udeb migration (Jeroen) Done --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Propagation of packages and udebs for D-I Beta2
Almost everyting we need/want for Beta2 is already in testing. The main things that need hinting to go in early are the 2.6.15-7 kernel and udev; both have already been OKed by their respective maintainers. If possible I would like to have debs and udebs migrating on the same day. Steve has agreed to add the hints for the kernel (and udev) on Sunday, and thus migration for Monday dinstall. Urgent (?) hints are needed for: - linux-2.6/2.6.15-7 - udev/0.085-1# Fixes important issue on hppa (#353480) I would suggest also allowing wireless-tools which is now 9 days old. This means Joey's existing hint needs to be updated to 27+28pre14-1. Joey: the hint for devmapper can be removed, that is blocked by lvm2 after all. Udeb migration hints are needed for: - dmidecode (deb migrated 23/2) - base-installer - clock-setup - preseed - udev - wireless tools - All 2.6 kernel udeb packages (should all be in the archive by Sun): - linux-kernel-di-alpha-2.6 - linux-kernel-di-arm-2.6 - linux-kernel-di-hppa-2.6 - linux-kernel-di-i386-2.6 - linux-kernel-di-ia64-2.6 - linux-kernel-di-m68k-2.6 - linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6 - linux-kernel-di-sparc-2.6 The same migrations should also happen for AMD64. TIA, Frans Pop pgpwlcsSmqebG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Propagation of packages and udebs for D-I Beta2
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 03:54:34PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: Urgent (?) hints are needed for: - linux-2.6/2.6.15-7 - udev/0.085-1# Fixes important issue on hppa (#353480) These hints are queued to be added on Sunday. It looks like the only action-items in this mail are udeb migration (Jeroen) and fixing the wireless-tools hint (Joey). Correct? I would suggest also allowing wireless-tools which is now 9 days old. This means Joey's existing hint needs to be updated to 27+28pre14-1. Joey: the hint for devmapper can be removed, that is blocked by lvm2 after all. Udeb migration hints are needed for: - dmidecode (deb migrated 23/2) - base-installer - clock-setup - preseed - udev - wireless tools - All 2.6 kernel udeb packages (should all be in the archive by Sun): - linux-kernel-di-alpha-2.6 - linux-kernel-di-arm-2.6 - linux-kernel-di-hppa-2.6 - linux-kernel-di-i386-2.6 - linux-kernel-di-ia64-2.6 - linux-kernel-di-m68k-2.6 - linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6 - linux-kernel-di-sparc-2.6 -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Conflicts at install with packages kcpuload, knetload and kaquarium
Hello! The packages kcpuload, knetload and kaquarium require the lib kdelibs4c2, but kdelibs4c2a is the new name of the lib! I reportet it already to the Debian BTS, but they telled me that it's the false address and i have to report it to the amd64-team! Lari -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Questions about the nvidia packages.
Hi. First of all. Until now (I've just switched from i386 to a amd64 Debian) I've always used the vanilla files from nvidia.com (and their installer). The problem of course is that this passes the package systems, overwrites Xlibs etc. etc. So I'd like to use the Debian way now :-) However, I must admit that I have problems to understand how to correctly do so. 1) I'm using my own kernel created with make-kpkg. With my old i386 system I've always used the vanilla sources but now I'll give the debian sources a try. So I've installed linux-tree-something. First of all is there documentation about how the Debian-kernel-way works? I mean there is the linux-source-xx package and the linux-patch-debian-xxx. The source package already says, that it's a patched version (from vanilla). (btw: How can I find out what changes have been applied to each source-xxx?) Which patches does the patch pagage contain? (I've read all the /usr/share/doc/ stuff but it didn't become clear to me). Ok, when I use make-kpkg are the patches from the patch-debian package automatically applied? If not, should I apply them? And whats the designated way to apply own patches (e.g. reiser4, or so = the deb-package for it is totally out of date)? E.g. should they be copied to the directories from the patch-debian-package? 2) back to nvidia problems: What are the different packages for? (nvidia-kernel-common, nvidia-kernel-source, nvidia-glx) One must contain the binary-only libs (for X), another the binary only module (nvidia), and one must contain the hooks and interface for the kernel. 3) About the same as 1) (- patches): Whats the Debian-way of creating external (not from the vanilla sources) modules? Is there some good document or so (for the whole Debian-way in kernel/patches/modules matters?). 4) Last but not least: My graphic card requires one of the newer drivers from nvidia (it does not work correctly with the 7147). Why are the packages for newer versions in i386 but not amd64? Thanks and best wishes, Chris. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions about the nvidia packages.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 04:49:16PM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: Hi. First of all. Until now (I've just switched from i386 to a amd64 Debian) I've always used the vanilla files from nvidia.com (and their installer). The problem of course is that this passes the package systems, overwrites Xlibs etc. etc. So I'd like to use the Debian way now :-) However, I must admit that I have problems to understand how to correctly do so. 1) I'm using my own kernel created with make-kpkg. With my old i386 system I've always used the vanilla sources but now I'll give the debian sources a try. So I've installed linux-tree-something. First of all is there documentation about how the Debian-kernel-way works? I mean there is the linux-source-xx package and the linux-patch-debian-xxx. You can stick with your own kernel if you want. No reason to change if it works for you. The source package already says, that it's a patched version (from vanilla). (btw: How can I find out what changes have been applied to each source-xxx?) Which patches does the patch pagage contain? (I've read all the /usr/share/doc/ stuff but it didn't become clear to me). Ok, when I use make-kpkg are the patches from the patch-debian package automatically applied? If not, should I apply them? And whats the designated way to apply own patches (e.g. reiser4, or so = the deb-package for it is totally out of date)? E.g. should they be copied to the directories from the patch-debian-package? 2) back to nvidia problems: What are the different packages for? (nvidia-kernel-common, nvidia-kernel-source, nvidia-glx) nvidia-kernel-common provides some startup scripts and such. nvidia-kernel-source provides the kernel driver code that has to be compiled for each kernel you want to run it with. module-assistant (m-a) is a great tool for compiling that against your kernel sources. nvidia-glx is the actual X driver that talks to the kernel modules. I am tempted personally to add this to a startup script: modprobe nvidia || m-a -t a-i nvidia modprobe nvidia That should take care of rebuilding the nvidia driver when the kernel changes. One must contain the binary-only libs (for X), another the binary only module (nvidia), and one must contain the hooks and interface for the kernel. nvidia-glx is the binary X driver. nvidia-kernel-source contains the kernel hooks code and the binary parts for the kernel. 3) About the same as 1) (- patches): Whats the Debian-way of creating external (not from the vanilla sources) modules? Is there some good document or so (for the whole Debian-way in kernel/patches/modules matters?). Hmm, no clue about that dir. Never had to look at it. 4) Last but not least: My graphic card requires one of the newer drivers from nvidia (it does not work correctly with the 7147). Why are the packages for newer versions in i386 but not amd64? You can simple grab the source package from i386 and build it on amd64. Works just fine. nvidia being non-free and amd64 being still unofficial and such means a few things don't get auto built. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions about the nvidia packages.
On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 16:49 +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: 1) I'm using my own kernel created with make-kpkg. With my old i386 system I've always used the vanilla sources but now I'll give the debian sources a try. So I've installed linux-tree-something. First of all is there documentation about how the Debian-kernel-way works? I mean there is the linux-source-xx package and the linux-patch-debian-xxx. http://newbiedoc.sourceforge.net/system/kernel-pkg.html 3) About the same as 1) (- patches): Whats the Debian-way of creating external (not from the vanilla sources) modules? Is there some good document or so (for the whole Debian-way in kernel/patches/modules matters?). See URL above. 4) Last but not least: My graphic card requires one of the newer drivers from nvidia (it does not work correctly with the 7147). Why are the packages for newer versions in i386 but not amd64? Randall Donald is the DD who maintains all the nvidia packages. He also maintains a web page with news about his work @ http://people.debian.org/~rdonald/ An unofficial package repository is also provided, which you can access by adding the following to your source.list: deb http://people.debian.org/~rdonald/nvidia unstable/amd64/ deb http://people.debian.org/~rdonald/nvidia unstable/all/ One you have the nvidia-kernel-source package installed, it's just a case of: make-kpkg --rootcmd=fakeroot --append-to-version=xxx --added-modules=nvidia-kernel modules_image This results in the creation of a nvidia-kernel*.deb image, which you can install with dpkg. Note that the nvidia-glx package will _not_ install until after nvidia-kernel. I'm running a 2.6.15 kernel with the latest .8178 nvidia drivers here, and haven't experienced any problems whatsoever. HTH -- Adam James [EMAIL PROTECTED] PROOF OF GOD'S EXISTENCE #313: ARGUMENT FROM WHEAT (1) A grain of wheat will always fall to the ground and the outer shell dies. (2) But see, eventually the grain will grow into a fuller, more vital form. (3) Hey, that's kinda like the Resurrection! (4) Therefore, God Exists. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
why new packages take so long to enter?
Hi. Many days ago two packages in sid caught my eye: firefox (a replacement for the new mozilla-firefox package) and update-notifier. However, a couple of weeks later, they still haven't hit amd64's sid. Why is this? TIA, Rafael Rodríguez
frustration at missing packages
It's frustrating that quite a lot of packages are not available on amd64, particularly when it's simply because the maintainer has not applied a patch. Andreas Jochens in particular has supplied hundreds of patches. See http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=submitterdata=aj%40andaco.dearchive=noversion=dist=unstable for a list of outstanding bugs. Thanks very much Andreas; this is great work. Is there an automated list of which packages are missing on amd64? Is there an NMU policy that we could be using to get these fixed? Some of the patches are 250+ days old, and against packages that haven't been uploaded in 1-2 years. changelogs.debian.net/package is very useful here; a link from the BTS could be handy. I recently NMU'd tct, primarily to fix the amd64 ftbfs. This took about two weeks in all, since I first contacted the maintainer (no reply) then uploaded to the 7-day delayed queue. In that case there hadn't been a maintainer upload in over 2 years, else I'd probably have waited longer. thanks, Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: frustration at missing packages
Hamish Moffatt schrieb: It's frustrating that quite a lot of packages are not available on amd64, particularly when it's simply because the maintainer has not applied a patch. Ayay. Is there an automated list of which packages are missing on amd64? http://amd64.debian.net/docs/package_changes.txt lists whats missing in sarge due to this. Is there an NMU policy that we could be using to get these fixed? Nope. Until amd64 isnt on ftp-master.debian.org there is no way to force the maintainers to apply a patch. Its fucking silly from them to not include them, as its clear that amd64 is RC for etch, but well... Also for sarge there is sarge-unsupported, containing sarge-sources with the patches needed for amd64. As name says - unsupported. Talk to fs if you want something there. -- bye Joerg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sarge non-free/Packages is empty
Hi all. It seems that the Debian amd64 non-free Packages files for sarge got truncated. Could one of the archive maintainers cause that file to be regenerated, or was this intentional for some reason? My mirror suggests that it was last touched on Aug. 12. Thanks. noah signature.asc Description: Digital signature
unable to upgrade packages via apt-get
Hello, For the past while I have been experiencing problems with my apt-get command and I was wondering if anyone might be able to help me with my difficulties. The problem is that my apt-get will not seam to update/upgrade any of my packages even though I know there are new packages available by looking in /var/lib/dpkg/available. As an example, I currently have lynx V2.8.5REL1 installed but my /var/lib/dpkg/available file indicates that the latest package is Lynx V2.8.5-2. When I execute: apt-get upgrade or apt-get dist-upgrade I get: Reading Package Lists... Building Dependency Tree... 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. This seams to be the standard response from the apt-get command as it does this for other packages as well. In fact it has been a couple of months since any packages have updated/upgraded. My sources.list is as follows: (I have tried the Bytekeeper mirror in Belgium as well with identical results) deb ftp://ftp.debian.de/debian-amd64/debian-amd64 sarge contrib main non-free deb-src ftp://ftp.debian.de/debian-amd64/debian-amd64 sarge contrib main non-free When I run: apt-get update it does return information about hitting kmy sources so I believe that is working. Any ideas much appreciated. Thanks, Monty -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: unable to upgrade packages via apt-get
Monty wrote: The problem is that my apt-get will not seam to update/upgrade any of my packages even though I know there are new packages available by looking in /var/lib/dpkg/available. As an example, I currently have lynx V2.8.5REL1 installed but my /var/lib/dpkg/available file indicates that the latest package is Lynx V2.8.5-2. When I execute: apt-get upgrade or apt-get dist-upgrade I get: That really does not make sense to me. What does apt-cache policy say? apt-cache policy lynx You may have some type of pinning active which is declaring a preference for the stable depot. Reading Package Lists... Building Dependency Tree... 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. This seams to be the standard response from the apt-get command as it does this for other packages as well. In fact it has been a couple of months since any packages have updated/upgraded. You seem to have missed the announcements that Sarge has been released. Sarge is now the Debian stable release. There have not been any changes to Sarge for months. It won't be changing again except for security updates and for the regularly produced minor updates (adding an r# such as 3.0r6 to the release). My sources.list is as follows: (I have tried the Bytekeeper mirror in Belgium as well with identical results) deb ftp://ftp.debian.de/debian-amd64/debian-amd64 sarge contrib main non-free deb-src ftp://ftp.debian.de/debian-amd64/debian-amd64 sarge contrib main non-free You seem to be missing the security updates. These are strongly recommended. You should add the following to your sources.list file to install Debian security updates. deb http://security.debian.org/ sarge/updates main contrib non-free If you want to track testing then you would need to change the sarge to either etch or testing. I would not recommend either etch or sid at the moment. There are too many transitions all happening at once. Bob signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: unable to upgrade packages via apt-get
Monty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello, For the past while I have been experiencing problems with my apt-get command and I was wondering if anyone might be able to help me with my difficulties. The problem is that my apt-get will not seam to update/upgrade any of my packages even though I know there are new packages available by looking in /var/lib/dpkg/available. As an example, I currently have lynx V2.8.5REL1 installed but my /var/lib/dpkg/available file indicates that the latest package is Lynx V2.8.5-2. When I execute: apt-get upgrade or apt-get dist-upgrade I get: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% apt-cache policy lynx lynx: Installed: 2.8.5-2 Candidate: 2.8.5-2 Version table: *** 2.8.5-2 0 500 copy: sarge/main Packages 500 http://amd64.debian.net sarge/main Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status Sarge indeed does have 2.8.5-2 as latest version but that isn't even the problem: $ dpkg --compare-versions 2.8.5-2 2.8.5REL1 echo yes yes Your local version of lynx is newer than the latest version in sarge. Installing the sarge version would be downgrading. Reading Package Lists... Building Dependency Tree... 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. This seams to be the standard response from the apt-get command as it does this for other packages as well. In fact it has been a couple of months since any packages have updated/upgraded. My sources.list is as follows: (I have tried the Bytekeeper mirror in Belgium as well with identical results) deb ftp://ftp.debian.de/debian-amd64/debian-amd64 sarge contrib main non-free deb-src ftp://ftp.debian.de/debian-amd64/debian-amd64 sarge contrib main non-free That seems to work fine. $ bzcat Packages.bz2 | grep-dctrl -X -P lynx Package: lynx Priority: optional Section: web Installed-Size: 4676 Maintainer: James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] Architecture: amd64 Version: 2.8.5-2 ... When I run: apt-get update it does return information about hitting kmy sources so I believe that is working. Any ideas much appreciated. Thanks, Monty Try creating the following [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% cat /etc/apt/preferences Package: * Pin: release o=Debian-amd64,a=stable,v=3.1r0 Pin-Priority: 1001 and then 'apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade' to downgrade back to sarge. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
kernel packages
hi guys, there was a thread about sources for 2.6.12 kernels on debian-user. i was just wondering how to get these sources for amd64. they propose (for 32bit, i guess) deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian testing main contrib non-free to /etc/apt/sources.list # apt-get update # apt-cache search kernel-image or # apt-cache search linux-image # apt-get install linux-image-2.6.12-1-686 apt-cache search kernel-image gives me a bunch of 2.4.x and 2.6.8-11 entries only on my machine what i have to do to have these sources on my testing (currently kernel 2.6.11). i downloaded the packages for kernel i'm using just now myself... or are these packages in unstable only? i'd like to stay with testing, however new kernel might bring more support for my hardware... search for 2.6.12 amd64 gave me http://packages.debian.org/unstable/base/linux-image-2.6.12-1-amd64-k8 thanks for any hint. best regards, -- Lubos [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel packages
Hi Lubos, linux-2.6 (the source package) has a grave bug AND is still too young to propagate into testing. See http://packages.qa.debian.org/l/linux-2.6.html -Pascal On 8/5/05, Lubos Vrbka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi guys, there was a thread about sources for 2.6.12 kernels on debian-user. i was just wondering how to get these sources for amd64. they propose (for 32bit, i guess) deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian testing main contrib non-free to /etc/apt/sources.list # apt-get update # apt-cache search kernel-image or # apt-cache search linux-image # apt-get install linux-image-2.6.12-1-686 apt-cache search kernel-image gives me a bunch of 2.4.x and 2.6.8-11 entries only on my machine what i have to do to have these sources on my testing (currently kernel 2.6.11). i downloaded the packages for kernel i'm using just now myself... or are these packages in unstable only? i'd like to stay with testing, however new kernel might bring more support for my hardware... search for 2.6.12 amd64 gave me http://packages.debian.org/unstable/base/linux-image-2.6.12-1-amd64-k8 thanks for any hint. best regards, -- Lubos [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- XBGM# (http://xbgm.sf.net) MoviXMaker-2 (http://sv.gnu.org/projects/movixmaker) [e]MoviX[2] (http://movix.sf.net) Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org)
Uploading packages
Hi, ftp-master still refuses amd64 packages. Can i upload my amd64 packages somewhere or i should simply wait for the autobuilds? -Pascal -- XBGM# (http://xbgm.sf.net) MoviXMaker-2 (http://sv.gnu.org/projects/movixmaker) [e]MoviX[2] (http://movix.sf.net) Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org)
Re: Uploading packages
On 10372 March 1977, Pascal Giard wrote: ftp-master still refuses amd64 packages. Can i upload my amd64 packages somewhere or i should simply wait for the autobuilds? Wait. -- bye Joerg I think there's a world market for about five computers. -- attr. Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board, IBM), 1943 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Where are the packages ?
Hello ! Did I miss something ? All the packages in main are gone. Only the packages in non-free are there. This is my last known entry in sources.list: deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 sid main contrib non-free deb-src http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 sid main contrib non-free Was there a change ? Please let me know. Thank you very much in advance. Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where are the packages ?
On (24/07/05 08:28), Hans wrote: Did I miss something ? All the packages in main are gone. Only the packages in non-free are there. This is my last known entry in sources.list: deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 sid main contrib non-free deb-src http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 sid main contrib non-free Was there a change ? Please let me know. Yes there was. Try: deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-amd64/debian/ sid main contrib non-free deb-src http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-amd64/debian/ sid main contrib non-free or: deb http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian-amd64/debian/ sid main contrib non-free deb-src http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian-amd64/debian/ sid main contrib non-free Regards Clive -- www.clivemenzies.co.uk ... ...strategies for business -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where are the packages ?
Hans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello ! Did I miss something ? All the packages in main are gone. Only the packages in non-free are there. This is my last known entry in sources.list: deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 sid main contrib non-free deb-src http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 sid main contrib non-free Was there a change ? Please let me know. Thank you very much in advance. Hans There were a few of them all announced on this list. Run apt-setup and pick a local mirror. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [update] More 32bit packages for amd64
Hi! By the way, can the same (or modified) approach be used for the installation of 32bit Flash Player Plugin? wbr, Kirill. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [update] More 32bit packages for amd64
v0n0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Goswin von Brederlow ha scritto: - dpkg -i amd64-archive_0.2_amd64.deb This will download the i386 debs and convert them. Gives a lot of output. ok, went well (when I installed dependancies), but downloaded and mangled sarge-etch-sid versions of every package! Why? In my sources I have only Etch and Sid The default config contains all thre, sarge, etch and sid. I haven't written code to check what the host uses nor a debconf question for it yet. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [update] More 32bit packages for amd64
Ed Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Monday 18 July 2005 09:03, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Ed Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sunday 17 July 2005 13:28, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Package fetching is done by reprepro and turning it more verbose gives some more messages but not a download progress for files. The package fetching is also going to be done by a cron job normaly. Unless it gets an error it should not say anything (in the finished package). I will think about something for the initial install but my current plan is to have it create an empty archive and start the cron job once manualy in the background. So, having an interactive (i.e. with download progress) update script is not a high priority just now. Later, for people that don't want the cron job, maybe. But the reprepro maintainer has to provide support for that. How well will this work? For instance, I do not really want to maintain a chroot. The one app I sometimes miss is wine. Do you think this can be supported with the new package arch? TIA, Ed Tomlinson Add wine and libwine to packages.list and it probably works already. I haven't found anything besides libc6 which needs special tricks for the conversion yet, the general conversion rules work very well. This ends up with: The following packages have unmet dependencies: ia32-libwine: Depends: xlibmesa3-gl which is a virtual package. or xlibmesa* needs to be renamed. The renaming only knows a few patterns besides lib* that it renames. Anyway, xlibmesa-gl replaces xlibmesa3-gl under sarge from what i see and that is a real package. ia32-libgl1 which is a virtual package. which does not seem to want to resolve... here is what I added: wine libncurses5 libxi6 libwine Suspect that one of these libs might need some help. And wine is on my todo. Next time I wanna play StarCraft at the latest. Thanks Ed Tomlinson If it doesn't install then you are just missing some packages usualy. There could be some sideeffects of conflicts/provides/replaces combination at work though. libgl1 does have a few of those and I guess a simple 32bit package of it would depend and conflcit with the amd64 package without special treatment. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [update] More 32bit packages for amd64
On Sunday 17 July 2005 13:28, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Package fetching is done by reprepro and turning it more verbose gives some more messages but not a download progress for files. The package fetching is also going to be done by a cron job normaly. Unless it gets an error it should not say anything (in the finished package). I will think about something for the initial install but my current plan is to have it create an empty archive and start the cron job once manualy in the background. So, having an interactive (i.e. with download progress) update script is not a high priority just now. Later, for people that don't want the cron job, maybe. But the reprepro maintainer has to provide support for that. How well will this work? For instance, I do not really want to maintain a chroot. The one app I sometimes miss is wine. Do you think this can be supported with the new package arch? TIA, Ed Tomlinson
Re: [update] More 32bit packages for amd64
Ed Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sunday 17 July 2005 13:28, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Package fetching is done by reprepro and turning it more verbose gives some more messages but not a download progress for files. The package fetching is also going to be done by a cron job normaly. Unless it gets an error it should not say anything (in the finished package). I will think about something for the initial install but my current plan is to have it create an empty archive and start the cron job once manualy in the background. So, having an interactive (i.e. with download progress) update script is not a high priority just now. Later, for people that don't want the cron job, maybe. But the reprepro maintainer has to provide support for that. How well will this work? For instance, I do not really want to maintain a chroot. The one app I sometimes miss is wine. Do you think this can be supported with the new package arch? TIA, Ed Tomlinson Add wine and libwine to packages.list and it probably works already. I haven't found anything besides libc6 which needs special tricks for the conversion yet, the general conversion rules work very well. And wine is on my todo. Next time I wanna play StarCraft at the latest. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [update] More 32bit packages for amd64
On Monday 18 July 2005 09:03, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Ed Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sunday 17 July 2005 13:28, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Package fetching is done by reprepro and turning it more verbose gives some more messages but not a download progress for files. The package fetching is also going to be done by a cron job normaly. Unless it gets an error it should not say anything (in the finished package). I will think about something for the initial install but my current plan is to have it create an empty archive and start the cron job once manualy in the background. So, having an interactive (i.e. with download progress) update script is not a high priority just now. Later, for people that don't want the cron job, maybe. But the reprepro maintainer has to provide support for that. How well will this work? For instance, I do not really want to maintain a chroot. The one app I sometimes miss is wine. Do you think this can be supported with the new package arch? TIA, Ed Tomlinson Add wine and libwine to packages.list and it probably works already. I haven't found anything besides libc6 which needs special tricks for the conversion yet, the general conversion rules work very well. This ends up with: The following packages have unmet dependencies: ia32-libwine: Depends: xlibmesa3-gl which is a virtual package. or ia32-libgl1 which is a virtual package. which does not seem to want to resolve... here is what I added: wine libncurses5 libxi6 libwine Suspect that one of these libs might need some help. And wine is on my todo. Next time I wanna play StarCraft at the latest. Thanks Ed Tomlinson
Re: [update] More 32bit packages for amd64
I got it to work, but not as you suggested. Ah, I knew there was a reason why I used Pre-Depends: lib32gcc1 before. 'apt-get install --reinstall ia32-libc6' should restore the link. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% ls -lh /lib/i486-linux/libgcc_s.so.1 lrwxrwxrwx 1 amd64-archive root 38 Jul 16 14:53 /lib/i486-linux/libgcc_s.so.1 - /emul/ia32-linux/usr/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 It actually does not. But this may be due to the fact below. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% dpkg -S /emul/ia32-linux/usr/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 lib32gcc1: /emul/ia32-linux/usr/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 lib32gcc1 does not contain this file on my system, but instead it contains /usr/lib32/libgcc_s.so.1, so if I link this one to /lib/i486-linux/libgcc_s.so.1, then everything works :-) So this feedback might help you to improve the amd64-archive package. Thanks a lot for this great work! Frank -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [update] More 32bit packages for amd64
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 09:59:43PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Check what apt-get wants to remove as it might remove the wrong thing. It works for me but you might have something else installed. Removing ia32-libs is intentional though. Here it doesn't remove ia32-libs. But it seems, OOo runs fine besides locale warnings: Setup complete. Running openoffice.org... I18N: X Window System doesn't support locale de_DE.UTF-8 I18N: X Window System doesn't support locale C As always, report success or failure please. Done. ;-) And thanks for your work. Shade and sweet water! Stephan -- | Stephan SeitzE-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | WWW: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/| | PGP Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/pgp.html | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [update] More 32bit packages for amd64
Stephan Seitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 09:59:43PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Check what apt-get wants to remove as it might remove the wrong thing. It works for me but you might have something else installed. Removing ia32-libs is intentional though. Here it doesn't remove ia32-libs. But it seems, OOo runs fine besides locale warnings: Hehe, I changed it to Replace instead of Conflicts during testing and forgot to revert that. Will be fixed on the next upload. Doesn't realy hurt to have them both. It is just that they both (ia32-libs and ia32-libc6) have the 32bit ld. Setup complete. Running openoffice.org... I18N: X Window System doesn't support locale de_DE.UTF-8 I18N: X Window System doesn't support locale C [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% openoffice I18N: X Window System doesn't support locale en_US I18N: X Window System doesn't support locale C Same here. I think I have to generate locales for 32bit or link them to /lib/i486-linux or something. Any hints are welcome before I go dig them out myself. As always, report success or failure please. Done. ;-) And thanks for your work. Shade and sweet water! Stephan MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [update] More 32bit packages for amd64
Hi! As always, report success or failure please. Everything passed well - many thanks! I used sarge repository, because there are some problems with libraries in etch/sid - they seem to be doing transition to the new version of Word Perfect support library, named libwpd8c2 instead of libwpd8 -- the OO package deps are not updated so the etch/sid installation didn't work for me. It would be nice to have some more messages during lists update/packages fetching -- on slow connections it is difficult to understand is it stuck or still doing something. (I used 'du /var/lib/amd64-archive/lists' and 'du /var/lib/amd64-archive/pool' to check if the script still working). wbr, Kirill. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [update] More 32bit packages for amd64
Kirill Belokurov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi! As always, report success or failure please. Everything passed well - many thanks! I used sarge repository, because there Good, thx. are some problems with libraries in etch/sid - they seem to be doing transition to the new version of Word Perfect support library, named libwpd8c2 instead of libwpd8 -- the OO package deps are not updated so the etch/sid installation didn't work for me. That will probably continue for quite a while till the c++ wave hits OOo. Too many dependencies. But etch should (theoreticaly) be free from those. It would be nice to have some more messages during lists update/packages fetching -- on slow connections it is difficult to understand is it stuck or still doing something. (I used 'du /var/lib/amd64-archive/lists' and 'du /var/lib/amd64-archive/pool' to check if the script still working). Package fetching is done by reprepro and turning it more verbose gives some more messages but not a download progress for files. The package fetching is also going to be done by a cron job normaly. Unless it gets an error it should not say anything (in the finished package). I will think about something for the initial install but my current plan is to have it create an empty archive and start the cron job once manualy in the background. So, having an interactive (i.e. with download progress) update script is not a high priority just now. Later, for people that don't want the cron job, maybe. But the reprepro maintainer has to provide support for that. wbr, Kirill. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [update] More 32bit packages for amd64
Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Am Freitag, 15. Juli 2005 21:59 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow: Hi, I added OpenOffice.org to amd64-archive now and fixed the resulting problems. I can now install and run OOo without any chroot with this. The package isn't perfect yet so there are some details you have to do for now: ... As always, report success or failure please. I found a few missing dependencies: - grep-dctrl (for grep-dctrl) - devscripts (for dch) Then the installation went fine, although I don't really understand what it is doing. Is it kind of a replacement for the ia32libs? It replaces the ia32-libs packages and adds more debs to the mix. The ia32-libs package must carry all the sources and 32bit debs inside the ia32-libs_ver.tar.gz file for GPL compliance and is insanely huge (205MB) due to this. It also is only updated infrequently because it needs manual intervention and a 205MB upload for every little change. amd64-archive on the other hand only carries the script to convert the debs and fetches them from the i386 archive. So no useless weight and no update problems. A (not yet there) cron job updates the local archive whenever the i386 archive changes. It also can work on other repositories. My next goal is mplayer-686 and w32codecs from marilat. But unfortunately OpenOffice doesn't start after installing: $ oowriter OpenOffice.org for Debian - see /usr/share/doc/openoffice.org/README.Debian.gz running openoffice.org setup... /usr/lib/openoffice/program/setup.bin: error while loading shared libraries: libgcc_s.so.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory setup failed (code 0).. abort Please read /usr/share/doc/openoffice.org/README.Debian.gz for known problems - Do you understand this? Ah, I knew there was a reason why I used Pre-Depends: lib32gcc1 before. 'apt-get install --reinstall ia32-libc6' should restore the link. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% ls -lh /lib/i486-linux/libgcc_s.so.1 lrwxrwxrwx 1 amd64-archive root 38 Jul 16 14:53 /lib/i486-linux/libgcc_s.so.1 - /emul/ia32-linux/usr/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% dpkg -S /lib/i486-linux/libgcc_s.so.1 ia32-libc6: /lib/i486-linux/libgcc_s.so.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% dpkg -S /emul/ia32-linux/usr/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 lib32gcc1: /emul/ia32-linux/usr/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 Thanks, Frank MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New 32bit packages for amd64
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 14:06 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 20:40 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 18:22 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Hi, [snip] 37.5 cent packages? ;) (Or is that solely an Americanism?) I don't get that. Must be an Americanism. This hearkens back to when Spanish gold coins were common currency in the colonies. Their value was based on the gold, and not the good faith and credit of Spain, and they were easily split into 8 equal parts. Each bit was thus == 1/8th of a dollar. 2 bits is still[0] in slang use to mean a quarter dollar, and also a slur to mean anything cheap. A 2 bit pair of shoes, for example. Thus, 3 bits == 37.5 cents. And in this case, it was just humor. [0] But fading fast, since not much is worth a quarter anymore. ok, this might be off-topic by now, but I always wanted to know: is this expression related to the saying 'just my two cents' or 'just my two pennies worth'? If not, maybe someone could enter with an explanation about the origin of this phrase? Thanks for this little etymological field trip :-) Franz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New 32bit packages for amd64
Franz Schenk wrote: ok, this might be off-topic by now, but I always wanted to know: is this expression related to the saying 'just my two cents' or 'just my two pennies worth'? If not, maybe someone could enter with an explanation about the origin of this phrase? Maybe this is helpful: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=2+cents A humble opinion. Just being humble and saying its worth only two cents. But I don't _really_ know where it comes from. This is just my two cents. ;) Bye, Johannes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
New 3bit packages for amd64
Hi, I've uploaded an update of amd64-archive to http://amd64.debian.net/~goswin/amd64-archive/. Version 0.2 comes with support for rar and qemu and all their libs preconfigured now. Next thing I will add is probably mplayer-686 and w32codecs but you can test other packages yourself if you like. Simple packages just have to be added to the package list. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New 3bit packages for amd64
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 18:22 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Hi, [snip] 37.5 cent packages? ;) (Or is that solely an Americanism?) -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. John Kenneth Galbraith signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: New 3bit packages for amd64
Hi Goswin, El jue, 14-07-2005 a las 18:22 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow escribió: Hi, I've uploaded an update of amd64-archive to http://amd64.debian.net/~goswin/amd64-archive/. Version 0.2 comes with support for rar and qemu and all their libs preconfigured now. Next thing I will add is probably mplayer-686 and w32codecs but you can test other packages yourself if you like. Simple packages just have to be added to the package list. What does this thing do? Greetings, -- Javier Kohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: blashyrkh #2361802 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: New 32bit packages for amd64
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 18:22 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Hi, [snip] 37.5 cent packages? ;) (Or is that solely an Americanism?) I don't get that. Must be an Americanism. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New 32bit packages for amd64
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 20:40 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 18:22 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Hi, [snip] 37.5 cent packages? ;) (Or is that solely an Americanism?) I don't get that. Must be an Americanism. This hearkens back to when Spanish gold coins were common currency in the colonies. Their value was based on the gold, and not the good faith and credit of Spain, and they were easily split into 8 equal parts. Each bit was thus == 1/8th of a dollar. 2 bits is still[0] in slang use to mean a quarter dollar, and also a slur to mean anything cheap. A 2 bit pair of shoes, for example. Thus, 3 bits == 37.5 cents. And in this case, it was just humor. [0] But fading fast, since not much is worth a quarter anymore. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. Nothing is so admirable in politics as a short memory. John Kenneth Galbraith signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: New 32bit packages for amd64
On Thursday 14 July 2005 01:40 pm, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 18:22 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Hi, [snip] 37.5 cent packages? ;) (Or is that solely an Americanism?) I don't get that. Must be an Americanism. MfG Goswin The term 2 bits is a colloquialism for 25 cents ($0.25). So, 3 bits would be 37.5 cents. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the term has it's origins in the old Spanish gold coin which was called a piece of eight because it could be divided into eight pie-shaped bits. Ergo, a quarter of the coin was 2 bits. Cheers! cmr -- Debian 'Sarge': Registered Linux User #241964 More laws, less justice. -- Marcus Tullius Ciceroca, 42 BC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New 3bit packages for amd64
Javier Kohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Goswin, El jue, 14-07-2005 a las 18:22 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow escribió: Hi, I've uploaded an update of amd64-archive to http://amd64.debian.net/~goswin/amd64-archive/. Version 0.2 comes with support for rar and qemu and all their libs preconfigured now. Next thing I will add is probably mplayer-686 and w32codecs but you can test other packages yourself if you like. Simple packages just have to be added to the package list. What does this thing do? Greetings, It builds a local apt archive of 32bit packages converted to amd64 so that one can install them with apt. One goal is to have OpenOffice.org for amd64 but I started small with things I needed just now. I forgot to mention that after install you should add deb file:///var/lib/amd64-archive sarge main contrib non-free to /etc/apt/sources.list. I haven't automated that yet. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: security packages on amd 64
Nicholas P. Mueller wrote: Hello, new to Debian, AMD64, from some searching I found a message in the list that said security updates for the amd64 port would be released after the release of Sarge: http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2005/05/msg00860.html Does anyone out there know the timeline for these updates to become available via security.debian.org? When I put security.debian.org into my sources list for apt-get, it bails. When I looked into the file indeed, I don't know the timeline, however in the meantime couldn't (unofficial) security updates being built from sources in s.d.o and put somewhere on amd64.debian.net and thus distributed to mirrors? filippo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: security packages on amd 64
Filippo Giunchedi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nicholas P. Mueller wrote: Hello, new to Debian, AMD64, from some searching I found a message in the list that said security updates for the amd64 port would be released after the release of Sarge: http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2005/05/msg00860.html Does anyone out there know the timeline for these updates to become available via security.debian.org? When I put security.debian.org into my sources list for apt-get, it bails. When I looked into the file indeed, I don't know the timeline, however in the meantime couldn't (unofficial) security updates being built from sources in s.d.o and put somewhere on amd64.debian.net and thus distributed to mirrors? filippo We are waiting on James Troup to activate amd64 on the security servers. The buildd is otherwise setup and running. For the time being all security builds are uploaded to sarge-proposed-updates on amd64.debian.net and people should add that to the sources.list for now and just till sec.d.o gets reconfigured for us. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: security packages on amd 64
Hello, new to Debian, AMD64, from some searching I found a message in the list that said security updates for the amd64 port would be released after the release of Sarge: http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2005/05/msg00860.html Does anyone out there know the timeline for these updates to become available via security.debian.org? When I put security.debian.org into my sources list for apt-get, it bails. When I looked into the file lists on the server itself, nothing leapt out to say AMD64 here. Thanks in advance, Nicholas P. Mueller -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: freepascal debian-64 unofficial packages
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 02:52:10AM +0200, Bluefuture wrote: The upstream projects has officially released [1] freepascal 2.0 packages for debian[2]. What this the status of the official debian build for amd64? Actually seems builded on this archs: unstable (devel): Free Pascal -- Compiler 2.0.0-2: i386 powerpc sparc There are 2 problems here: - Package-arch-specific lists that fpc should only be build for i386 sparc powerpc, so we didn't attempt to build this yet. - fpc build depends on itself, so needs to be bootstrapped. [1] http://www.freepascal.org/down-x86_64-linux-usa.html [2] ftp://ftp.us.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/dist/x86_64-linux-2.0.0/deb/ I'll look into getting it build this evening. PS: Upstream also seems to have arm binaries. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: freepascal debian-64 unofficial packages
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 08:42:16AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 02:52:10AM +0200, Bluefuture wrote: The upstream projects has officially released [1] freepascal 2.0 packages for debian[2]. What this the status of the official debian build for amd64? Actually seems builded on this archs: unstable (devel): Free Pascal -- Compiler 2.0.0-2: i386 powerpc sparc There are 2 problems here: - Package-arch-specific lists that fpc should only be build for i386 sparc powerpc, so we didn't attempt to build this yet. - fpc build depends on itself, so needs to be bootstrapped. It also looks like the source packages needs to be changed, see: bugs.debian.org/315220 I'll have to wait for the maintainer to fix that before I can upload a version. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
verification of packages with gnupg/apt-key
Hello debian fellows. Sinc the update of apt to 0.6.x with the support of package verification using gnupg, I was wondering if this has been built into the packages that are stored in debian amd64 repositories? I've tried to implement this feature on my amd64 box. After fixing couple of issues with apt-key (linking /usr/share/keyrings/ with ln -s debian-keyring.gpg debian-archive-keyring.gpg, etc..) I've found out that there are more issues to package verification. The apt-check-sigs is failing to verify quite a few things: Source: deb http://amd64.debian.net/debian-pure64/ sid main contrib o Origin: Debian/Debian AMD64 archive o Suite: unstable/sid o Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:12:54 UTC o Description: Debian AMD64 archive - Unstable Development Version o Signed by: Debian AMD64 Archive Key debian-amd64@lists.debian.org * PROBLEMS WITH main (MISSING 3fec79394cb72698125030bf546aa8d4 97, MISSING 12bb516135b4fe217e9ec11556b484cd 13434988) * PROBLEMS WITH contrib (MISSING dbfef483032b40f05c87c7f4d9d81525 100, MISSING 6c9ee6eaf99f8e46f24d21ff8ee0cf99 199770) The following files in /var/lib/apt/lists have not been validated. This could turn out to be a harmless indication that this script is buggy or out of date, or it could let trojaned packages get onto your system. amd64.debian.net_debian-pure64_dists_sid_contrib_binary-amd64_Packages.FAILED amd64.debian.net_debian-pure64_dists_sid_contrib_binary-amd64_Release.FAILED amd64.debian.net_debian-pure64_dists_sid_contrib_source_Release.FAILED amd64.debian.net_debian-pure64_dists_sid_contrib_source_Sources.FAILED amd64.debian.net_debian-pure64_dists_sid_main_binary-amd64_Packages.FAILED amd64.debian.net_debian-pure64_dists_sid_main_binary-amd64_Release.FAILED amd64.debian.net_debian-pure64_dists_sid_main_source_Release.FAILED amd64.debian.net_debian-pure64_dists_sid_main_source_Sources.FAILED Has anyone anyone manage to make verification of packages/Release files work under amd64? Many thanks for any help -- Andrei signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: verification of packages with gnupg/apt-key
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 12:52:47PM +0100, Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote: Hello debian fellows. Sinc the update of apt to 0.6.x with the support of package verification using gnupg, I was wondering if this has been built into the packages that are stored in debian amd64 repositories? I've tried to implement this feature on my amd64 box. After fixing couple of issues with apt-key (linking /usr/share/keyrings/ with ln -s debian-keyring.gpg debian-archive-keyring.gpg, etc..) I've found out that there are more issues to package verification. The apt-check-sigs is failing to verify quite a few things: Source: deb http://amd64.debian.net/debian-pure64/ sid main contrib o Origin: Debian/Debian AMD64 archive o Suite: unstable/sid o Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:12:54 UTC o Description: Debian AMD64 archive - Unstable Development Version o Signed by: Debian AMD64 Archive Key debian-amd64@lists.debian.org * PROBLEMS WITH main (MISSING 3fec79394cb72698125030bf546aa8d4 97, MISSING 12bb516135b4fe217e9ec11556b484cd 13434988) * PROBLEMS WITH contrib (MISSING dbfef483032b40f05c87c7f4d9d81525 100, MISSING 6c9ee6eaf99f8e46f24d21ff8ee0cf99 199770) The following files in /var/lib/apt/lists have not been validated. This could turn out to be a harmless indication that this script is buggy or out of date, or it could let trojaned packages get onto your system. amd64.debian.net_debian-pure64_dists_sid_contrib_binary-amd64_Packages.FAILED amd64.debian.net_debian-pure64_dists_sid_contrib_binary-amd64_Release.FAILED amd64.debian.net_debian-pure64_dists_sid_contrib_source_Release.FAILED amd64.debian.net_debian-pure64_dists_sid_contrib_source_Sources.FAILED amd64.debian.net_debian-pure64_dists_sid_main_binary-amd64_Packages.FAILED amd64.debian.net_debian-pure64_dists_sid_main_binary-amd64_Release.FAILED amd64.debian.net_debian-pure64_dists_sid_main_source_Release.FAILED amd64.debian.net_debian-pure64_dists_sid_main_source_Sources.FAILED Has anyone anyone manage to make verification of packages/Release files work under amd64? Many thanks for any help I was under the impression the majority of packages in debian were not signed, since no one has come up with a way for the buildd to sign a package using a package maintainers key (and I imagine no one should try either). Perhaps the package maintainers could (maybe some already do, not sure) sign packages from the buildd when they are done, but I don't think that is the case at the moment. Certainly I know debsigs just didn't work very well before given how many packages were not signed. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: verification of packages with gnupg/apt-key
Lennart Sorensen wrote: I was under the impression the majority of packages in debian were not signed, since no one has come up with a way for the buildd to sign a package using a package maintainers key (and I imagine no one should try either). All packages are signed. Ones uploaded by the buildd's are signed by the buildd owner instead (semi-manually after the build completes, not as an automated process AIUI). Cameron. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: verification of packages with gnupg/apt-key
Andrei Mikhailovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Has anyone anyone manage to make verification of packages/Release files work under amd64? You have to obtain the AMD64 Archive Key (for example from a keyserver: http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindexsearch=0xE415B2B4B5F5BBED) and verify its authenticity. Then you can use apt-key add to add it to the list of keys which apt considers trusted. Verifying the authenticity might be the hardest part of it. I'm in the fortunate position of having met one of the signers of the archive key (Joerg Jaspert) face to face and having verified his key. However, if you don't have a trust path to any Debian Developer's key, you're out of luck. Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: verification of packages with gnupg/apt-key
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 08:02 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 12:52:47PM +0100, Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote: Has anyone anyone manage to make verification of packages/Release files work under amd64? Many thanks for any help I was under the impression the majority of packages in debian were not signed, since no one has come up with a way for the buildd to sign a package using a package maintainers key (and I imagine no one should try either). Perhaps the package maintainers could (maybe some already do, not sure) sign packages from the buildd when they are done, but I don't think that is the case at the moment. Certainly I know debsigs just didn't work very well before given how many packages were not signed. Why not give buildd its own user and gpg key, kept up-to-date by the debian sysadmins in the same way they maintain the root accounts, SSL certs, etc.? $0.02USD, -s signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
freepascal debian-64 unofficial packages
The upstream projects has officially released [1] freepascal 2.0 packages for debian[2]. What this the status of the official debian build for amd64? Actually seems builded on this archs: unstable (devel): Free Pascal -- Compiler 2.0.0-2: i386 powerpc sparc P.s. please reply also to my address about this topic. I'm not subscribed to this list. [1] http://www.freepascal.org/down-x86_64-linux-usa.html [2] ftp://ftp.us.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/dist/x86_64-linux-2.0.0/deb/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libc6 packages not in gcc4 Packages list
Pavel Jurus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wanted to upgrade one of my computers using this /etc/apt/sources.list deb http://debian-ppc64.alioth.debian.org/gcc4 unstable main contrib non-free Problem is that libc6 is non-upgradable because it missing (together with other packages created from glibc source package) in Packages file. Looking at http://debian-ppc64.alioth.debian.org/gcc4/pool/main/g/glibc/ however shows libc6_2.3.5-1_amd64.deb which is probably the needed package. What's the problem with Packages file and how can I solve/work around it? Pavel Jurus You should ask that on the debian-ppc64 list or Andreas directly. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libc6 packages not in gcc4 Packages list
To clarify my question - I'm talking about AMD64 debian port that is compiled by the gcc4 branch. But since this port is even more unofficial I'm cc:ing this also directly to Andreas. I don't think debian-ppc64 is the correct list to ask my question but correct me if I'm wrong. Pavel On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 11:15 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Pavel Jurus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wanted to upgrade one of my computers using this /etc/apt/sources.list deb http://debian-ppc64.alioth.debian.org/gcc4 unstable main contrib non-free Problem is that libc6 is non-upgradable because it missing (together with other packages created from glibc source package) in Packages file. Looking at http://debian-ppc64.alioth.debian.org/gcc4/pool/main/g/glibc/ however shows libc6_2.3.5-1_amd64.deb which is probably the needed package. What's the problem with Packages file and how can I solve/work around it? Pavel Jurus You should ask that on the debian-ppc64 list or Andreas directly. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
solved - Re: libc6 packages not in gcc4 Packages list
I hate to reply to my own mails but Packages file seems to be corrected now:) Thanks Pavel On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 11:52 +0200, Pavel Jurus wrote: To clarify my question - I'm talking about AMD64 debian port that is compiled by the gcc4 branch. But since this port is even more unofficial I'm cc:ing this also directly to Andreas. I don't think debian-ppc64 is the correct list to ask my question but correct me if I'm wrong. Pavel On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 11:15 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Pavel Jurus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wanted to upgrade one of my computers using this /etc/apt/sources.list deb http://debian-ppc64.alioth.debian.org/gcc4 unstable main contrib non-free Problem is that libc6 is non-upgradable because it missing (together with other packages created from glibc source package) in Packages file. Looking at http://debian-ppc64.alioth.debian.org/gcc4/pool/main/g/glibc/ however shows libc6_2.3.5-1_amd64.deb which is probably the needed package. What's the problem with Packages file and how can I solve/work around it? Pavel Jurus You should ask that on the debian-ppc64 list or Andreas directly. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libc6 packages not in gcc4 Packages list
Pavel Jurus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To clarify my question - I'm talking about AMD64 debian port that is compiled by the gcc4 branch. But since this port is even more unofficial I'm cc:ing this also directly to Andreas. I don't think debian-ppc64 is the correct list to ask my question but correct me if I'm wrong. Pavel Afaik the only one here involved in the gcc-4.0 branch is Andreas and only he (and debian-ppc64 members) will have access to the repository. So while debian-ppc64 seems wrong it is the only place where people can actualy do something about it. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
libc6 packages not in gcc4 Packages list
I wanted to upgrade one of my computers using this /etc/apt/sources.list deb http://debian-ppc64.alioth.debian.org/gcc4 unstable main contrib non-free Problem is that libc6 is non-upgradable because it missing (together with other packages created from glibc source package) in Packages file. Looking at http://debian-ppc64.alioth.debian.org/gcc4/pool/main/g/glibc/ however shows libc6_2.3.5-1_amd64.deb which is probably the needed package. What's the problem with Packages file and how can I solve/work around it? Pavel Jurus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt problem - unupgradeable packages?
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 08:13:21PM +0200, Miroslav Maiksnar wrote: Hi, I just came across strange problem. After upgrade from about 2 months old testing sarge to current stable sarge I noticed there remain 3 upgradeable packages: harden-environment 0.1.17 - 0.1.17 python-pyopenssl 0.6-2 - 0.6-2 python-twisted 1.3.0-8 - 1.3.0-8 It is bit funny, because no matter how many times I try to upgrade them (to same version as they are now), apt wants to upgrade them. It is quite annoying, because apticron keeps spamming me with pending upgrades ;o( Remove those binaries from your /var/cache/apt/archives/. Either remove it manaully, or do something like apt-get clean. The problem is that from the move from the old to the new archive, they got a new md5sum, because they're now the same as on debian. And apt doesn't download them again, but does say that it needs to be reinstalled. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [SOLVED] apt problem - unupgradeable packages?
Dne st 8. ervna 2005 23:06 Kurt Roeckx napsal(a): On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 08:13:21PM +0200, Miroslav Maiksnar wrote: [ . . . ] It is bit funny, because no matter how many times I try to upgrade them (to same version as they are now), apt wants to upgrade them. It is quite annoying, because apticron keeps spamming me with pending upgrades ;o( Remove those binaries from your /var/cache/apt/archives/. Either remove it manaully, or do something like apt-get clean. The problem is that from the move from the old to the new archive, they got a new md5sum, because they're now the same as on debian. And apt doesn't download them again, but does say that it needs to be reinstalled. Thanks a lot, apt-get clean apt-get upgrade does the job. Mixi
Re: KDE 3.4.1 packages for amd64
2005 m. June 3 d., Friday 03:52, Theodore Kisner ra: Kalle, thank you very much for rebuilding the kde 3.4.0 packages for amd64. I have been using them for a month with no problems. Do you have any interest in building the new 3.4.1 packages? If not, I could take a shot at building them and try to find a place to host them... get amd64 debs from alioth: deb http://pkg-kde.alioth.debian.org/kde-3.4.1/ ./ or wait until they enters experimental repo. pgpQmkqY8ZqqF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE 3.4.1 packages for amd64
On Thursday 02 June 2005 22:58, Kurt Roeckx wrote: kde 3.4.1 has just been uploaded to experimental yesterday. I will be building and uploading them there during the weekend. Thank you Kurt! That's great news... -Ted
Re: KDE 3.4.1 packages for amd64
On Friday 03 June 2005 09:54, Andreas Richter wrote: I have installed packages from pkg-kde.alioth.debian.org and it looks great. It seems that the kde 3.4.1 packages working correct. ah yes- my mistake. There were no 3.4.0 packages for amd64, but I see that there *are* amd64 packages for 3.4.1. My apologies for the list traffic. -Ted -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: KDE 3.4.1 packages for amd64
My kmail 3.4.1 (alioth) segfaults all the time when deleting many mails in a row (that's pressing del a couple of seconds...). Didn't use to happen with 3.4.0 :( Regards, Rafael Rodríguez El Viernes, 3 de Junio de 2005 18:50, Theodore Kisner escribió: On Friday 03 June 2005 09:54, Andreas Richter wrote: I have installed packages from pkg-kde.alioth.debian.org and it looks great. It seems that the kde 3.4.1 packages working correct. ah yes- my mistake. There were no 3.4.0 packages for amd64, but I see that there *are* amd64 packages for 3.4.1. My apologies for the list traffic. -Ted
Re: KDE 3.4.1 packages for amd64
On Friday 03 June 2005 12:17, Rafael Rodríguez wrote: My kmail 3.4.1 (alioth) segfaults all the time when deleting many mails in a row (that's pressing del a couple of seconds...). Didn't use to happen with 3.4.0 :( hmmm, well, I just upgraded everything to 3.4.1 and in kmail deleted ~400 messages in a row by holding down the delete key. No problem at all. -Ted
Re: security packages on amd 64
Frederik Schueler wrote on 31/05/2005 15:36: Hello, See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/05/msg4.html On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:13:49AM +0200, pedro machado wrote: Where can i find the security updates for amd 64 ? security updates for debian-amd64 sarge will be made available by the security team after the release of Sarge, as soon as there will be something to update. Would be helpful if one could already add the right deb lines in /etc/apt/sources.list right now (or at least as soon as Sarge has been released). At the moment, there is no matching tree available at either security.debian.org _or_ amd64.debian.net. Where will those updates be provided? cu, sven signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
KDE 3.4.1 packages for amd64
Kalle, thank you very much for rebuilding the kde 3.4.0 packages for amd64. I have been using them for a month with no problems. Do you have any interest in building the new 3.4.1 packages? If not, I could take a shot at building them and try to find a place to host them... cheers, -Ted On Monday 28 March 2005 02:59, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: 1. Add pkg-kde.alioth deb-src repository to sources.list 2. apt-get update 3. apt-get source kdelibs kdebase ... 4. apt-get build-dep kdelibs 5. cd kdelibs-3.4.0 ; dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us 6. dpkg -i *.deb 7. Repeat steps 4-6 for all metapackages You need to fiddle with the build order a bit, though. But, I've now compiled everything successfully, I'll just transfer the stuff to people.debian.org and let you know the repository URL when I'm done. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: KDE 3.4.1 packages for amd64
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 05:52:53PM -0700, Theodore Kisner wrote: Kalle, thank you very much for rebuilding the kde 3.4.0 packages for amd64. I have been using them for a month with no problems. Do you have any interest in building the new 3.4.1 packages? If not, I could take a shot at building them and try to find a place to host them... kde 3.4.1 has just been uploaded to experimental yesterday. I will be building and uploading them there during the weekend. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
security packages on amd 64
Hi, Sorry if this question have since be posted. Where can i find the security updates for amd 64 ? Thanks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: security packages on amd 64
Hello, See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/05/msg4.html On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:13:49AM +0200, pedro machado wrote: Where can i find the security updates for amd 64 ? security updates for debian-amd64 sarge will be made available by the security team after the release of Sarge, as soon as there will be something to update. Kind regards Frederik Schueler -- ENOSIG signature.asc Description: Digital signature
packages with kopete fix
Hi. I've just recompiled kdenetwork in order to make kopete usable again with MSN (rebuilding the latest ones from alioth) and they seem to work. If anyone wants to give them a try or space to upload them, just drop me a note ;) Regards, Rafael Rodríguez
Re: Packages for amd64 that are missing.
JK == Javier Kohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: vncserver should either be removed or fixed because the current version is in effect unusable. JK Note that for this same reason the maintainer refuses to take JK a patch by Andreas J. that allows vnc4 to be compiled on JK AMD64. Hmm, I don't even find a vnc4 package in Debian. JK Even though the generated vnc4server doesn't work, the client JK does (I use it frequently) and I think it would be nice to JK have in Sarge (and in Sid too). For me personally, the viewer is irreleveant but the vnc4server would be very nice to have. :-) I have tried compiling it but I don't remember exactly why it failed (it requires X server sources). Might give it a try again. -- Best regards, Per Lundberg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packages for amd64 that are missing.
Hello Per, El jue, 26-05-2005 a las 10:20 +0200, Per Lundberg escribi: JK == Javier Kohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: vncserver should either be removed or fixed because the current version is in effect unusable. JK Note that for this same reason the maintainer refuses to take JK a patch by Andreas J. that allows vnc4 to be compiled on JK AMD64. Hmm, I don't even find a vnc4 package in Debian. Take a look at http://packages.debian.org/vnc4-common . Vnc4 is the source package. JK Even though the generated vnc4server doesn't work, the client JK does (I use it frequently) and I think it would be nice to JK have in Sarge (and in Sid too). For me personally, the viewer is irreleveant but the vnc4server would be very nice to have. :-) I have tried compiling it but I don't remember exactly why it failed (it requires X server sources). Might give it a try again. It does compile, but it segfaults. If it was indeed fixed in more recent versions, as you pointed out, you can try it and then post a bug report to let the Debian maintainer know. Greetings, -- Javier Kohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: blashyrkh #2361802 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packages for amd64 that are missing.
KR == Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: KR Hi, Here is a list of packages that I think important and are KR either not in the archive, or might require a patched KR versioned to be uploaded to be useful. [...] vncserver is also badly broken on amd64 (bug #276948). Seems to be fixed upstream so it is probably just a matter of packaging the latest version. vncserver should either be removed or fixed because the current version is in effect unusable. -- Best regards, Per Lundberg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packages for amd64 that are missing.
El mi, 25-05-2005 a las 10:09 +0200, Per Lundberg escribi: KR == Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: KR Hi, Here is a list of packages that I think important and are KR either not in the archive, or might require a patched KR versioned to be uploaded to be useful. [...] vncserver is also badly broken on amd64 (bug #276948). Seems to be fixed upstream so it is probably just a matter of packaging the latest version. vncserver should either be removed or fixed because the current version is in effect unusable. Note that for this same reason the maintainer refuses to take a patch by Andreas J. that allows vnc4 to be compiled on AMD64. Even though the generated vnc4server doesn't work, the client does (I use it frequently) and I think it would be nice to have in Sarge (and in Sid too). Greetings, -- Javier Kohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: blashyrkh #2361802 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Problem with packages, resolved
Things got resolved. It turned out I had incompatible versions of bash and base-files installed, reinstalling them with a properly named version was all that was required to get it working again. Sorry to bother you guys! /Ronny -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Packages for amd64 that are missing.
Hi, Here is a list of packages that I think important and are either not in the archive, or might require a patched versioned to be uploaded to be useful. I would like to see all of those fixed in Debian. - syslinux: #249506: Required to build debian-installer, we have a patched version in the archive. - linux86: #260647: Required to build lilo - libtool1.4: #247299: Required to build various things, orphaned, gets removed after sarge release. - ia32-libs: #269497: Required to build any ia32 app using libz. - cdrdao: #249642 Some others that might be useful: - mtr: #254089 - nntp: #280278 Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
