Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Wed 07 Nov 2018 at 19:55:28 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 06/11/2018 à 20:17, Brian a écrit : > > On Tue 06 Nov 2018 at 00:52:28 +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > > > If you're using a netinst, you're *really* expected to use a > > > mirror. If you're not, you should know what you're doing to fix > > > any issues you find like this. > (...) > > This issue is simply a bug and there is nothing flagged up in the Guide > > to indicate that not choosing a mirror is bad or to help a user avoid > > this bug or similar ones. Blaming the victim (...you should know what > > you're doing...) is not helpful. > > Please don't call me a victim ! It is advertised that "netinst" images are > intended to be used with a network mirror. I am a big boy and I have been > warned. Yes, it is a bug, but a minor one IMO, and 3 out of the 4 conditions > required to trigger it are under the user's control. You have completely missed the point. There is no requirement to use a network mirror. I gave a quote from an authoritative source. Care to back *your* case up. The bug is incidental to the point I made. -- Brian
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
Le 06/11/2018 à 20:17, Brian a écrit : On Tue 06 Nov 2018 at 00:52:28 +, Steve McIntyre wrote: If you're using a netinst, you're *really* expected to use a mirror. If you're not, you should know what you're doing to fix any issues you find like this. (...) This issue is simply a bug and there is nothing flagged up in the Guide to indicate that not choosing a mirror is bad or to help a user avoid this bug or similar ones. Blaming the victim (...you should know what you're doing...) is not helpful. Please don't call me a victim ! It is advertised that "netinst" images are intended to be used with a network mirror. I am a big boy and I have been warned. Yes, it is a bug, but a minor one IMO, and 3 out of the 4 conditions required to trigger it are under the user's control.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Tue 06 Nov 2018 at 00:52:28 +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > If you're using a netinst, you're *really* expected to use a > mirror. If you're not, you should know what you're doing to fix > any issues you find like this. Section 6.3.5.1.2. of the Guide does say > One question that will be asked during most installs is > whether or not to use a network mirror as a source for > packages. In most cases the default answer should be fine, > but there are some exceptions. but that that is not the same as being "...*really* expected to use a mirror." This issue is simply a bug and there is nothing flagged up in the Guide to indicate that not choosing a mirror is bad or to help a user avoid this bug or similar ones. Blaming the victim (...you should know what you're doing...) is not helpful. -- Brian.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Tue 06 Nov 2018 at 17:25:16 +, Curt wrote: > On 2018-11-06, Michael Stone wrote: > > > > That said, the bootable business card image is the smallest download > > available to install debian without having to mess with a netboot > > configuration. You can still use the mini iso with a normal cd, or via > > virtual drive, etc. I used to always keep an 80mm (185MB) installer CD-R > > in my bag back before it made more sense to just use a thumb drive. > > > > It turns out I just couldn't remember where they were, and they do still > > exist: > > http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/stretch/main/installer-amd64/current/images/netboot/ > > > > I'll bite: if the mini.iso requires no netboot, why does it find itself > confined to the netboot directory? It is built as part of the netboot build, which is the reponsibility of the Installer team - not the CD team. > If they stopped calling it a 'bootable business card' and put it > alongside the netinstall iso as the leanest competition around I just > might use the mini. Then again I guess if you're downloading it you're > downloading it (whether the package is integrated into the iso itself or > retrieved 'on the fly') so it's six of one, half a dozen of the other, > in the end. I've never heard it called a 'bootable business card image' (except here). -- Brian.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On 2018-11-06, Michael Stone wrote: > > That said, the bootable business card image is the smallest download > available to install debian without having to mess with a netboot > configuration. You can still use the mini iso with a normal cd, or via > virtual drive, etc. I used to always keep an 80mm (185MB) installer CD-R > in my bag back before it made more sense to just use a thumb drive. > > It turns out I just couldn't remember where they were, and they do still > exist: > http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/stretch/main/installer-amd64/current/images/netboot/ > I'll bite: if the mini.iso requires no netboot, why does it find itself confined to the netboot directory? If they stopped calling it a 'bootable business card' and put it alongside the netinstall iso as the leanest competition around I just might use the mini. Then again I guess if you're downloading it you're downloading it (whether the package is integrated into the iso itself or retrieved 'on the fly') so it's six of one, half a dozen of the other, in the end. -- “If a person is not talented enough to be a novelist, not smart enough to be a lawyer, and his hands are too shaky to perform operations, he becomes a journalist.” --Norman Mailer
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Tue 06 Nov 2018 at 09:19:22 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Tue 06 Nov 2018 at 09:57:03 (+), Brian wrote: > > On Mon 05 Nov 2018 at 23:29:16 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > > On Mon 05 Nov 2018 at 21:11:46 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote: > > > > > > > PS : aren't you confusing "netinst" with "netboot", which requires a > > > > network connection to a mirror ? > > > > > > I've never used netboot as it's too complicated to bother with in > > > my situation. In addition, I always need non-free firmware to run > > > all the wired and wireless NICs. > > > > The mini.iso is functionally equivalent to netbooting d-i. Using it is > > no more complicated than using a netinst iso. > > Eh? Why would I want to set up a TFTP service just to install via > netboot on the two PCs that can boot from the NIC when I've already > downloaded a netinst image for the rest? You don't, but no TFTP is needed with the mini.iso. I was only drawing the list's attention to its existence; it has its uses. > > and non-free firmware can > > be put on the medium. > > But it's already on the netinst firmware image. > > Anyway, I think you can see that I'm hardly likely to confuse netinst > with netboot, which is the point I was making. There was no implication in my response that you were. -- Brian.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 09:03:59AM +, Curt wrote: I never knew what a bootable business card was so I avoided those. If you trim a cd so it's rectangle you end up with a business-card size disc which holds about 50MB. Their main drawbacks are that 1) nobody has a cd drive anymore and 2) people who do have cd drives that are slot-loaders may lose the bootable business card in the slot and get annoyed. That said, the bootable business card image is the smallest download available to install debian without having to mess with a netboot configuration. You can still use the mini iso with a normal cd, or via virtual drive, etc. I used to always keep an 80mm (185MB) installer CD-R in my bag back before it made more sense to just use a thumb drive. It turns out I just couldn't remember where they were, and they do still exist: http://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/stretch/main/installer-amd64/current/images/netboot/
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Tue 06 Nov 2018 at 09:57:03 (+), Brian wrote: > On Mon 05 Nov 2018 at 23:29:16 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > On Mon 05 Nov 2018 at 21:11:46 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote: > > > > > PS : aren't you confusing "netinst" with "netboot", which requires a > > > network connection to a mirror ? > > > > I've never used netboot as it's too complicated to bother with in > > my situation. In addition, I always need non-free firmware to run > > all the wired and wireless NICs. > > The mini.iso is functionally equivalent to netbooting d-i. Using it is > no more complicated than using a netinst iso. Eh? Why would I want to set up a TFTP service just to install via netboot on the two PCs that can boot from the NIC when I've already downloaded a netinst image for the rest? > and non-free firmware can > be put on the medium. But it's already on the netinst firmware image. Anyway, I think you can see that I'm hardly likely to confuse netinst with netboot, which is the point I was making. Cheers, David.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Mon 05 Nov 2018 at 23:29:16 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 05 Nov 2018 at 21:11:46 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote: > > > PS : aren't you confusing "netinst" with "netboot", which requires a > > network connection to a mirror ? > > I've never used netboot as it's too complicated to bother with in > my situation. In addition, I always need non-free firmware to run > all the wired and wireless NICs. The mini.iso is functionally equivalent to netbooting d-i. Using it is no more complicated than using a netinst iso. and non-free firmware can be put on the medium. -- Brian.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On 2018-11-06 09:03, Curt wrote: On 2018-11-05, Michael Stone wrote: On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:11:46PM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: PS : aren't you confusing "netinst" with "netboot", which requires a network connection to a mirror ? There used to be bootable business card netinst images that had almost nothing other than the kernel and the installer, and needed a mirror to get even a minimally functional system. I think the kernel+installer got too porky for those images in the last couple of releases. I never knew what a bootable business card was so I avoided those. they are a little less bulky than a USB stick, CD drives have the smaller ledge they fit but at 32Mb small for something that works. Slitaz still fits on one I think -- Key ID4BFEBB31
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On 2018-11-05, Michael Stone wrote: > On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:11:46PM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: >>PS : aren't you confusing "netinst" with "netboot", which requires a >>network connection to a mirror ? > > There used to be bootable business card netinst images that had almost > nothing other than the kernel and the installer, and needed a mirror to > get even a minimally functional system. I think the kernel+installer got > too porky for those images in the last couple of releases. > > I never knew what a bootable business card was so I avoided those. -- “If a person is not talented enough to be a novelist, not smart enough to be a lawyer, and his hands are too shaky to perform operations, he becomes a journalist.” --Norman Mailer
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Mon 05 Nov 2018 at 21:11:46 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 05/11/2018 à 16:51, David Wright a écrit : > > On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 16:53:19 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote: > > > Le 04/11/2018 à 16:44, David Wright a écrit : > > > > > > > > I was under the impression that "netinst" stood for "network installer", > > > > so the image only contains what's essential to bootstrap a standard > > > > system (or greater) from the network (Internet or local mirror). > > > > > > Netinst images contain everything required to install a functional > > > basic system even without a network. > > > > Sure, except for the fact that I don't know how your "functional basic > > system" is defined. But I am assuming that it's something less than > > your system (above) with "all packages with Priority: standard and > > their dependencies", which is designed to provide "a reasonably small > > but not too limited char-mode system" (Debian Policy Manual). > > Not much less than this. Some "standard" packages may be missing. It certainly appeared so from my dpkg -l listings from various installation stages. > > What it is, exactly, that you get by installing from netinst without > > any Internet connection whatsoever would, I think, require an > > experiment. > > Been there, done that. As I wrote above. I couldn't determine whether you'd actually installed a system in the manner Brian just suggested (which is what I would do), or merely examined packages in the pool or Packages file (which is all that I was able to do). > PS : aren't you confusing "netinst" with "netboot", which requires a > network connection to a mirror ? I've never used netboot as it's too complicated to bother with in my situation. In addition, I always need non-free firmware to run all the wired and wireless NICs. Cheers, David.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
Pascal Hambourg wrote: >Le 05/11/2018 à 22:23, Steve McIntyre a écrit : >> >> Sorry, netinsts are special - they only contain the installer and the >> base system and a *very* limited set of extra packages that are >> hand-configured. >> >> The base system will end up overlapping a little with Priority: >> standard (the 43 you've seen). That's all. You still get a basic >> useful system with a netinst only, but it won't have all of "Standard" >> included. > >So, IIUC, the error can still happen with the netinst image if : >- the installer automatically adds the security archive >- the user does not select a mirror >- the user selects standard system utilities in tasksel >- and a package with standard priority is available in the security >archive, but has dependencies which are available only in the main archive. > >Is it correct ? Correct, yes. I've just verified that right now using the 9.5 amd64 netinst and it currently fails on three packages with missing dependencies: * mutt (as started this thread) * bind9-host * dnsutils If you're using a netinst, you're *really* expected to use a mirror. If you're not, you should know what you're doing to fix any issues you find like this. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast." Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
Le 05/11/2018 à 22:23, Steve McIntyre a écrit : Sorry, netinsts are special - they only contain the installer and the base system and a *very* limited set of extra packages that are hand-configured. The base system will end up overlapping a little with Priority: standard (the 43 you've seen). That's all. You still get a basic useful system with a netinst only, but it won't have all of "Standard" included. So, IIUC, the error can still happen with the netinst image if : - the installer automatically adds the security archive - the user does not select a mirror - the user selects standard system utilities in tasksel - and a package with standard priority is available in the security archive, but has dependencies which are available only in the main archive. Is it correct ?
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
Michael Stone wrote: >On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:11:46PM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: >>PS : aren't you confusing "netinst" with "netboot", which requires a >>network connection to a mirror ? > >There used to be bootable business card netinst images that had almost >nothing other than the kernel and the installer, and needed a mirror to >get even a minimally functional system. I think the kernel+installer got >too porky for those images in the last couple of releases. In the end, they were too fragile and caused a support nightmare so we dropped them. People didn't understand that they were very tightly tied to the archive, and if anything changed (e.g. a point release) things would fail. The images were also already too big to fit on a business-card sized CD. Instead, we now see people struggling with netboot setups that are similarly fragile as things change. :-( -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast." Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
Pascal Hambourg wrote: >Le 04/11/2018 à 14:52, Steve McIntyre a écrit : >> Pascal Hambourg wrote: >> In article you write: >>> Le 04/11/2018 à01:23, Steve McIntyre a écrità: As I just wrote elsewhere, it looks like a bug in the security.d.o infrastructure. I'm chasing that now. >>> >>> Do you mean that all packages with Priority: standard and their >>> dependencies are supposed to be present in installation CD images ? >> >> Correct. That's part of the design. It works well, until reality >> changes underneath us like this. :-) > >Well, if I am counting right, this is not true for the multi-arch >netinst image : >- 85 packages found in the main section for i386. >- Only 43 packages found in the multi-arch CD image main section. > >Is it an exception because a netinst image is not supposed to be used >without a mirror ? Sorry, netinsts are special - they only contain the installer and the base system and a *very* limited set of extra packages that are hand-configured. The base system will end up overlapping a little with Priority: standard (the 43 you've seen). That's all. You still get a basic useful system with a netinst only, but it won't have all of "Standard" included. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast." Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:11:46PM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: PS : aren't you confusing "netinst" with "netboot", which requires a network connection to a mirror ? There used to be bootable business card netinst images that had almost nothing other than the kernel and the installer, and needed a mirror to get even a minimally functional system. I think the kernel+installer got too porky for those images in the last couple of releases.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
dpchr...@holgerdanske.com wrote: >On 11/4/18 5:45 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote: >>> >>> That is https://bugs.debian.org/867668. >> >> Yup. That's just been confirmed in #debian-ftp: >> >> 2018-11-04 13:41 GMT < waldi> found it. only new overrides are synced, not >> existing updated >> >> There *are* overrides in place, they're just incorrect wrt those for >> the main archive. >> >> David: thanks for your report, it's been very helpful in pointing out >> this subtle (and well-buried!) problem. Hopefully we'll see a fix >> shortly. > >Thank you, and everyone involved, for pursuing it. :-) > >(I will assume that no bug report needs to be filed at this point.) Correct - it's already being tracked in #867668. Ansgar has just fixed up the overrides for mutt in stable-security by hand for now, with a proper permanent fix on the way. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast." Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
Le 05/11/2018 à 16:51, David Wright a écrit : On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 16:53:19 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote: Le 04/11/2018 à 16:44, David Wright a écrit : I was under the impression that "netinst" stood for "network installer", so the image only contains what's essential to bootstrap a standard system (or greater) from the network (Internet or local mirror). Netinst images contain everything required to install a functional basic system even without a network. Sure, except for the fact that I don't know how your "functional basic system" is defined. But I am assuming that it's something less than your system (above) with "all packages with Priority: standard and their dependencies", which is designed to provide "a reasonably small but not too limited char-mode system" (Debian Policy Manual). Not much less than this. Some "standard" packages may be missing. What it is, exactly, that you get by installing from netinst without any Internet connection whatsoever would, I think, require an experiment. Been there, done that. As I wrote above. PS : aren't you confusing "netinst" with "netboot", which requires a network connection to a mirror ?
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Mon 05 Nov 2018 at 10:51:34 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 16:53:19 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote: > > Le 04/11/2018 à 16:44, David Wright a écrit : > > > On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 15:51:21 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote: > > > > Le 04/11/2018 à 14:52, Steve McIntyre a écrit : > > > > > Pascal Hambourg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean that all packages with Priority: standard and their > > > > > > dependencies are supposed to be present in installation CD images ? > > > > > > > > > > Correct. That's part of the design. It works well, until reality > > > > > changes underneath us like this. :-) > > > > > > > > Well, if I am counting right, this is not true for the multi-arch > > > > netinst image : > > > > - 85 packages found in the main section for i386. > > > > - Only 43 packages found in the multi-arch CD image main section. > > > > > > > > Is it an exception because a netinst image is not supposed to be used > > > > without a mirror ? > > > > > > I was under the impression that "netinst" stood for "network installer", > > > so the image only contains what's essential to bootstrap a standard > > > system (or greater) from the network (Internet or local mirror). > > > > Netinst images contain everything required to install a functional > > basic system even without a network. > > Sure, except for the fact that I don't know how your "functional basic > system" is defined. But I am assuming that it's something less than > your system (above) with "all packages with Priority: standard and > their dependencies", which is designed to provide "a reasonably small > but not too limited char-mode system" (Debian Policy Manual). > > The Installation Guide quantifies this difference as approximately > 187MB of disk space, using *their* definition of "minimal base > installation", which is installed by not selecting "standard system > utilities". > > What it is, exactly, that you get by installing from netinst without > any Internet connection whatsoever would, I think, require an > experiment. I'm not in a situation to try that as (a) I'm not at home, > (b) I only have this laptop, (c) the images on it are i386 and amd64 > single architecture ones, (d) I've no wherewithal to back it up. > Whatever it is, it's what I was referring to as the "bootstrap" > system (above). It seems that Brian is more familiar with its recent > incarnations; it's some years since I played around with methods of > minimising Internet throughput during installation. There are two situations: 1. No network is set up: everything comes from the image. 2. The network fails during the installation: no resolution of a URI happens and d-i waits about for a while before continuing as in 1. -- Brian.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 16:53:19 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 04/11/2018 à 16:44, David Wright a écrit : > > On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 15:51:21 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote: > > > Le 04/11/2018 à 14:52, Steve McIntyre a écrit : > > > > Pascal Hambourg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean that all packages with Priority: standard and their > > > > > dependencies are supposed to be present in installation CD images ? > > > > > > > > Correct. That's part of the design. It works well, until reality > > > > changes underneath us like this. :-) > > > > > > Well, if I am counting right, this is not true for the multi-arch > > > netinst image : > > > - 85 packages found in the main section for i386. > > > - Only 43 packages found in the multi-arch CD image main section. > > > > > > Is it an exception because a netinst image is not supposed to be used > > > without a mirror ? > > > > I was under the impression that "netinst" stood for "network installer", > > so the image only contains what's essential to bootstrap a standard > > system (or greater) from the network (Internet or local mirror). > > Netinst images contain everything required to install a functional > basic system even without a network. Sure, except for the fact that I don't know how your "functional basic system" is defined. But I am assuming that it's something less than your system (above) with "all packages with Priority: standard and their dependencies", which is designed to provide "a reasonably small but not too limited char-mode system" (Debian Policy Manual). The Installation Guide quantifies this difference as approximately 187MB of disk space, using *their* definition of "minimal base installation", which is installed by not selecting "standard system utilities". What it is, exactly, that you get by installing from netinst without any Internet connection whatsoever would, I think, require an experiment. I'm not in a situation to try that as (a) I'm not at home, (b) I only have this laptop, (c) the images on it are i386 and amd64 single architecture ones, (d) I've no wherewithal to back it up. Whatever it is, it's what I was referring to as the "bootstrap" system (above). It seems that Brian is more familiar with its recent incarnations; it's some years since I played around with methods of minimising Internet throughput during installation. Cheers, David.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On 11/4/18 5:45 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote: Sven wrote: On 2018-11-04 00:19 +, Steve McIntyre wrote: which suggests there may be a problem with overrides in the security archive. The overrides file for security isn't available to look at directly to check... Is there even an override file on security.debian.org, or uses it the priority from the packages? I'll talk to the ftp team and see what's going on... That is https://bugs.debian.org/867668. Yup. That's just been confirmed in #debian-ftp: 2018-11-04 13:41 GMT < waldi> found it. only new overrides are synced, not existing updated There *are* overrides in place, they're just incorrect wrt those for the main archive. David: thanks for your report, it's been very helpful in pointing out this subtle (and well-buried!) problem. Hopefully we'll see a fix shortly. Thank you, and everyone involved, for pursuing it. :-) (I will assume that no bug report needs to be filed at this point.) David
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 16:53:19 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 04/11/2018 à 16:44, David Wright a écrit : > > On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 15:51:21 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote: > > > Le 04/11/2018 à 14:52, Steve McIntyre a écrit : > > > > Pascal Hambourg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean that all packages with Priority: standard and their > > > > > dependencies are supposed to be present in installation CD images ? > > > > > > > > Correct. That's part of the design. It works well, until reality > > > > changes underneath us like this. :-) > > > > > > Well, if I am counting right, this is not true for the multi-arch > > > netinst image : > > > - 85 packages found in the main section for i386. > > > - Only 43 packages found in the multi-arch CD image main section. > > > > > > Is it an exception because a netinst image is not supposed to be used > > > without a mirror ? > > > > I was under the impression that "netinst" stood for "network installer", > > so the image only contains what's essential to bootstrap a standard > > system (or greater) from the network (Internet or local mirror). > > Netinst images contain everything required to install a functional basic > system even without a network. An interesting historical fact (at least, I hope it is interesting!) is that prior to Debian 6.x.x the standard utilities were obtained over the internet or from a local mirror. The impression which David Wright gained from the name "netinst" would have been correct on lenny. -- Brian.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
Le 04/11/2018 à 16:44, David Wright a écrit : On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 15:51:21 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote: Le 04/11/2018 à 14:52, Steve McIntyre a écrit : Pascal Hambourg wrote: Do you mean that all packages with Priority: standard and their dependencies are supposed to be present in installation CD images ? Correct. That's part of the design. It works well, until reality changes underneath us like this. :-) Well, if I am counting right, this is not true for the multi-arch netinst image : - 85 packages found in the main section for i386. - Only 43 packages found in the multi-arch CD image main section. Is it an exception because a netinst image is not supposed to be used without a mirror ? I was under the impression that "netinst" stood for "network installer", so the image only contains what's essential to bootstrap a standard system (or greater) from the network (Internet or local mirror). Netinst images contain everything required to install a functional basic system even without a network.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 15:51:21 (+0100), Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 04/11/2018 à 14:52, Steve McIntyre a écrit : > > Pascal Hambourg wrote: > > In article you write: > > > Le 04/11/2018 à 01:23, Steve McIntyre a écrit : > > > > > > > > As I just wrote elsewhere, it looks like a bug in > > > > the security.d.o infrastructure. I'm chasing that now. > > > > > > Do you mean that all packages with Priority: standard and their > > > dependencies are supposed to be present in installation CD images ? > > > > Correct. That's part of the design. It works well, until reality > > changes underneath us like this. :-) > > Well, if I am counting right, this is not true for the multi-arch > netinst image : > - 85 packages found in the main section for i386. > - Only 43 packages found in the multi-arch CD image main section. > > Is it an exception because a netinst image is not supposed to be used > without a mirror ? I was under the impression that "netinst" stood for "network installer", so the image only contains what's essential to bootstrap a standard system (or greater) from the network (Internet or local mirror). Cheers, David.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
Le 04/11/2018 à 14:52, Steve McIntyre a écrit : Pascal Hambourg wrote: In article you write: Le 04/11/2018 à 01:23, Steve McIntyre a écrit : As I just wrote elsewhere, it looks like a bug in the security.d.o infrastructure. I'm chasing that now. Do you mean that all packages with Priority: standard and their dependencies are supposed to be present in installation CD images ? Correct. That's part of the design. It works well, until reality changes underneath us like this. :-) Well, if I am counting right, this is not true for the multi-arch netinst image : - 85 packages found in the main section for i386. - Only 43 packages found in the multi-arch CD image main section. Is it an exception because a netinst image is not supposed to be used without a mirror ?
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 19:02:50 -0700, David Christensen wrote: > On 11/3/18 1:35 PM, Brian wrote: > > On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 12:29:15 -0700, David Christensen wrote: > > > > > On 11/3/18 8:35 AM, Brian wrote: > > > > On Fri 02 Nov 2018 at 20:01:59 -0700, David Christensen wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > > > > > > > My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in my > > > > > LAN. > > > > > I was unaware that d-i connected to the Internet when I told it not > > > > > to use a > > > > > mirror. As security.debian.org is not a mirror in the usual sense, > > > > > perhaps > > > > > this kinda sorta makes sense to the Debian developers. For me, it > > > > > violates > > > > > KISS and the Principle of Least Surprise. I think the d-i needs to > > > > > be more > > > > > clear about if/ when it intends to connect to the Internet, and obtain > > > > > explicit user approval. Which package do I file a bug report against? > > > > > > > > You gave it explicit approval when you configured the network. > > > > > > I gave the d-i explicit approval to connect to my LAN. This is not the > > > same > > > as approval to connect to the Internet. > > > > At what point in the installation did you do this? > > On second thought, I did not give the d-i explicit approval to connect to my > LAN -- it automatically connected via DHCP (because I was using basic mode, > not expert mode?). Indeed; that's the way it works when you choose "Install". The clock was set from the internet connection and the timezone chosen for you also. > > A network is a network. > > Not all networks are connected to the Internet. > > > Not all network hosts are supposed to connect to the Internet. > > > It might be interesting to see how d-i reacts when it has a LAN connection, > but no path to the Internet (e.g. traffic blocked at the upstream router). > > > > > So, I file a bug report against d-i? > > > > For what? Connecting to other machines? > > For connecting to the Internet when the user has chosen no mirror. You chose a security mirror. The Installion Guide (secton 6.3.5.1.2) makes this clear: > Note that the last point means that, even if you choose not to > use a network mirror, some packages may still be downloaded from > the Internet if there is a security or stable-updates update > available for them and those services have been configured. > > > > > I view the fact that the d-i couldn't obtain a security update > > > > > package to be > > > > > a defect in the Debian security package distribution chain. If > > > > > 'apt-get > > > > > update' finds that a security update package is available and the d-i > > > > > wants > > > > > to install that package, then 'apt-get update' must be able to > > > > > download that > > > > > package. Which package do I file a bug report against? > > > > > > > > There is no defect in the security package distribution chain. mutt is > > > > not part of the Xfce or standard utilities tasks. The installer had no > > > > business attempting to install it. > > > > > > So, I file a bug report against d-i? > > > > Not in my opinion. > > So, which package would you file a bug report against? I think we have to await more information before making a decision. -- Brian.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
Pascal Hambourg wrote: In article you write: >Le 04/11/2018 à 01:23, Steve McIntyre a écrit : >> >> As I just wrote elsewhere, it looks like a bug in >> the security.d.o infrastructure. I'm chasing that now. > >Do you mean that all packages with Priority: standard and their >dependencies are supposed to be present in installation CD images ? Correct. That's part of the design. It works well, until reality changes underneath us like this. :-) -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast." Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
Sven wrote: >On 2018-11-04 00:19 +, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >> which suggests there may be a problem with overrides in the security >> archive. The overrides file for security isn't available to look at >> directly to check... > >Is there even an override file on security.debian.org, or uses it >the priority from the packages? > >> I'll talk to the ftp team and see what's going on... > >That is https://bugs.debian.org/867668. Yup. That's just been confirmed in #debian-ftp: 2018-11-04 13:41 GMT < waldi> found it. only new overrides are synced, not existing updated There *are* overrides in place, they're just incorrect wrt those for the main archive. David: thanks for your report, it's been very helpful in pointing out this subtle (and well-buried!) problem. Hopefully we'll see a fix shortly. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast." Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 07:04:00PM -0700, David Christensen wrote: On 11/3/18 1:41 PM, Michael Stone wrote: On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 08:01:59PM -0700, David Christensen wrote: My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in my LAN. I was unaware that d-i connected to the Internet when I told it not to use a mirror. As security.debian.org is not a mirror in the usual sense, perhaps this kinda sorta makes sense to the Debian developers. For me, it violates KISS and the Principle of Least Surprise. I think the d-i needs to be more clear about if/ when it intends to connect to the Internet, and obtain explicit user approval. Did you run an expert install? I believe that's one of the questions. On 11/1/18 10:40 PM, David Christensen wrote: Debian GNU/Linux installer boot menu Install Well, if you want non-standard options, use an expert install. People complained that the debian installer asks too many questions, so the standard install reduced the number of options. Then everyone wants their particular option back.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On 2018-11-04 00:19 +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Right. But if you compare the metdata for mutt in the relevant > Packages files, there is a mismatch. From current stable: > > Package: mutt > Version: 1.7.2-1 > Installed-Size: 6104 > Maintainer: Mutt maintainers > Architecture: amd64 > ... > Priority: optional > Filename: pool/main/m/mutt/mutt_1.7.2-1_amd64.deb > Size: 1562454 > MD5sum: ba99d07da2382c1861533e4a55ebe6f8 > SHA256: b4032390b6e0347863558015f2c5dfff19af61145d745351c30be66932d2a9c2 > > > And from stable-security: > > Package: mutt > Version: 1.7.2-1+deb9u1 > Installed-Size: 6108 > Maintainer: Mutt maintainers > Architecture: amd64 > ... > Priority: standard > Filename: pool/updates/main/m/mutt/mutt_1.7.2-1+deb9u1_amd64.deb > Size: 1564182 > MD5sum: aa2aa9266ed488bc57e486497dcde2b0 > SHA1: 4dac8ed3ec8dd50de65ff3cb07eef1963d3e96c0 > SHA256: 749a070599b56c923c514cd7b9fab6f94b01c662a9c5c93182366f81990f4d87 > > which suggests there may be a problem with overrides in the security > archive. The overrides file for security isn't available to look at > directly to check... Is there even an override file on security.debian.org, or uses it the priority from the packages? > I'll talk to the ftp team and see what's going on... That is https://bugs.debian.org/867668. Cheers, Sven
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
Le 04/11/2018 à 01:23, Steve McIntyre a écrit : As I just wrote elsewhere, it looks like a bug in the security.d.o infrastructure. I'm chasing that now. Do you mean that all packages with Priority: standard and their dependencies are supposed to be present in installation CD images ?
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On 11/3/18 5:23 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: And it's clearly not obvious to all users that security.d.o will be automatically added just because the new installation can see a network. It makes sense from a security POV, but... +1 I view the fact that the d-i couldn't obtain a security update package to be a defect in the Debian security package distribution chain. If 'apt-get update' finds that a security update package is available and the d-i wants to install that package, then 'apt-get update' must be able to download that package. Which package do I file a bug report against? There is no defect in the security package distribution chain. mutt is not part of the Xfce or standard utilities tasks. The installer had no business attempting to install it. So, I file a bug report against d-i? Not in my opinion. Not against d-i, no. As I just wrote elsewhere, it looks like a bug in the security.d.o infrastructure. I'm chasing that now. Thank you. David
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On 11/3/18 1:41 PM, Michael Stone wrote: On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 08:01:59PM -0700, David Christensen wrote: My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in my LAN. I was unaware that d-i connected to the Internet when I told it not to use a mirror. As security.debian.org is not a mirror in the usual sense, perhaps this kinda sorta makes sense to the Debian developers. For me, it violates KISS and the Principle of Least Surprise. I think the d-i needs to be more clear about if/ when it intends to connect to the Internet, and obtain explicit user approval. Did you run an expert install? I believe that's one of the questions. On 11/1/18 10:40 PM, David Christensen wrote: >Debian GNU/Linux installer boot menu >Install David
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On 11/3/18 1:35 PM, Brian wrote: On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 12:29:15 -0700, David Christensen wrote: On 11/3/18 8:35 AM, Brian wrote: On Fri 02 Nov 2018 at 20:01:59 -0700, David Christensen wrote: On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in my LAN. I was unaware that d-i connected to the Internet when I told it not to use a mirror. As security.debian.org is not a mirror in the usual sense, perhaps this kinda sorta makes sense to the Debian developers. For me, it violates KISS and the Principle of Least Surprise. I think the d-i needs to be more clear about if/ when it intends to connect to the Internet, and obtain explicit user approval. Which package do I file a bug report against? You gave it explicit approval when you configured the network. I gave the d-i explicit approval to connect to my LAN. This is not the same as approval to connect to the Internet. At what point in the installation did you do this? On second thought, I did not give the d-i explicit approval to connect to my LAN -- it automatically connected via DHCP (because I was using basic mode, not expert mode?). A network is a network. Not all networks are connected to the Internet. Not all network hosts are supposed to connect to the Internet. It might be interesting to see how d-i reacts when it has a LAN connection, but no path to the Internet (e.g. traffic blocked at the upstream router). So, I file a bug report against d-i? For what? Connecting to other machines? For connecting to the Internet when the user has chosen no mirror. I view the fact that the d-i couldn't obtain a security update package to be a defect in the Debian security package distribution chain. If 'apt-get update' finds that a security update package is available and the d-i wants to install that package, then 'apt-get update' must be able to download that package. Which package do I file a bug report against? There is no defect in the security package distribution chain. mutt is not part of the Xfce or standard utilities tasks. The installer had no business attempting to install it. So, I file a bug report against d-i? Not in my opinion. So, which package would you file a bug report against? David
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
Brian wrote: >On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 12:29:15 -0700, David Christensen wrote: >> On 11/3/18 8:35 AM, Brian wrote: >> > On Fri 02 Nov 2018 at 20:01:59 -0700, David Christensen wrote: >> > >> > > On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> > >> > > My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in my >> > > LAN. >> > > I was unaware that d-i connected to the Internet when I told it not to >> > > use a >> > > mirror. As security.debian.org is not a mirror in the usual sense, >> > > perhaps >> > > this kinda sorta makes sense to the Debian developers. For me, it >> > > violates >> > > KISS and the Principle of Least Surprise. I think the d-i needs to be >> > > more >> > > clear about if/ when it intends to connect to the Internet, and obtain >> > > explicit user approval. Which package do I file a bug report against? >> > >> > You gave it explicit approval when you configured the network. >> >> I gave the d-i explicit approval to connect to my LAN. This is not the same >> as approval to connect to the Internet. > >At what point in the installation did you do this? A network is a network. And it's clearly not obvious to all users that security.d.o will be automatically added just because the new installation can see a network. It makes sense from a security POV, but... >> So, I file a bug report against d-i? > >For what? Connecting to other machines? > >> > > I view the fact that the d-i couldn't obtain a security update package >> > > to be >> > > a defect in the Debian security package distribution chain. If 'apt-get >> > > update' finds that a security update package is available and the d-i >> > > wants >> > > to install that package, then 'apt-get update' must be able to download >> > > that >> > > package. Which package do I file a bug report against? >> > >> > There is no defect in the security package distribution chain. mutt is >> > not part of the Xfce or standard utilities tasks. The installer had no >> > business attempting to install it. >> >> So, I file a bug report against d-i? > >Not in my opinion. Not against d-i, no. As I just wrote elsewhere, it looks like a bug in the security.d.o infrastructure. I'm chasing that now. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast." Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
Brian wrote: >On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 00:20:27 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > >> Le 03/11/2018 à 21:24, Brian a écrit : >> > On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 19:40:14 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: >> > > >> > > It appears that the latest update gave mutt "standard" priority back. >> > > >> > > Package: mutt >> > > Version: 1.7.2-1+deb9u1 >> > > (...) >> > > Priority: standard >> > > >> > > Package: mutt >> > > Version: 1.7.2-1 >> > > (...) >> > > Priority: optional >> > > >> > > The Debian changelog does not mention this change. >> >> Checking in mutt_1.7.2-1+deb9u1_i386.deb, the priority has not changed. >> >> > I believe the changelog would not mention overrides. It is not a package >> > maintainer matter. >> >> Why then did the priority override change for a stable security update ? > >Pass. > >wget http://ftp.debian.org/debian/indices/override.stretch.main.gz Right. But if you compare the metdata for mutt in the relevant Packages files, there is a mismatch. From current stable: Package: mutt Version: 1.7.2-1 Installed-Size: 6104 Maintainer: Mutt maintainers Architecture: amd64 ... Priority: optional Filename: pool/main/m/mutt/mutt_1.7.2-1_amd64.deb Size: 1562454 MD5sum: ba99d07da2382c1861533e4a55ebe6f8 SHA256: b4032390b6e0347863558015f2c5dfff19af61145d745351c30be66932d2a9c2 And from stable-security: Package: mutt Version: 1.7.2-1+deb9u1 Installed-Size: 6108 Maintainer: Mutt maintainers Architecture: amd64 ... Priority: standard Filename: pool/updates/main/m/mutt/mutt_1.7.2-1+deb9u1_amd64.deb Size: 1564182 MD5sum: aa2aa9266ed488bc57e486497dcde2b0 SHA1: 4dac8ed3ec8dd50de65ff3cb07eef1963d3e96c0 SHA256: 749a070599b56c923c514cd7b9fab6f94b01c662a9c5c93182366f81990f4d87 which suggests there may be a problem with overrides in the security archive. The overrides file for security isn't available to look at directly to check... I'll talk to the ftp team and see what's going on... -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast." Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 00:20:27 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 03/11/2018 à 21:24, Brian a écrit : > > On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 19:40:14 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > > > > > > It appears that the latest update gave mutt "standard" priority back. > > > > > > Package: mutt > > > Version: 1.7.2-1+deb9u1 > > > (...) > > > Priority: standard > > > > > > Package: mutt > > > Version: 1.7.2-1 > > > (...) > > > Priority: optional > > > > > > The Debian changelog does not mention this change. > > Checking in mutt_1.7.2-1+deb9u1_i386.deb, the priority has not changed. > > > I believe the changelog would not mention overrides. It is not a package > > maintainer matter. > > Why then did the priority override change for a stable security update ? Pass. wget http://ftp.debian.org/debian/indices/override.stretch.main.gz -- Brian.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
Le 03/11/2018 à 21:24, Brian a écrit : On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 19:40:14 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: It appears that the latest update gave mutt "standard" priority back. Package: mutt Version: 1.7.2-1+deb9u1 (...) Priority: standard Package: mutt Version: 1.7.2-1 (...) Priority: optional The Debian changelog does not mention this change. Checking in mutt_1.7.2-1+deb9u1_i386.deb, the priority has not changed. I believe the changelog would not mention overrides. It is not a package maintainer matter. Why then did the priority override change for a stable security update ?
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 08:01:59PM -0700, David Christensen wrote: My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in my LAN. I was unaware that d-i connected to the Internet when I told it not to use a mirror. As security.debian.org is not a mirror in the usual sense, perhaps this kinda sorta makes sense to the Debian developers. For me, it violates KISS and the Principle of Least Surprise. I think the d-i needs to be more clear about if/ when it intends to connect to the Internet, and obtain explicit user approval. Did you run an expert install? I believe that's one of the questions.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 12:29:15 -0700, David Christensen wrote: > On 11/3/18 8:35 AM, Brian wrote: > > On Fri 02 Nov 2018 at 20:01:59 -0700, David Christensen wrote: > > > > > On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > > > My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in my LAN. > > > I was unaware that d-i connected to the Internet when I told it not to > > > use a > > > mirror. As security.debian.org is not a mirror in the usual sense, > > > perhaps > > > this kinda sorta makes sense to the Debian developers. For me, it > > > violates > > > KISS and the Principle of Least Surprise. I think the d-i needs to be > > > more > > > clear about if/ when it intends to connect to the Internet, and obtain > > > explicit user approval. Which package do I file a bug report against? > > > > You gave it explicit approval when you configured the network. > > I gave the d-i explicit approval to connect to my LAN. This is not the same > as approval to connect to the Internet. At what point in the installation did you do this? A network is a network. > So, I file a bug report against d-i? For what? Connecting to other machines? > > > I view the fact that the d-i couldn't obtain a security update package to > > > be > > > a defect in the Debian security package distribution chain. If 'apt-get > > > update' finds that a security update package is available and the d-i > > > wants > > > to install that package, then 'apt-get update' must be able to download > > > that > > > package. Which package do I file a bug report against? > > > > There is no defect in the security package distribution chain. mutt is > > not part of the Xfce or standard utilities tasks. The installer had no > > business attempting to install it. > > So, I file a bug report against d-i? Not in my opinion. -- Brian.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 19:40:14 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 03/11/2018 à 16:35, Brian a écrit : > > > > There is no defect in the security package distribution chain. mutt is > > not part of the Xfce or standard utilities tasks. The installer had no > > business attempting to install it. > > It appears that the latest update gave mutt "standard" priority back. > > Package: mutt > Version: 1.7.2-1+deb9u1 > (...) > Priority: standard > > Package: mutt > Version: 1.7.2-1 > (...) > Priority: optional > > The Debian changelog does not mention this change. I believe the changelog would not mention overrides. It is not a package maintainer matter. -- Brian.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On 11/3/18 8:35 AM, Brian wrote: On Fri 02 Nov 2018 at 20:01:59 -0700, David Christensen wrote: On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in my LAN. I was unaware that d-i connected to the Internet when I told it not to use a mirror. As security.debian.org is not a mirror in the usual sense, perhaps this kinda sorta makes sense to the Debian developers. For me, it violates KISS and the Principle of Least Surprise. I think the d-i needs to be more clear about if/ when it intends to connect to the Internet, and obtain explicit user approval. Which package do I file a bug report against? You gave it explicit approval when you configured the network. I gave the d-i explicit approval to connect to my LAN. This is not the same as approval to connect to the Internet. So, I file a bug report against d-i? I view the fact that the d-i couldn't obtain a security update package to be a defect in the Debian security package distribution chain. If 'apt-get update' finds that a security update package is available and the d-i wants to install that package, then 'apt-get update' must be able to download that package. Which package do I file a bug report against? There is no defect in the security package distribution chain. mutt is not part of the Xfce or standard utilities tasks. The installer had no business attempting to install it. So, I file a bug report against d-i? David
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
Le 03/11/2018 à 16:35, Brian a écrit : There is no defect in the security package distribution chain. mutt is not part of the Xfce or standard utilities tasks. The installer had no business attempting to install it. It appears that the latest update gave mutt "standard" priority back. Package: mutt Version: 1.7.2-1+deb9u1 (...) Priority: standard Package: mutt Version: 1.7.2-1 (...) Priority: optional The Debian changelog does not mention this change.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 00:17:38 +, Steve McIntyre wrote: [Snip] > *However*, the installer has automatically added security.debian.org > to the sources.list of the new system and peformed an "apt-get > update". This found a security update for mutt, and mutt is Priority: > standard so tasksel decided it should be installed. But the > dependencies are not on security.debian.org and not on the CD --> > problem. > > That's how this becomes a problem. For now, if you have security > updates installed then you'll need to enable a mirror or start with a > larger installation CD. Sorry... :-/ Or not install the standard system utilities; many will be pulled in by the other task. Those that are not you probably do not need. Those you need (like less, perhaps) you can install afterwards. -- Brian.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Fri 02 Nov 2018 at 20:01:59 -0700, David Christensen wrote: > On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: [Snip] > > That's how this becomes a problem. For now, if you have security > > updates installed then you'll need to enable a mirror or start with a > > larger installation CD. Sorry... :-/ > > Thank you for confirming the defect, and thank you for the detailed > analysis. > > > My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in my LAN. > I was unaware that d-i connected to the Internet when I told it not to use a > mirror. As security.debian.org is not a mirror in the usual sense, perhaps > this kinda sorta makes sense to the Debian developers. For me, it violates > KISS and the Principle of Least Surprise. I think the d-i needs to be more > clear about if/ when it intends to connect to the Internet, and obtain > explicit user approval. Which package do I file a bug report against? You gave it explicit approval when you configured the network. > I view the fact that the d-i couldn't obtain a security update package to be > a defect in the Debian security package distribution chain. If 'apt-get > update' finds that a security update package is available and the d-i wants > to install that package, then 'apt-get update' must be able to download that > package. Which package do I file a bug report against? There is no defect in the security package distribution chain. mutt is not part of the Xfce or standard utilities tasks. The installer had no business attempting to install it. -- Brian.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 00:17:38 +, Steve McIntyre wrote: [Snip] > *However*, the installer has automatically added security.debian.org > to the sources.list of the new system and peformed an "apt-get > update". This found a security update for mutt, and mutt is Priority: > standard so tasksel decided it should be installed. But the > dependencies are not on security.debian.org and not on the CD --> > problem. >From override.stretch.main: muttoptionalmail mutt hasn't been on a netinst for a long time. #788702 is relevant. -- Brian.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
Le 03/11/2018 à 12:47, Michael Stone a écrit : On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 10:04:00AM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: Also, if you install from an old image, adding only the security archive may miss security updates which have been moved to the main archive. This gives a false sense of security. I don't think anything is actually removed from security.d.o on point releases, to avoid exactly that problem. After checking a few old security updates, it seems that you are right - and I was wrong. I wonder where I got this idea from...
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 10:04:00AM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: Also, if you install from an old image, adding only the security archive may miss security updates which have been moved to the main archive. This gives a false sense of security. I don't think anything is actually removed from security.d.o on point releases, to avoid exactly that problem.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
Le 03/11/2018 à 04:01, David Christensen a écrit : On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: There is a bug here, and I think it's possibly in tasksel. Mutt is not on the installation CD, and neither are its dependencies libgpgme11 and libnotmuch4. *However*, the installer has automatically added security.debian.org to the sources.list of the new system and peformed an "apt-get update". This found a security update for mutt, and mutt is Priority: standard so tasksel decided it should be installed. But the dependencies are not on security.debian.org and not on the CD --> problem. (...) I view the fact that the d-i couldn't obtain a security update package to be a defect in the Debian security package distribution chain. If 'apt-get update' finds that a security update package is available and the d-i wants to install that package, then 'apt-get update' must be able to download that package. Which package do I file a bug report against? IMO, debian-installer. We cannot expect tasksel to check that all required dependencies for any selected package are available. The installer should not automatically enable the security archive without adding a normal mirror too in order to have consistent sources, even when installing from a large DVD or BD image. Also, if you install from an old image, adding only the security archive may miss security updates which have been moved to the main archive. This gives a false sense of security.
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: dpchr...@holgerdanske.com wrote: debian-users: I downloaded debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso several months ago via: https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/jigdo-cd/ - image sounds ok. - basic d-i setup It fails with a pop-up dialog: [!] Select and install software Installation step failed An installation step failed. You can try to run the failing item again from the menu, or skip it and choose something else. The failing step is: Select and install software Note that I did not select a mirror. Apparently, debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso is missing the packages required for a default installation (?). If I go back and use a network mirror (my local Approx server), I can finish the install successfully: Can anyone confirm this bug? Yes. I've just tested it and I can see the same problem. By switching to the syslog (VT4) I can see that there problem is with the mutt package: --- Nov 2 18:14:59 in-target: The following packages have unmet dependencies: Nov 2 18:14:59 in-target: mutt : Depends: libgpgme11 (>= 1.2.0) but it is not installable Nov 2 18:14:59 in-target: Depends: libnotmuch4 (>= 0.21~rc1) but it is not installable Nov 2 18:14:59 in-target: E: in-target: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. --- There is a bug here, and I think it's possibly in tasksel. Mutt is not on the installation CD, and neither are its dependencies libgpgme11 and libnotmuch4. *However*, the installer has automatically added security.debian.org to the sources.list of the new system and peformed an "apt-get update". This found a security update for mutt, and mutt is Priority: standard so tasksel decided it should be installed. But the dependencies are not on security.debian.org and not on the CD --> problem. That's how this becomes a problem. For now, if you have security updates installed then you'll need to enable a mirror or start with a larger installation CD. Sorry... :-/ Thank you for confirming the defect, and thank you for the detailed analysis. My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in my LAN. I was unaware that d-i connected to the Internet when I told it not to use a mirror. As security.debian.org is not a mirror in the usual sense, perhaps this kinda sorta makes sense to the Debian developers. For me, it violates KISS and the Principle of Least Surprise. I think the d-i needs to be more clear about if/ when it intends to connect to the Internet, and obtain explicit user approval. Which package do I file a bug report against? I view the fact that the d-i couldn't obtain a security update package to be a defect in the Debian security package distribution chain. If 'apt-get update' finds that a security update package is available and the d-i wants to install that package, then 'apt-get update' must be able to download that package. Which package do I file a bug report against? David
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
dpchr...@holgerdanske.com wrote: >debian-users: > >I downloaded debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso several months ago via: > >https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/jigdo-cd/ - image sounds ok. - basic d-i setup >It fails with a pop-up dialog: > > [!] Select and install software > Installation step failed > An installation step failed. You can try to run the failing item again >from the menu, or > skip it and choose something else. The failing step is: Select and >install software > >Note that I did not select a mirror. > >Apparently, debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso is missing the packages >required for a default installation (?). > >If I go back and use a network mirror (my local Approx server), I can >finish the install successfully: > >Can anyone confirm this bug? Yes. I've just tested it and I can see the same problem. By switching to the syslog (VT4) I can see that there problem is with the mutt package: --- Nov 2 18:14:59 in-target: The following packages have unmet dependencies: Nov 2 18:14:59 in-target: mutt : Depends: libgpgme11 (>= 1.2.0) but it is not installable Nov 2 18:14:59 in-target: Depends: libnotmuch4 (>= 0.21~rc1) but it is not installable Nov 2 18:14:59 in-target: E: in-target: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. --- There is a bug here, and I think it's possibly in tasksel. Mutt is not on the installation CD, and neither are its dependencies libgpgme11 and libnotmuch4. *However*, the installer has automatically added security.debian.org to the sources.list of the new system and peformed an "apt-get update". This found a security update for mutt, and mutt is Priority: standard so tasksel decided it should be installed. But the dependencies are not on security.debian.org and not on the CD --> problem. That's how this becomes a problem. For now, if you have security updates installed then you'll need to enable a mirror or start with a larger installation CD. Sorry... :-/ -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast." Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html
debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror
debian-users: I downloaded debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso several months ago via: https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/jigdo-cd/ Here is the local file produced by Jidgo: 2018-11-01 21:47:40 dpchrist@vstretch ~/iso/debian/9.5.0/amd64 $ ll debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso -rw-r--r--+ 1 dpchrist dpchrist 671088640 2018/08/12 18:34:13 debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso Here is the checksum of the local file: 2018-11-01 21:48:17 dpchrist@vstretch ~/iso/debian/9.5.0/amd64 $ sha256sum debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso e3934b8dd67f31622f8d2bdb72e91d458c05b05d59b069695274c5cb617e821c debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso The checksum of the file matches the checksum from the Debian site: 2018-11-01 21:51:01 dpchrist@vstretch ~/iso/debian/9.5.0/amd64 $ wget -O - https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/jigdo-cd/SHA256SUMS | grep e3934b8dd67f31622f8d2bdb72e91d458c05b05d59b069695274c5cb617e821c --2018-11-01 21:51:11-- https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/jigdo-cd/SHA256SUMS Resolving cdimage.debian.org (cdimage.debian.org)... 194.71.11.173, 194.71.11.165, 2001:6b0:19::173, ... Connecting to cdimage.debian.org (cdimage.debian.org)|194.71.11.173|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 912 Saving to: 'STDOUT' - 0%[] 0 --.-KB/s e3934b8dd67f31622f8d2bdb72e91d458c05b05d59b069695274c5cb617e821c debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso - 100%[===>] 912 --.-KB/sin 0s 2018-11-01 21:51:12 (6.53 MB/s) - written to stdout [912/912] I burned the ISO to a USB flash drive early today: 2018-11-01 20:12:28 root@po ~ # time dd bs=1M if=/home/dpchrist/iso/debian/9.5.0/amd64/debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso of=/dev/disk/by-id/usb-ADATA_USB_Flash_Drive_1392303332110024-0\:0 640+0 records in 640+0 records out 671088640 bytes (671 MB, 640 MiB) copied, 172.411 s, 3.9 MB/s real2m52.419s user0m0.004s sys 0m0.660s The checksum on the USB flash drive is correct: 2018-11-01 20:17:09 root@po ~ # time dd bs=1M count=640 if=/dev/disk/by-id/usb-ADATA_USB_Flash_Drive_1392303332110024-0\:0 | sha256sum 640+0 records in 640+0 records out 671088640 bytes (671 MB, 640 MiB) copied, 44.265 s, 15.2 MB/s e3934b8dd67f31622f8d2bdb72e91d458c05b05d59b069695274c5cb617e821c - real0m44.268s user0m8.500s sys 0m1.176s When I attempt to install Debian using the above flash drive: Boot Debian 9.5 amd64 Xfce USB flash drive: Debian GNU/Linux installer boot menu Install Language C Continent or region North America Country, territory or areaUnited States Keymap to use American English Hostname dj028yh2 Domain name tracy.holgerdanske.com Root password Re-enter password to verify Full name for the new userdebian Username for your account debian Password Re-enter password to verify Select your time zone Pacific Partitioning method manual Encrypted volume (sde2_crypt) - 1.0 GB Linux device-mapper (crypt) #1 1.0 GB f swap swap Encrypted volume (sde3_crypt) - 10.0 GB Linux device-mapper (crypt) #110.0 GB f btrfs / SCSI5 (0,0,0) (sde) - 16.0 GB ATA SAMSUNG SSD UM41 #1 primary 999.3 MB B F btrfs /boot #2 primary1.0 GB k crypto(sde2_crypt) #3 primary 10.0 GB k crypto(sde3_crypt) pri/log4.0 GBFREE SPACE Use a network mirror No Participate in the package usage survey No Choose software to installDebian desktop environment ... Xfce standard system utilities It fails with a pop-up dialog: [!] Select and install software Installation step failed An installation step failed. You can try to run the failing item again from the menu, or skip it and choose something else. The failing step is: Select and install software Note that I did not select a mirror. Apparently, debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso is missing the packages required for a default installation (?). If I go back and use a network mirror (my local Approx server), I can finish the install successfully: Select Continue -> Configure the package manager: Use
Re: Missing Files Prevent Installation/Execution of Applications
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 01:42:34PM -0400, Stephen P. Molnar wrote: > > Google turned out to be my friend and I installed the 32 bit libraries with > apt-get install ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk. Having accomplished that I > installed > PyRx successfully and it now runs on my 64 bit Debian system. http://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/524 > Unfortunately, the problem with MGLTools still exists: > > computation@debian:~/Applications/MGLTools-1.5.4/bin$ ./adt > setting PYTHONHOME environment > Run AutoDockTools from > /home/computation/Applications/MGLTools-1.5.4/MGLToolsPckgs/AutoDockTools > Resource file used to customize PMV: > /home/computation/.mgltools/1.5.4/Pmv/_pmvrc > opengl extension GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil is not present ^^^ Mmmm, http://feedback.wildfiregames.com/report/opengl/feature/GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil What is your driver version? Graphics card model? http://autodock.1369657.n2.nabble.com/ADL-MGL-installation-on-64-bit-windows7-td4280267.html If you google 'GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil' you can see even more results. -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120917171444.GN8568@tal
Re: Missing Files Prevent Installation/Execution of Applications
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:45:30 -0400, Stephen P. Molnar wrote: > On Thursday 13 September 2012 13:53:05 Camaleón wrote: (...) >> > Major opcode of failed request: 14 (X_GetGeometry) Resource id in >> > failed request: 0x5e00032 Serial number of failed request: 4435 >> > >> > There is obviously something missing. >> >> Yes, most sure the required OpenGL extension. >> >> Run "glxinfo | grep -i gl_ext_packed" and look if it is there. >> >> Greetings, > > Glxinfo was a good suggestion. Unfortunately, it didn't work. As Andrei already suggested, kindly explain this. Do you mean...? 1/ "glxinfo" binary is not found (it comes with "mesa-utils" package and this is not installed) 2/ The above command returned void > I think it comes down to which library contains the missing link? Also, > it may b e a 32 bit application. To find the root of the problem we need to know first what happened with glxinfo :-) Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/k2vkfa$4lj$5...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Missing Files Prevent Installation/Execution of Applications
On Jo, 13 sep 12, 14:45:30, Stephen P. Molnar wrote: > > Glxinfo was a good suggestion. Unfortunately, it didn't work. What do you mean by this? Please copy-paste the error messages. Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Missing Files Prevent Installation/Execution of Applications
On Thursday 13 September 2012 13:53:05 Camaleón wrote: > On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:42:34 -0400, Stephen P. Molnar wrote: > > On Thursday 13 September 2012 10:10:58 Camaleón wrote: > >> > The PyRx instalation process gives me: > >> > > >> > computation@debian:~/Applications$ ./PyRx-0.9-Linux-x86-Install > >> > invalid command name "bind" > >> > >> (...) > >> > >> Check if these forum thread posts help: > >> > >> http://mgl.scripps.edu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1066 > > > > Thanks for your note. > > > > As a matter of fact, these are not 3D applications. I've run both on > > other linux OS's. > > > > Google turned out to be my friend and I installed the 32 bit libraries > > with apt-get install ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk. Having accomplished that > > I installed PyRx successfully and it now runs on my 64 bit Debian > > system. > > Glad it worked :-) > > > Unfortunately, the problem with MGLTools still exists: > > > > computation@debian:~/Applications/MGLTools-1.5.4/bin$ ./adt setting > > PYTHONHOME environment > > Run AutoDockTools from > > /home/computation/Applications/MGLTools-1.5.4/MGLToolsPckgs/ > > AutoDockTools > > > Resource file used to customize PMV: > > /home/computation/.mgltools/1.5.4/Pmv/_pmvrc opengl extension > > GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil is not present X Error of failed request: > > BadDrawable (invalid Pixmap or Window parameter) > > > > Major opcode of failed request: 14 (X_GetGeometry) Resource id in > > failed request: 0x5e00032 Serial number of failed request: 4435 > > > > There is obviously something missing. > > Yes, most sure the required OpenGL extension. > > Run "glxinfo | grep -i gl_ext_packed" and look if it is there. > > Greetings, Glxinfo was a good suggestion. Unfortunately, it didn't work. I think it comes down to which library contains the missing link? Also, it may b e a 32 bit application. -- Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D. Life is a fuzzy set Foundation for Chemistry Stochastic and Multivariant www.FoundationForChemistry.com (614)312-7528 (c) Skype: smolnar1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201209131445.30298.s.mol...@sbcglobal.net
Re: Missing Files Prevent Installation/Execution of Applications
"Stephen P. Molnar" writes: > On Wednesday 12 September 2012 14:17:45 lee wrote: >> "Stephen P. Molnar" writes: >> > opengl extension GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil is not present >> >> This makes me think that you need another driver for the graphics card >> which supports the required extension. > > OK, that makes sense, except which one(s)? > > My laptop has: > > Adapter Type Intel(R) HD Graphics Family, Intel Corporation compatible > Driver Version8.15.10.2455 > Installed Drivers > igdumd64.dll,igd10umd64.dll,igd10umd64.dll,igdumdx32,igd10umd32,igd10umd32 > > which are, of course, for MS Win 7. Now, please keep in mind that I know > absolutely nothing about hardware! Will installing additional drivers mess > up > the system? Unfortunately, my understanding of how the graphics stuff works with VMs is very incomplete. I just haven't used them much, especially not on windoze. I've seen VirtualBox on windoze once, used to run more windoze in it ... so I'm clueless :( As a shot into the dark, I would guess that a driver for a physically present graphics card would need to be able to actually access the graphics card to be able to fully make use of its features. I don't know to what extend that is possible from inside a VM --- I sure wouldn't like it if I was running a VM and suddenly something running in the VM would access the physically present graphics card and mess up my X session ... I'm interested in finding out how this works with VMs, though, since I currently plan to set one up ... -- Debian testing amd64 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/871ui6vcio@yun.yagibdah.de
Re: Missing Files Prevent Installation/Execution of Applications
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:42:34 -0400, Stephen P. Molnar wrote: > On Thursday 13 September 2012 10:10:58 Camaleón wrote: >> > The PyRx instalation process gives me: >> > >> > computation@debian:~/Applications$ ./PyRx-0.9-Linux-x86-Install >> > invalid command name "bind" >> >> (...) >> >> Check if these forum thread posts help: >> >> http://mgl.scripps.edu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1066 >> > > Thanks for your note. > > As a matter of fact, these are not 3D applications. I've run both on > other linux OS's. > > Google turned out to be my friend and I installed the 32 bit libraries > with apt-get install ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk. Having accomplished that > I installed PyRx successfully and it now runs on my 64 bit Debian > system. Glad it worked :-) > Unfortunately, the problem with MGLTools still exists: > > computation@debian:~/Applications/MGLTools-1.5.4/bin$ ./adt setting > PYTHONHOME environment > Run AutoDockTools from > /home/computation/Applications/MGLTools-1.5.4/MGLToolsPckgs/ AutoDockTools > Resource file used to customize PMV: > /home/computation/.mgltools/1.5.4/Pmv/_pmvrc opengl extension > GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil is not present X Error of failed request: > BadDrawable (invalid Pixmap or Window parameter) > Major opcode of failed request: 14 (X_GetGeometry) Resource id in > failed request: 0x5e00032 Serial number of failed request: 4435 > > There is obviously something missing. Yes, most sure the required OpenGL extension. Run "glxinfo | grep -i gl_ext_packed" and look if it is there. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/k2t6i0$jks$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Missing Files Prevent Installation/Execution of Applications
On Thursday 13 September 2012 10:10:58 Camaleón wrote: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:20:14 -0400, Stephen P. Molnar wrote: > > (...) > > > MGLTools installs without any problems,but when I try to run I get: > (...) > > > GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil is not present > > (...) > > What's the emulated graphic card? > > Anyway, VirtualBox VGA 3D capabilities are rather limited and the > application you are trying to run seems to make an extensive usage of the > VGA capabilities. > > Are you sure VirtualBox is listed as supported scennario for this > software? > > > The PyRx instalation process gives me: > > > > computation@debian:~/Applications$ ./PyRx-0.9-Linux-x86-Install invalid > > command name "bind" > > (...) > > Check if these forum thread posts help: > > http://mgl.scripps.edu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1066 > > Greetings, Thanks for your note. As a matter of fact, these are not 3D applications. I've run both on other linux OS's. Google turned out to be my friend and I installed the 32 bit libraries with apt-get install ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk. Having accomplished that I installed PyRx successfully and it now runs on my 64 bit Debian system. Unfortunately, the problem with MGLTools still exists: computation@debian:~/Applications/MGLTools-1.5.4/bin$ ./adt setting PYTHONHOME environment Run AutoDockTools from /home/computation/Applications/MGLTools-1.5.4/MGLToolsPckgs/AutoDockTools Resource file used to customize PMV: /home/computation/.mgltools/1.5.4/Pmv/_pmvrc opengl extension GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil is not present X Error of failed request: BadDrawable (invalid Pixmap or Window parameter) Major opcode of failed request: 14 (X_GetGeometry) Resource id in failed request: 0x5e00032 Serial number of failed request: 4435 There is obviously something missing. -- Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D. Life is a fuzzy set Foundation for Chemistry Stochastic and Multivariant www.FoundationForChemistry.com (614)312-7528 (c) Skype: smolnar1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201209131342.34378.s.mol...@sbcglobal.net
Re: Missing Files Prevent Installation/Execution of Applications
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:20:14 -0400, Stephen P. Molnar wrote: (...) > MGLTools installs without any problems,but when I try to run I get: (...) > GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil is not present (...) What's the emulated graphic card? Anyway, VirtualBox VGA 3D capabilities are rather limited and the application you are trying to run seems to make an extensive usage of the VGA capabilities. Are you sure VirtualBox is listed as supported scennario for this software? > The PyRx instalation process gives me: > > computation@debian:~/Applications$ ./PyRx-0.9-Linux-x86-Install invalid > command name "bind" (...) Check if these forum thread posts help: http://mgl.scripps.edu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1066 Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/k2sphi$jks$5...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Missing Files Prevent Installation/Execution of Applications
On Wednesday 12 September 2012 19:04:55 Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 18:45 -0400, Stephen P. Molnar wrote: > > On Wednesday 12 September 2012 16:52:06 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > Make sure you have the guest additions installed. > > > > Thank you for your note. Indeed, I do have the guest additions > > installed. > > You've got VirtualBox 4.1.22, the current version installed. Do the > guest additions fit to this version? Perhaps you started with an older > version of VBox, upgraded VBox, but not the guest additions. > Does the extension pack fit to this version? Maybe the extension pack > has got no impact to the trouble, I don't know. The entire VirtualBox installation, including the guest additions are up to date. I'm afraid that I don't see what this has to do with missing libraries. -- Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D. Life is a fuzzy set Foundation for Chemistry Stochastic and Multivariant www.FoundationForChemistry.com (614)312-7528 (c) Skype: smolnar1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201209122028.25997.s.mol...@sbcglobal.net
Re: Missing Files Prevent Installation/Execution of Applications
On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 18:45 -0400, Stephen P. Molnar wrote: > On Wednesday 12 September 2012 16:52:06 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > Make sure you have the guest additions installed. > Thank you for your note. Indeed, I do have the guest additions installed. You've got VirtualBox 4.1.22, the current version installed. Do the guest additions fit to this version? Perhaps you started with an older version of VBox, upgraded VBox, but not the guest additions. Does the extension pack fit to this version? Maybe the extension pack has got no impact to the trouble, I don't know. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1347491095.1292.18.camel@localhost.localdomain
Re: Missing Files Prevent Installation/Execution of Applications
On Wednesday 12 September 2012 16:52:06 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Mi, 12 sep 12, 15:47:10, Stephen P. Molnar wrote: > > which are, of course, for MS Win 7. Now, please keep in mind that I know > > absolutely nothing about hardware! Will installing additional drivers > > mess up the system? > > Make sure you have the guest additions installed. > > Kind regards, > Andrei Thank you for your note. Indeed, I do have the guest additions installed. -- Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D. Life is a fuzzy set Foundation for Chemistry Stochastic and Multivariant www.FoundationForChemistry.com (614)312-7528 (c) Skype: smolnar1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201209121845.28292.s.mol...@sbcglobal.net
Re: Missing Files Prevent Installation/Execution of Applications
On Mi, 12 sep 12, 15:47:10, Stephen P. Molnar wrote: > > which are, of course, for MS Win 7. Now, please keep in mind that I know > absolutely nothing about hardware! Will installing additional drivers mess > up > the system? Make sure you have the guest additions installed. Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Missing Files Prevent Installation/Execution of Applications
On Wednesday 12 September 2012 14:17:45 lee wrote: > "Stephen P. Molnar" writes: > > opengl extension GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil is not present > > This makes me think that you need another driver for the graphics card > which supports the required extension. OK, that makes sense, except which one(s)? My laptop has: Adapter TypeIntel(R) HD Graphics Family, Intel Corporation compatible Driver Version 8.15.10.2455 Installed Drivers igdumd64.dll,igd10umd64.dll,igd10umd64.dll,igdumdx32,igd10umd32,igd10umd32 which are, of course, for MS Win 7. Now, please keep in mind that I know absolutely nothing about hardware! Will installing additional drivers mess up the system? -- Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D. Life is a fuzzy set Foundation for Chemistry Stochastic and Multivariant www.FoundationForChemistry.com (614)312-7528 (c) Skype: smolnar1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201209121547.10838.s.mol...@sbcglobal.net
Re: Missing Files Prevent Installation/Execution of Applications
"Stephen P. Molnar" writes: > opengl extension GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil is not present This makes me think that you need another driver for the graphics card which supports the required extension. -- Debian testing amd64 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/877grzw1fa@yun.yagibdah.de
Missing Files Prevent Installation/Execution of Applications
I am in the midst of changing distributions for reasons that aren't really
germane to this note.
I have installed Debian-6.0.5-amd64 on my Dell Inspiron Laptop in VM
VirtualBox 4.1.22. I am having problems installing/running two applications:
MGLTools-1.5.4-Linux-86_64-install and PyRx-Linux-x68-Install (both are
available from www.scripps.edu).
MGLTools installs without any problems,but when I try to run I get:
computation@debian:~/Applications/MGLTools-1.5.4/bin$ ./adt
setting PYTHONHOME environment
Run AutoDockTools from
/home/computation/Applications/MGLTools-1.5.4/MGLToolsPckgs/AutoDockTools
Welcome to Python Molecule Viewer!
Visit http://mgltools.scripps.edu/documentation to read latest documentation.
Resource file used to customize PMV:
/home/computation/.mgltools/1.5.4/Pmv/_pmvrc
opengl extension GL_EXT_packed_depth_stencil is not present
X Error of failed request: BadDrawable (invalid Pixmap or Window parameter)
Major opcode of failed request: 14 (X_GetGeometry)
Resource id in failed request: 0x6200032
Serial number of failed request: 4436
Current serial number in output stream: 4436
The PyRx instalation process gives me:
computation@debian:~/Applications$ ./PyRx-0.9-Linux-x86-Install
invalid command name "bind"
while executing
"::unknown bind Text "
("uplevel" body line 1)
invoked from within
"uplevel 1 $next $args"
(procedure "::obj::Unknown" line 3)
invoked from within
"bind Text "
(procedure "::InstallJammer::InitializeGui" line 19)
invoked from within
"::InstallJammer::InitializeGui "
(procedure "::InstallJammer::InitInstall" line 63)
invoked from within
"::InstallJammer::InitInstall"
(file "/installkitvfs/main.tcl" line 38527)
I think that I know enough to realize that there are missing libraries.
However, while I have been a linux user for a number of years now, I am not an
OS type of individual and have no idea what I need to install to get these
applications to run on Debian.
Any assistance will be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
--
Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D. Life is a fuzzy set
Foundation for Chemistry Stochastic and Multivariant
www.FoundationForChemistry.com
(614)312-7528 (c) Skype: smolnar1
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201209121220.14230.s.mol...@sbcglobal.net
Need help building own Debian Package - dh_install: lighttpd missing files (debian/tmp/usr/sbin/*), aborting
Hello List, i am trying to build my own Debian Package. Below is my debian/rules file. I ran dpkg-buildpackage and i get this error: make[4]: Leaving directory `/root/lighttpd-1.4.26/tests' make[3]: Leaving directory `/root/lighttpd-1.4.26/tests' make[2]: Leaving directory `/root/lighttpd-1.4.26/tests' make[2]: Entering directory `/root/lighttpd-1.4.26' make[2]: Nothing to be done for `check-am'. make[2]: Leaving directory `/root/lighttpd-1.4.26' make[1]: Leaving directory `/root/lighttpd-1.4.26' touch build-stamp dh build debian/rules binary #dh --before dh_auto_install install #dh_auto_install dh_install --sourcedir=debian/tmp dh_install: lighttpd missing files (debian/tmp/usr/sbin/*), aborting make: *** [install-stamp] Error 2 dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules binary gave error exit status 2 debian/rules file: -- #!/usr/bin/make -f DH_VERBOSE=1 build: build-stamp build-stamp: dh build --before auto_configure dh_quilt_patch ./configure \ --with-attr \ --with-lua=lua5.1 \ --with-openssl \ --with-pcre \ --with-bzip2 \ --with-webdav-props \ --with-webdav-locks \ --prefix=/usr/local/lighttpd-1.4.30/ dh build --after auto_configure touch $@ install: install-stamp install-stamp: build-stamp #dh --before dh_auto_install install #dh_auto_install dh_install --sourcedir=debian/tmp touch $@ binary-arch: install dh $@ binary: binary-arch binary-indep override_dh_installinit: dh_installinit --error-handler=true -- defaults 91 09 %: dh $@ Anyone any idea? If there is a debian-dev Mailing list for building packages then let me know. I couldn't find one. Thanks, Mario -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/canfxojdqemgdww1ahsxsu+ky40_s_wox7k6qev7gwgeeypt...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Missing files in home-directory (SOLVED)
Chalk this one up to human error. The files had not gone missing but actually had not beeen restored from a backup since a fresh install of Debian Lenny was performed on the machine in question. All files recovered safe and sound. Cheers, Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d3df27a.10...@pp1.inet.fi
Re: Missing files in home-directory
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/23/2011 07:03 PM, Slicky Johnson wrote: > > > Have him email you the output of 'find /home > email-to-son.txt' > Look for where he hid them. He is the only user on that computer. He tried the search function to look for *.pdf but it gave no results. He says he didn't touch anything but you never know. Cheers. Matthias -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNPIZvAAoJEDF8u+ZDBCZ5nP0H/2VHaxMlHzkqCO9LyxoJiIWp 9IK4qmyNZNrPYQ+vEv9aIrO+6oiZnIFP5dJ11ABj0GQ2jI4P1i3064HHQdxcCOcw DaDb5YZLv4091QBw7wnQjkf7rvjkaeSxtRdKMHUjHIc8+yEtQQQUHaY1Hy+ZHMZ7 uYN5H14V8tuyW6RARhNmzyDXTL/Y5hWJVUirxEIWIlaY5OfXuE2r+uOkJkmOzp/H jeKG+OpxBfQBwzEDCed9u+fBHQiu8IfQVTt3C93Wx+AD9ni3o59FY7j90qx5BCe7 uueu6upDPBCPKiRVJujmjOljhd4WE3eEwCWnOAYiOOBP/zRqJ7Kmm/za61MFS04= =/3vu -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d3c866f.8020...@pp1.inet.fi
Re: Missing files in home-directory
Dne, 23. 01. 2011 17:25:34 je Tshepang Lekhonkhobe napisal(a): Ummm... he deleted them? On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 18:22, Matthias Andersson wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi! > > My dad called me yesterday regarding a problem on his machine running > Debian Lenny. He said he had installed the updates sometime last week > and noticed that all of his files (.pdf, music and photos) went missing > from his home-directory. I had him burn debian livecd and check the > drives with gparted and that did not result in any errors. > > What could be the problem? That, or: 1. he might have inadvertently moved them to some odd location (on my kids' accounts, I frequently find mp3 files moved, say, from the Desktop to the Gnome task bar, or to Trash.) With a file manager, and with some help from a jerky mouse or a jerky hand, you can move files to the strangest of places. 2. the partition currently mounted under the /home mount point is some other "home" (from another Linux install or whatever). May happen after ghosting partitions and ending with two partitions having the identical UUID. 3. oddly configured file manager configured not to show certain file types, or to show them in white text on white background or something like that. -- Cheerio, Klistvud http://bufferoverflow.tiddlyspot.com Certifiable Loonix User #481801 Please reply to the list, not to me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1295810723.5499.1@compax
Re: Missing files in home-directory
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 18:22:27 +0200 Matthias Andersson wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi! > > My dad called me yesterday regarding a problem on his machine running > Debian Lenny. He said he had installed the updates sometime last week > and noticed that all of his files (.pdf, music and photos) went > missing from his home-directory. I had him burn debian livecd and > check the drives with gparted and that did not result in any errors. > > What could be the problem? > Have him email you the output of 'find /home > email-to-son.txt' Look for where he hid them. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk08X2kACgkQ6baBhW8Czri3nACdEKjhJpoJhP/6krcYIniZvlTb pmIAn2JaxqiZAJkVcqmT7nVD/LPQRZiI =Jgjl -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Missing files in home-directory
Ummm... he deleted them? On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 18:22, Matthias Andersson wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi! > > My dad called me yesterday regarding a problem on his machine running > Debian Lenny. He said he had installed the updates sometime last week > and noticed that all of his files (.pdf, music and photos) went missing > from his home-directory. I had him burn debian livecd and check the > drives with gparted and that did not result in any errors. > > What could be the problem? > > Cheers, > Matthias > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNPFXCAAoJEDF8u+ZDBCZ5GQwIAKjS8RqWES62kf3zVUA2br+i > 1HCRkTVaNOKfaWtTFISVoHF0fbm1FPr7OLpmuMvY1gP3n5eB4Y+kJKbitlGO8zLi > QrAQ8V8bQHRbI+/Hm1B5ecvQEiT+TWVsa2CAv4QRdZQImVtKUMtcPPVeoN29l22l > qG11VwOzBjPc/nvJJfH0iCM+w7y4jxJyUqWggnGQMZGsUGrbo8ENAALkNWGlzUkY > GiRKhC/wc1dl7idAlWupBGZsP+eUtjnJtROZHVpKHG8YcZEsVJp9x0mflga1bEWh > DovKpVSPmN7cviUUmg9doA0lXSfi5rcU0vlTb+wyq+EIKzReaFbqroQ7evH2YLM= > =WUi1 > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d3c55c3.1040...@pp1.inet.fi > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTi=dEc8hSSw=pvQFSih=12cEJpWdHeUC-7QaMi=z...@mail.gmail.com
Missing files in home-directory
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi! My dad called me yesterday regarding a problem on his machine running Debian Lenny. He said he had installed the updates sometime last week and noticed that all of his files (.pdf, music and photos) went missing from his home-directory. I had him burn debian livecd and check the drives with gparted and that did not result in any errors. What could be the problem? Cheers, Matthias -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNPFXCAAoJEDF8u+ZDBCZ5GQwIAKjS8RqWES62kf3zVUA2br+i 1HCRkTVaNOKfaWtTFISVoHF0fbm1FPr7OLpmuMvY1gP3n5eB4Y+kJKbitlGO8zLi QrAQ8V8bQHRbI+/Hm1B5ecvQEiT+TWVsa2CAv4QRdZQImVtKUMtcPPVeoN29l22l qG11VwOzBjPc/nvJJfH0iCM+w7y4jxJyUqWggnGQMZGsUGrbo8ENAALkNWGlzUkY GiRKhC/wc1dl7idAlWupBGZsP+eUtjnJtROZHVpKHG8YcZEsVJp9x0mflga1bEWh DovKpVSPmN7cviUUmg9doA0lXSfi5rcU0vlTb+wyq+EIKzReaFbqroQ7evH2YLM= =WUi1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d3c55c3.1040...@pp1.inet.fi
Re: Checking missing files in command line
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 11:20 PM, necro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 08:37:15AM +0200, NN_il_Confusionario wrote: > > Perhaps I do not understand the question: what's wrong with > > cd $PATH1 > > find . >/tmp/dir1.list > > cd $PATH2 > > find . >/tmp/dir2.list > > diff /tmp/dir1.list /tmp/dir2.list > > diff -rq $PATH1/ $PATH2/ That is the one I am looking for. Thanks Nicolo. Kind Regards, Jim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Checking missing files in command line
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 08:37:15AM +0200, NN_il_Confusionario wrote: > Perhaps I do not understand the question: what's wrong with > cd $PATH1 > find . >/tmp/dir1.list > cd $PATH2 > find . >/tmp/dir2.list > diff /tmp/dir1.list /tmp/dir2.list diff -rq $PATH1/ $PATH2/ -- Nicolo' Cristini Linux registered user #265562 www.circolab.net PGP Key id: 0xDED6220C PGP Key fingerprint = 80F5 34DA 9759 C8C3 0385 5657 C3F0 D216 DED6 220C signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Checking missing files in command line
> * From: hce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >How can I check missing library files comparing two directories >(including subdirecties) to use diff or other tools in command line? Perhaps I do not understand the question: what's wrong with cd $PATH1 find . >/tmp/dir1.list cd $PATH2 find . >/tmp/dir2.list diff /tmp/dir1.list /tmp/dir2.list ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Checking missing files in command line
Hi, How can I check missing library files comparing two directories (including subdirecties) to use diff or other tools in command line? Thank you. Kind Regards. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Missing files in locatedb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Victor Munoz wrote: > It worked. All missing files are there now. > > At first, this was a mystery, but now I understand why. updatedb is > not run as root, but as 'nobody', as set in /etc/updatedb.conf, so > the sequence > > $ . /etc/updatedb.conf; updatedb > > yields a lot of "Permission denied" messages, unlike "$ updatedb". > > And I was wrong when I replied to another post in this thread, saying > that all directories had permissions drwxr-xr-x. ~/textos/fisica had > drwxr-xr--, and that was it. > > So it's all working now, and much better, I understand :-) Thanks for > the help. I use package 'slocate' instead of 'locate': /--- $ aptitude show slocate Package: slocate [snip] Description: Secure replacement of findutil's locate This locate can index all files on your system, but only files and directories which the invoking user has access to will be displayed. Note: If your computer is not up 24/7 you should consider installing anacron since the database is only updated once a night. \--- Usage is like for locate, ie. I type locate, but it will execute slocate. HTH, Johannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFG/KQjC1NzPRl9qEURAmNNAJ994vsY6IKqt5BFQtHVjs0Mp4+gUACfTCEk BWaMziTDCLv4q9cxMNuP4Us= =9tLN -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Missing files in locatedb
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 02:53:18PM -0500, Mumia W.. wrote: > > Check /etc/updatedb.conf and the LOCALUSER variable. LOCALUSER is set to > 'nobody' by default, and 'nobody' has no ability to view directories > with -rwx-- permissions. > That was the problem, indeed. Thanks, Victor -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Missing files in locatedb
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 03:31:23PM -0400, Victor Munoz wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 12:26:43PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > > > what are the permissions on the parent directories? that might be more > > relevant. > > > > drwxr-xr-x in all cases. > are these directories nfs mounts by any chance? that's all I can think of, as they are excluded by default. A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Missing files in locatedb
On 09/27/2007 02:21 PM, Victor Munoz wrote: On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 01:43:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: Some files in the original problematic directory have permissions -rw--- (does updatedb respect this), but the file I was looking for in the first place has read permissions for all. I don't understand. Does any? When were these files created? There are 7 files with -rw--- permission, last modification times between 2003-10-16 and 2007-06-11, and 9 files with -rw-r--r-- permissions, last modification times between 2007-05-02 and 2007-08-29. Anyway, other directories which don't seem to be indexed either have files with timestamps in various ranges, I don't see any correlation. Victor Check /etc/updatedb.conf and the LOCALUSER variable. LOCALUSER is set to 'nobody' by default, and 'nobody' has no ability to view directories with -rwx-- permissions. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Missing files in locatedb
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 03:31:23PM -0400, Victor Munoz wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 12:26:43PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > > > what are the permissions on the parent directories? that might be more > > relevant. > > > > drwxr-xr-x in all cases. > Wrong. One had permissions drwxr-xr-- as I mention in other post, and that's why it failed. Thanks, Victor -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Missing files in locatedb
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 08:23:14PM +0200, Johannes Wiedersich wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Victor Munoz wrote: > > Hello. Today I found a very strange problem. Some files seem to be > > missing from locatedb database. > > [snip] > > > I don't understand. Does any? > > Try running 'updatedb' as root manually and check if this helps. > It worked. All missing files are there now. At first, this was a mystery, but now I understand why. updatedb is not run as root, but as 'nobody', as set in /etc/updatedb.conf, so the sequence $ . /etc/updatedb.conf; updatedb yields a lot of "Permission denied" messages, unlike "$ updatedb". And I was wrong when I replied to another post in this thread, saying that all directories had permissions drwxr-xr-x. ~/textos/fisica had drwxr-xr--, and that was it. So it's all working now, and much better, I understand :-) Thanks for the help. Victor -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Missing files in locatedb
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 12:26:43PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > what are the permissions on the parent directories? that might be more > relevant. > drwxr-xr-x in all cases. Victor -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Missing files in locatedb
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 03:21:32PM -0400, Victor Munoz wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 01:43:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > > > > Some files in the original problematic directory have permissions > > > -rw--- (does updatedb respect this), but the file I was looking > > > for in the first place has read permissions for all. > > > > > > I don't understand. Does any? > > > > When were these files created? > > > > There are 7 files with -rw--- permission, last modification times > between 2003-10-16 and 2007-06-11, and 9 files with -rw-r--r-- > permissions, last modification times between 2007-05-02 and 2007-08-29. > Anyway, other directories which don't seem to be indexed either have > files with timestamps in various ranges, I don't see any correlation. what are the permissions on the parent directories? that might be more relevant. A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Missing files in locatedb
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 01:43:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > > Some files in the original problematic directory have permissions > > -rw--- (does updatedb respect this), but the file I was looking > > for in the first place has read permissions for all. > > > > I don't understand. Does any? > > When were these files created? > There are 7 files with -rw--- permission, last modification times between 2003-10-16 and 2007-06-11, and 9 files with -rw-r--r-- permissions, last modification times between 2007-05-02 and 2007-08-29. Anyway, other directories which don't seem to be indexed either have files with timestamps in various ranges, I don't see any correlation. Victor -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Missing files in locatedb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/27/07 12:38, Victor Munoz wrote: > Hello. Today I found a very strange problem. Some files seem to be > missing from locatedb database. > > It all started with one particular file I wanted to find. But 'locate > ' didn't find the file I was looking for. I went to the > directory it was supposed to be, and there it was! > > I have a cron job to updatedb every night. In fact: > > $ ls -l /var/cache/locate/ > total 7020 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7173582 2007-09-27 06:26 locatedb > > So it seems to be in order. The file I wanted was created in August. So? > > In fact, none the files in this directory is in the database! > > In case you're curious, the directory is named > > ~/textos/fisica/departamento_fisica/departamento > > In /etc/updatedb.conf, there is the following line: > > PRUNEPATHS="/tmp /usr/tmp /var/tmp /afs /amd /alex /var/spool /sfs /media" > > So I don't think updatedb should omit this directory. In fact, none of > the files in any subdirectory of ~/textos/fisica/departamento_fisica/ > is indexed! > > I've made some random search of files in other directories, and they > seem indexed. In fact files in ~/textos itself are indexed. > > Some files in the original problematic directory have permissions > -rw--- (does updatedb respect this), but the file I was looking > for in the first place has read permissions for all. > > I don't understand. Does any? When were these files created? - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFG+/nCS9HxQb37XmcRAqp0AKCjY7VDWXovc/lUiWeiTKFRp2iJvwCePucv wleP/20aTOv5HzhdVisMDpw= =TOSw -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Missing files in locatedb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Victor Munoz wrote: > Hello. Today I found a very strange problem. Some files seem to be > missing from locatedb database. [snip] > I don't understand. Does any? Try running 'updatedb' as root manually and check if this helps. Johannes -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFG+/USC1NzPRl9qEURAkN3AJ9pDW/DYuwggs803MvgiI9/uDv/wwCfXxEL 1eCAPBxlTPzeZ4WQvEwT2pI= =RoV2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Missing files in locatedb
Hello. Today I found a very strange problem. Some files seem to be missing from locatedb database. It all started with one particular file I wanted to find. But 'locate ' didn't find the file I was looking for. I went to the directory it was supposed to be, and there it was! I have a cron job to updatedb every night. In fact: $ ls -l /var/cache/locate/ total 7020 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7173582 2007-09-27 06:26 locatedb So it seems to be in order. The file I wanted was created in August. So? In fact, none the files in this directory is in the database! In case you're curious, the directory is named ~/textos/fisica/departamento_fisica/departamento In /etc/updatedb.conf, there is the following line: PRUNEPATHS="/tmp /usr/tmp /var/tmp /afs /amd /alex /var/spool /sfs /media" So I don't think updatedb should omit this directory. In fact, none of the files in any subdirectory of ~/textos/fisica/departamento_fisica/ is indexed! I've made some random search of files in other directories, and they seem indexed. In fact files in ~/textos itself are indexed. Some files in the original problematic directory have permissions -rw--- (does updatedb respect this), but the file I was looking for in the first place has read permissions for all. I don't understand. Does any? Regards, Victor -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[BUG] mounting a cd & 'norock' : missing files
Hello, I am having a very strange issue. I have received a CD where I have to mount it this way: sudo mount -r -t iso9660 -o norock /dev/hda /tmp/cdrom Note that I am forcing the 'norock' option. If I mount it without norock, I have noticed that I am missing 2 files ! Has anyone seen something as strange as that before ? Output of dmesg might help: ... ISO 9660 Extensions: Microsoft Joliet Level 1 ISO 9660 Extensions: IEEE_P1282 ... But even if I mount the cd this way sudo mount -r -t iso9660 -o nojoliet /dev/hda /tmp/cdrom I am still missing at least two files. thanks for comments -- Mathieu Using: debian oldstable $ uname -a Linux zorglub 2.6.18-4-686-bigmem #1 SMP Mon Feb 5 20:08:38 CET 2007 i686 GNU/Linux -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the three missing files........
Dear Debianists,
Here are the three missing files from DVD#1 of Etch RC1:
Jigdo went and found them:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /usr/bin/jigdo-lite
Jigsaw Download "lite"
Copyright (C) 2001-2005 | jigdo@
Richard Atterer | atterer.net
Loading settings from `/home/mikef/.jigdo-lite'
-
To resume a half-finished download, enter name of .jigdo file.
To start a new download, enter URL of .jigdo file.
You can also enter several URLs/filenames, separated with spaces,
or enumerate in {}, e.g. `http://server/cd-{1_NONUS,2,3}.jigdo'
jigdo [/home/mikef/jigdo/debian-testing-i386-binary-2.jigdo]:
-
Images offered by `/home/mikef/jigdo/debian-testing-i386-binary-2.jigdo':
1: 'Debian GNU/Linux testing "Etch" - Official Snapshot i386 Binary-2'
(debian -testing-i386-binary-2.iso)
Further information about `debian-testing-i386-binary-2.iso':
Generated on Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:50:47 +0100
-
If you already have a previous version of the CD you are
downloading, jigdo can re-use files on the old CD that are also
present in the new image, and you do not need to download them
again. Mount the old CD ROM and enter the path it is mounted under
(e.g. `/mnt/cdrom').
Alternatively, just press enter if you want to start downloading
the remaining files.
You can also enter a single digit from the list below to
select the respective entry for scanning:
1: /media/cdrom0
Files to scan:
-
The jigdo file refers to files stored on Debian mirrors. Please
choose a Debian mirror as follows: Either enter a complete URL
pointing to a mirror (in the form
`ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/'), or enter any regular expression
for searching through the list of mirrors: Try a two-letter
country code such as `de', or a country name like `United
States', or a server name like `sunsite'.
Debian mirror [http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/]:
-
Merging parts from `file:' URIs, if any...
Found 0 of the 3 files required by the template
Copied input files to temporary file `debian-testing-i386-binary-2.iso.tmp'
- re peat command and supply more files to continue
--13:07:08--
http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/pool/main/d/dsdo/aspell-da_1.4.52-
1.1_i386.deb
=>
`debian-testing-i386-binary-2.iso.tmpdir/ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/
pool/main/d/dsdo/aspell-da_1.4.52-1.1_i386.deb'
Resolving ftp.uk.debian.org... 83.142.228.128
Connecting to ftp.uk.debian.org|83.142.228.128|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 4,616,326 (4.4M) [application/x-debian-package]
100%[>] 4,616,326110.53K/sETA
00:00
13:07:49 (110.38 KB/s) -
`debian-testing-i386-binary-2.iso.tmpdir/ftp.uk.debian.
org/debian/pool/main/d/dsdo/aspell-da_1.4.52-1.1_i386.deb' saved
[4616326/461632 6]
--13:07:49--
http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/pool/main/b/bgoffice/aspell-bg_3.0
-7_all.deb
=>
`debian-testing-i386-binary-2.iso.tmpdir/ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/
pool/main/b/bgoffice/aspell-bg_3.0-7_all.deb'
Reusing existing connection to ftp.uk.debian.org:80.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 664,464 (649K) [application/x-debian-package]
100%[>] 664,464 110.56K/sETA
00:00
13:07:55 (110.74 KB/s) -
`debian-testing-i386-binary-2.iso.tmpdir/ftp.uk.debian.
org/debian/pool/main/b/bgoffice/aspell-bg_3.0-7_all.deb' saved
[664464/664464]
--13:07:55--
http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/pool/main/a/aspell-fr/aspell-fr_0.
50-3-6_all.deb
=>
`debian-testing-i386-binary-2.iso.tmpdir/ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/
pool/main/a/aspell-fr/aspell-fr_0.50-3-6_all.deb'
Reusing existing connection to ftp.uk.debian.org:80.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 376,504 (368K) [application/x-debian-package]
100%[>] 376,504 110.54K/sETA
00:00
13:07:59 (110.85 KB/s) -
`debian-testing-i386-binary-2.iso.tmpdir/ftp.uk.debian.
org/debian/pool/main/a/aspell-fr/aspell-fr_0.50-3-6_all.deb' saved
[376504/37650 4]
FINISHED --13:07:59--
Downloaded: 5,657,294 bytes in 3 files
Found 3 of the 3 files required by the template
Successfully created `debian-testing-i386-binary-2.iso'
-
Finished!
The fact that you got this far is a strong indication that
`debian-testing-i386- binary-2.iso'
was generated correctly. I will perform an additional, final check,
which you can interrupt safely with Ctrl-C if you do not want to wait.
OK: Checksums match, image is good!
Re: rhythmbox missing files
On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 14:58 +, Adam Hardy wrote: > Sound juicer plays cds fine. > > Debugging showed this: > (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [rb_plugins_engine_load] rb-plugins-engine.c:108: > Loading > plugin: /usr/lib/rhythmbox/plugins/audiocd.rb-plugin > (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [rb_plugins_engine_load] rb-plugins-engine.c:205: > Could > not find 'Description' in /usr/lib/rhythmbox/plugins/audiocd.rb-plugin > (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [rb_plugins_engine_load_cb] rb-plugins-engine.c:273: > Plugin Audio CD loaded > (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [rb_module_init] rb-module.c:132: RBModule 0x83ba430 > initialising > (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [rb_module_load] rb-module.c:64: Loading > /usr/lib/rhythmbox/plugins/libaudiocd.so > (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [register_rb_plugin] rb-audiocd-plugin.c:99: > Registering > plugin RBAudioCdPlugin > (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [rb_module_new_object] rb-module.c:117: Creating > object > of type RBAudioCdPlugin > (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [rb_audiocd_plugin_init] rb-audiocd-plugin.c:118: > RBAudioCdPlugin initialising > > ** (rhythmbox:13446): WARNING **: Could not initalize the HAL context: (null) > > ** (rhythmbox:13446): WARNING **: hal_initialize failed: (null) > (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [impl_activate] rb-audiocd-plugin.c:474: found volume > for > /dev/hdc > (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [rb_audiocd_plugin_mount_volume] > rb-audiocd-plugin.c:151: > checking audiocd for tmpfs > (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [rb_plugins_engine_load] rb-plugins-engine.c:108: > Loading > plugin: /usr/lib/rhythmbox/plugins/audioscrobbler/audioscrobbler.rb-plugin > (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [rb_plugins_engine_load_cb] rb-plugins-engine.c:273: > Plugin Last.fm Profile loaded > > then a bit later this comes up: > > > (14:51:30) [0x815b3d8] [rb_plugin_info_free] rb-plugins-engine.c:364: Unref > plugin Audio CD > (14:51:30) [0x815b3d8] [rb_audiocd_plugin_finalize] rb-audiocd-plugin.c:131: > RBAudioCdPlugin finalising > > but that's all I can find amongst the stream of debug info. What should I be > looking for? The warnings about HAL doesn't look good, but I'm not sure what can be done about them, better file a bug. -- Cheers, Sven Arvidsson http://www.whiz.se PGP Key ID 760BDD22 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: rhythmbox missing files
On Sun, 2006-10-29 at 15:09 +, Adam Hardy wrote: > OK, so my album is called St Dominic's Preview by Van Morrison. And there's > another called His Band and the Street Choir. > > What's the plugin searching with? The artist and the album tags, I guess. > Just > in case it was something stupid, I copied the text strings from Amazon and > saved > them to the tags. No dice. I'm not sure actually. There are a few bugs open about missing or wrong covers, maybe you can add a comment about these albums? -- Cheers, Sven Arvidsson http://www.whiz.se PGP Key ID 760BDD22 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: rhythmbox missing files
Sven Arvidsson on 29/10/06 14:28, wrote: On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 21:05 +0100, Adam Hardy wrote: Some of my albums don't show the art work and I can't find any way to show what server the plugin is using to check for artwork, or where it is configured to cache the jpgs. [snip] The album art and lyrics plugin are still young, and have a few kinks. I agree that documentation about these should be added to the program and maybe to a FAQ somewhere. The album art is taken from Amazon, or from local files. I usually name the cover cover.jpg and save it in the same directory as the album. Cached covers are saved in ~/.gnome2/rhythmbox/covers/ OK, so my album is called St Dominic's Preview by Van Morrison. And there's another called His Band and the Street Choir. What's the plugin searching with? The artist and the album tags, I guess. Just in case it was something stupid, I copied the text strings from Amazon and saved them to the tags. No dice. Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: rhythmbox missing files
Sven Arvidsson on 29/10/06 14:28, wrote: On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 21:05 +0100, Adam Hardy wrote: And I can't get rhythmbox to play CDs - that should be fairly basic, but CDs just don't appear, not even after a 'rescan removable media'. Can other Gstreamer based programs find and play CDs? (totem-gstreamer, sound-juicer). You might need to start rhythmbox with the debug flag (rhythmbox -d) and check for errors. Sound juicer plays cds fine. Debugging showed this: (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [rb_plugins_engine_load] rb-plugins-engine.c:108: Loading plugin: /usr/lib/rhythmbox/plugins/audiocd.rb-plugin (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [rb_plugins_engine_load] rb-plugins-engine.c:205: Could not find 'Description' in /usr/lib/rhythmbox/plugins/audiocd.rb-plugin (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [rb_plugins_engine_load_cb] rb-plugins-engine.c:273: Plugin Audio CD loaded (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [rb_module_init] rb-module.c:132: RBModule 0x83ba430 initialising (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [rb_module_load] rb-module.c:64: Loading /usr/lib/rhythmbox/plugins/libaudiocd.so (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [register_rb_plugin] rb-audiocd-plugin.c:99: Registering plugin RBAudioCdPlugin (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [rb_module_new_object] rb-module.c:117: Creating object of type RBAudioCdPlugin (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [rb_audiocd_plugin_init] rb-audiocd-plugin.c:118: RBAudioCdPlugin initialising ** (rhythmbox:13446): WARNING **: Could not initalize the HAL context: (null) ** (rhythmbox:13446): WARNING **: hal_initialize failed: (null) (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [impl_activate] rb-audiocd-plugin.c:474: found volume for /dev/hdc (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [rb_audiocd_plugin_mount_volume] rb-audiocd-plugin.c:151: checking audiocd for tmpfs (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [rb_plugins_engine_load] rb-plugins-engine.c:108: Loading plugin: /usr/lib/rhythmbox/plugins/audioscrobbler/audioscrobbler.rb-plugin (14:51:12) [0x815b3d8] [rb_plugins_engine_load_cb] rb-plugins-engine.c:273: Plugin Last.fm Profile loaded then a bit later this comes up: (14:51:30) [0x815b3d8] [rb_plugin_info_free] rb-plugins-engine.c:364: Unref plugin Audio CD (14:51:30) [0x815b3d8] [rb_audiocd_plugin_finalize] rb-audiocd-plugin.c:131: RBAudioCdPlugin finalising but that's all I can find amongst the stream of debug info. What should I be looking for? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: rhythmbox missing files
On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 21:05 +0100, Adam Hardy wrote: > I can't find any info on rhythmbox beyond the help, apart from oblique > references (especially the rhythmbox mailing list) > > Some of my albums don't show the art work and I can't find any way to show > what > server the plugin is using to check for artwork, or where it is configured to > cache the jpgs. > > Likewise I can't find out anything about the lyrics plugin or where it is > searching for lyrics. The album art and lyrics plugin are still young, and have a few kinks. I agree that documentation about these should be added to the program and maybe to a FAQ somewhere. The album art is taken from Amazon, or from local files. I usually name the cover cover.jpg and save it in the same directory as the album. Cached covers are saved in ~/.gnome2/rhythmbox/covers/ Lyrics are taken from leoslyrics.com and saved to ~/.lyrics/ > And I can't get rhythmbox to play CDs - that should be fairly basic, but CDs > just don't appear, not even after a 'rescan removable media'. Can other Gstreamer based programs find and play CDs? (totem-gstreamer, sound-juicer). You might need to start rhythmbox with the debug flag (rhythmbox -d) and check for errors. -- Cheers, Sven Arvidsson http://www.whiz.se PGP Key ID 760BDD22 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: rhythmbox missing files
Adam Hardy on 28/10/06 17:45, wrote: Sven Arvidsson on 28/10/06 16:57, wrote: On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 16:17 +0100, Adam Hardy wrote: And by the way, what's a good piece of software for changing the tags? You could try exfalso, or easytag. I wrote some tags to the files from the filename with exfalso, and rhythmbox is happy. I can't find any info on rhythmbox beyond the help, apart from oblique references (especially the rhythmbox mailing list) Some of my albums don't show the art work and I can't find any way to show what server the plugin is using to check for artwork, or where it is configured to cache the jpgs. Likewise I can't find out anything about the lyrics plugin or where it is searching for lyrics. And I can't get rhythmbox to play CDs - that should be fairly basic, but CDs just don't appear, not even after a 'rescan removable media'. Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: rhythmbox missing files
Sven Arvidsson on 28/10/06 16:57, wrote: On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 16:17 +0100, Adam Hardy wrote: Exactly the problem - they're all in Unknown. I don't get any errors from gst-launch-0.10, and it plays fine, but the second command to read the tags doesn't. It just hangs there without any errors. Can other, non-gstreamer based players, display the tags? How do you prune a song down to 500K? I've not done that before. Try head --bytes=500k fullsong.mp3 > shortsong.mp3 I believe id3 tags normally are in the beginning of the file, but if there are other kinds of tags, they might be in the end, so be sure to save a copy of the full file if you edit the tags. And by the way, what's a good piece of software for changing the tags? You could try exfalso, or easytag. Difficult to say. xmms displays the title and shows all the others as empty, but the title just happens to be the same as the file name with '.mp3' stripped off. That might just be xmms trying to be nice and forgiving. I can't remember what on earth I was doing when I ripped this - but it was about 8 years ago, but there were tags then too. I wrote some tags to the files from the filename with exfalso, and rhythmbox is happy. I guess the tags were just plain missing. Thanks for the help. Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
