Bug#1004276: Installing libglvnd0/buster-backports would remove 197 packages including xserver and mate
Hi, On 24/01/2022 08:34, roottoorfieu...@gmail.com wrote: tags 1004276 + moreinfo thanks В Пн, 24/01/2022 в 02:33 +0200, Pekka Sarnila пишет: # apt-get -s install libglvnd0/buster-backports ... 119 upgraded, 7 newly installed, 197 to remove and 1431 not upgraded ... Remv xserver-xorg [1:7.7+19] ... Apparently the apt resolver made an unsolicited and ugly decision. But it's difficult to guess without knowing exactly what's the apt state and configuration, where's the issue. Try to provide more info. apt configuration is out of the box except the sources.list: --- deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ buster main non-free contrib deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian/ buster main non-free contrib deb http://deb.debian.org/debian buster-updates main contrib non-free deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian buster-updates main contrib non-free deb http://deb.debian.org/debian buster-backports main contrib non-free deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian buster-backports main contrib non-free deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security buster/updates main contrib non-free deb-src http://security.debian.org/debian-security buster/updates main contrib non-free So nothing special there. What more info you need? libglvnd0/buster-backports should depend on libc6 only. I'm not sure if this is your suggestion, because that's exactly how it is. These are maybe more just thinking aloud. And there is no xserver-xorg/buster-backports available. That's correct. But why did you mention it? Well one might think that if new libglvnd0 is backward incompatible with xserver in the 'main' there should be new one in the 'backport'. Or maybe libglvnd0 is 'silently' dependent of such backport package. Just trying to make sense of obviously bad behavior. An other thought was whether this has something to do with Wayland. Pekka
Bug#1004276: Installing libglvnd0/buster-backports would remove 197 packages including xserver and mate
Package: libglvnd0 Version: 1.3.2-1 My current libglvnd0 is newest buster-version 1.1.0-1. xserver-xorg newest (1:7.7+19) xserver-common newest (2:1.20.4-1+deb10u4) etc apt is already the newest version (1.8.2.3) # apt-get -s install libglvnd0/buster-backports ... 119 upgraded, 7 newly installed, 197 to remove and 1431 not upgraded ... Remv xserver-xorg [1:7.7+19] ... libglvnd0/buster-backports should depend on libc6 only. And there is no xserver-xorg/buster-backports available. libgl1/buster-backports, libegl0/buster-backports etc depend on libglvnd0/buster-backports # lsb_release -a No LSB modules are available. Distributor ID: Debian Description:Debian GNU/Linux buster/sid Release:10.11 Codename: buster Pekka Sarnila
Bug#888831: NS_ERROR_NET_INADEQUATE_SECURITY error on armhf/arm64 at least
On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 15:35:48 +0200 Raphael Hertzog wrote: Control: severity -1 serious Control: found -1 firefox-esr/78.11.0esr-1 Control: tag -1 + bullseye Hello, it looks like this issue resurfaced again and it happens in bullseye right now (with firefox-esr 78.11.0esr-1 and libnss3 2:3.61-1). If you upgrade to the version of libnss3 in unstable (2:3.67-2) then the issue goes away. This has been reproduced in Kali on an rpi (armhf) and on the Lenovo Yoga C630 (arm64). The simplest fix is thus to let nss migrate into bullseye. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog This is kind of odd. I updated firefox-esr 78.3.0esr-2 -> 78.11.0esr-1. I had libnss3 2:3.58-1. https stopped working. Updating libnss3 -> 2:3.61-1 solved the problem. Pekka Sarnila
Bug#658783: MATE Desktop Environment in Debian
It is so unfortunate that this matter has become so emotional. No wonder. The gnome people worked so hard to create what they believe to be even better desktop. And Linux community's response was overwhelmingly negative (including public and rather outspoken statements by major Linux developers). However, that has seriously obscured the actual questions about it. Everyone, including gnome developers, should realize that gnome3 is not an upgrade of gnome2 (except by name). It is entirely different and new product. I think it is detrimental to give them comparative labels like good vs. bad, modern vs. old fashioned, easy vs. difficult (my 83 year old mother uses gnome2 daily) etc. As I see it, they are good for different kind of people and/or different kind of use. E.g. what I have observed, most people (in office or home) use only one application at the time, or if they have more than one running they still use them in fullscreen mode and only rarely start new ones or stop old ones or switch in between them. Most have never heard of terminal window (command prompt in MSW). I on the contrary belong to the group that have display full of overlapping windows belonging to various ongoing projects (both my day work and hobbies) and constantly start new terminals, Firefox windows, pdfs, docs, etc (and do a lot of cut/pastes in between them). This seems to be the way a lot of scientist, engineers, software developers, etc work (and plenty of them use Debian). Also, there are small touchscreens and laptops, and there are 27 desktop displays. And what comes to aesthetics, these are matters of taste, not matters of better or worse. So DEBIAN, please, give us all the possible choices there are. Don't get entangled in flame wars or secondary technical issues. Regards! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
