Hi,
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Remove the unofficial repository if you use the official one now. They
contain the same packages but different builds of them, which confuses
apt-get.
the problem was, that I had the official testing repository in my
/etc/apt/sources.list (to get the stuff
Peter Stoehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jo Shields wrote:
apt-get clean should help
No not really. I also backported packages on Intel systems, but I never
saw this issue there.
Peter
Remove the unofficial repository if you use the official one now. They
contain the same packages
Quoting Peter Stoehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
But, whenever I make apt-get update apt-get upgrade, apt want to
upgrade Postfix and Vnstat again and again.
Did I something wrong when building the packages?
I have the exact same behaviour on one of my hosts with the libselinux1
package, which
Sander Smeenk wrote:
Quoting Peter Stoehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
But, whenever I make apt-get update apt-get upgrade, apt want to
upgrade Postfix and Vnstat again and again.
Did I something wrong when building the packages?
I have the exact same behaviour on one of my hosts
Jo Shields wrote:
apt-get clean should help
No not really. I also backported packages on Intel systems, but I never
saw this issue there.
Peter
--
Unofficial repository for AMD64:
PHP 5.1 - Postfix 2.2 - VNSTAT 1.4
deb http://peter.st/debian-amd64/ sarge main
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Hi everyone,
I have a strange problem with apt. I backported Postfix and vnstat,
builded the Debian packages, installed them and put them into my
repository. Everythings works fine.
But, whenever I make apt-get update apt-get upgrade, apt want to
upgrade Postfix and Vnstat again and again. Did
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 03:20:52PM -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
The amd64 autobuilder has been skipping several otherwise buildable
packages due to out-of-date entries in Packages-arch-specific; could
you please add amd64 to the following packages' architectures?
drip
joystick
mindi
mondo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thierry Chatelet wrote:
Wolfgang Mader wrote:
Hello list,
since a real long time, two months or so, aptitude always wants to
upgrade the package
libselinux from version 1.30-1 to version 1.30-1
This is not bad, I think but anoying. Has someone
Wolfgang Mader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello list,
since a real long time, two months or so, aptitude always wants to upgrade
the
package
libselinux from version 1.30-1 to version 1.30-1
This is not bad, I think but anoying. Has someone an idea.
Run aptitude clean and remove sarge
My german is not that good, but I think that, for googleearth, the
installer is looking for xserver or something similar, and it does not
fing it because you are running ./googleearthbin from root. Try it
as a normal user, should work
Thierry
I tried as user and as root with exported
Am Mittwoch, 19. Juli 2006 20:05 schrieb Wolfgang Mader:
My german is not that good, but I think that, for googleearth, the
installer is looking for xserver or something similar, and it does not
fing it because you are running ./googleearthbin from root. Try it
as a normal user, should
Hello list,
since a real long time, two months or so, aptitude always wants to upgrade the
package
libselinux from version 1.30-1 to version 1.30-1
This is not bad, I think but anoying. Has someone an idea.
And another package is a bit strange. The new googleearth-package package. I
installed
Wolfgang Mader wrote:
Hello list,
since a real long time, two months or so, aptitude always wants to upgrade the
package
libselinux from version 1.30-1 to version 1.30-1
This is not bad, I think but anoying. Has someone an idea.
And another package is a bit strange. The new
://www.debian.org/distrib/packages
On this homepage, all of the debian packages and their contents can be search
in such a simple way that even I can do it.
The tool
dselect
is a very handy tool to install packages. You can see the whole list of
installed and available packages. A friend of min
/packages
On this homepage, all of the debian packages and their contents can be
search in such a simple way that even I can do it.
The tool
dselect
is a very handy tool to install packages.
I found it difficult to use, but it may be my fault.
You can see the whole list of
installed
yesterday, and attempted the samba install, the
repository went from this:
# apt-cache policy samba
samba:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 3.0.22-1
Version table:
3.0.22-1 0
500 ftp://mirrors.kernel.org unstable/main Packages
3.0.14a-3 0
* Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006:06:05:09:38:40+0200] scribed:
snip /
Better don't mix sarge and etch. That can confuse apt.
snip /
Where can I read up on the ramifications of this?
On this very list, I was advised to use sarge to get kde onto my system.
My understanding of apt,
onto my system.
My understanding of apt, preferences and pinning -- although a meager
understanding -- is that mixing issues can be mitigated.
What am I missing?
That sarge and etch/sid have the same package/version but different
md5sum because all packages got rebuild. You can end up with apt
helices [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What do you think?
I think you need to read more. Google a bit and read what errors and
warnings you get from commands.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
install, the
repository went from this:
# apt-cache policy samba
samba:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 3.0.22-1
Version table:
3.0.22-1 0
500 ftp://mirrors.kernel.org unstable/main Packages
3.0.14a-3 0
100 ftp://debian.csail.mit.edu sarge
I want to install samba on the new amd64 system. This is the current
state:
# apt-cache policy samba samba-common samba-doc
samba:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 3.0.22-1
Version table:
3.0.22-1 0
500 ftp://mirrors.kernel.org unstable/main Packages
When running unstable on my amd64 system, I am encountering problems
upgrading five packages. The packages with the problems are docker,
libbonobo2-0, libgtk2.0-bin, libselinux1, and openntpd. After
upgrading them, they stay in the list of packages to be upgraded.
Forcing a purge on them
Hello,
I'm running Sarge on amd64 with php5 and mysql5 packages from the dotdeb
repository. Recently, I've run into an issue where I'm unable to insert
or update tables. PHP version is 5.1.2 and MySQL is 5.0.19.
One thing I've noticed that is odd is that in phpinfo(), the mysql
section
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 06:04:07PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 03:54:34PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
Urgent (?) hints are needed for:
- linux-2.6/2.6.15-7
- udev/0.085-1# Fixes important issue on hppa (#353480)
These hints are queued to be added on
kernel udeb packages (should all be in the archive by Sun):
- linux-kernel-di-alpha-2.6
- linux-kernel-di-arm-2.6
- linux-kernel-di-hppa-2.6
- linux-kernel-di-i386-2.6
- linux-kernel-di-ia64-2.6
- linux-kernel-di-m68k-2.6
- linux-kernel-di-powerpc-2.6
- linux-kernel-di-sparc-2.6
The same
.
Udeb migration hints are needed for:
- dmidecode (deb migrated 23/2)
- base-installer
- clock-setup
- preseed
- udev
- wireless tools
- All 2.6 kernel udeb packages (should all be in the archive by Sun):
- linux-kernel-di-alpha-2.6
- linux-kernel-di-arm-2.6
- linux-kernel-di-hppa-2.6
Hello!
The packages kcpuload, knetload and kaquarium require the lib
kdelibs4c2, but kdelibs4c2a is the new name of the lib!
I reportet it already to the Debian BTS, but they telled me that it's
the false address and i have to report it to the amd64-team!
Lari
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
= the deb-package for it is totally out of date)?
E.g. should they be copied to the directories from the patch-debian-package?
2) back to nvidia problems:
What are the different packages for?
(nvidia-kernel-common, nvidia-kernel-source, nvidia-glx)
One must contain the binary-only libs (for X), another
the patch-debian-package?
2) back to nvidia problems:
What are the different packages for?
(nvidia-kernel-common, nvidia-kernel-source, nvidia-glx)
nvidia-kernel-common provides some startup scripts and such.
nvidia-kernel-source provides the kernel driver code that has to be
compiled for each
) modules? Is there some good
document or so (for the whole Debian-way in kernel/patches/modules
matters?).
See URL above.
4) Last but not least:
My graphic card requires one of the newer drivers from nvidia (it does
not work correctly with the 7147). Why are the packages for newer
versions
Hi.
Many days ago two packages in sid caught my eye: firefox (a replacement for
the new mozilla-firefox package) and update-notifier. However, a couple of
weeks later, they still haven't hit amd64's sid. Why is this?
TIA,
Rafael Rodríguez
It's frustrating that quite a lot of packages are not available on
amd64, particularly when it's simply because the maintainer has not
applied a patch.
Andreas Jochens in particular has supplied hundreds of patches.
See
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=submitterdata=aj
Hamish Moffatt schrieb:
It's frustrating that quite a lot of packages are not available on
amd64, particularly when it's simply because the maintainer has not
applied a patch.
Ayay.
Is there an automated list of which packages are missing on amd64?
http://amd64.debian.net/docs
Hi all. It seems that the Debian amd64 non-free Packages files for
sarge got truncated. Could one of the archive maintainers cause that
file to be regenerated, or was this intentional for some reason? My
mirror suggests that it was last touched on Aug. 12.
Thanks.
noah
signature.asc
Hello,
For the past while I have been experiencing problems with my apt-get command
and I was wondering if anyone might be able to help me with my
difficulties.
The problem is that my apt-get will not seam to update/upgrade any of my
packages even though I know there are new packages available
Monty wrote:
The problem is that my apt-get will not seam to update/upgrade any of my
packages even though I know there are new packages available by looking in
/var/lib/dpkg/available.
As an example, I currently have lynx V2.8.5REL1 installed but my
/var/lib/dpkg/available file indicates
Monty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello,
For the past while I have been experiencing problems with my apt-get command
and I was wondering if anyone might be able to help me with my
difficulties.
The problem is that my apt-get will not seam to update/upgrade any of my
packages even though I
kernel-image
or
# apt-cache search linux-image
# apt-get install linux-image-2.6.12-1-686
apt-cache search kernel-image gives me a bunch of 2.4.x and 2.6.8-11
entries only on my machine
what i have to do to have these sources on my testing (currently kernel
2.6.11). i downloaded the packages
linux-image-2.6.12-1-686
apt-cache search kernel-image gives me a bunch of 2.4.x and 2.6.8-11
entries only on my machine
what i have to do to have these sources on my testing (currently kernel
2.6.11). i downloaded the packages for kernel i'm using just now
myself... or are these packages
Hi,
ftp-master still refuses amd64 packages.
Can i upload my amd64 packages somewhere or i should simply wait for
the autobuilds?
-Pascal
--
XBGM# (http://xbgm.sf.net)
MoviXMaker-2 (http://sv.gnu.org/projects/movixmaker)
[e]MoviX[2] (http://movix.sf.net)
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org)
On 10372 March 1977, Pascal Giard wrote:
ftp-master still refuses amd64 packages.
Can i upload my amd64 packages somewhere or i should simply wait for
the autobuilds?
Wait.
--
bye Joerg
I think there's a world market for about five computers.
-- attr. Thomas J. Watson (Chairman
Hello !
Did I miss something ? All the packages in main are gone. Only the packages in
non-free are there.
This is my last known entry in sources.list:
deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 sid main contrib
non-free
deb-src http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64
On (24/07/05 08:28), Hans wrote:
Did I miss something ? All the packages in main are gone. Only the packages
in
non-free are there.
This is my last known entry in sources.list:
deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 sid main contrib
non-free
deb-src http://debian
Hans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello !
Did I miss something ? All the packages in main are gone. Only the packages
in
non-free are there.
This is my last known entry in sources.list:
deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 sid main contrib
non-free
deb-src http
Hi!
By the way, can the same (or modified) approach be used for the installation
of 32bit Flash Player Plugin?
wbr, Kirill.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
v0n0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow ha scritto:
- dpkg -i amd64-archive_0.2_amd64.deb
This will download the i386 debs and convert them. Gives a lot of
output.
ok, went well (when I installed dependancies), but downloaded and
mangled sarge-etch-sid versions of every
anything besides libc6 which needs special tricks for
the conversion yet, the general conversion rules work very well.
This ends up with:
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
ia32-libwine: Depends: xlibmesa3-gl which is a virtual package. or
xlibmesa* needs to be renamed
On Sunday 17 July 2005 13:28, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Package fetching is done by reprepro and turning it more verbose gives
some more messages but not a download progress for files.
The package fetching is also going to be done by a cron job normaly.
Unless it gets an error it should
Ed Tomlinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 17 July 2005 13:28, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Package fetching is done by reprepro and turning it more verbose gives
some more messages but not a download progress for files.
The package fetching is also going to be done by a cron job
special tricks for
the conversion yet, the general conversion rules work very well.
This ends up with:
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
ia32-libwine: Depends: xlibmesa3-gl which is a virtual package. or
ia32-libgl1 which is a virtual package.
which does
I got it to work, but not as you suggested.
Ah, I knew there was a reason why I used Pre-Depends: lib32gcc1
before. 'apt-get install --reinstall ia32-libc6' should restore the
link.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% ls -lh /lib/i486-linux/libgcc_s.so.1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 amd64-archive root 38 Jul 16 14:53
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 09:59:43PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Check what apt-get wants to remove as it might remove the wrong
thing. It works for me but you might have something else installed.
Removing ia32-libs is intentional though.
Here it doesn't remove ia32-libs. But it seems,
Stephan Seitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 09:59:43PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Check what apt-get wants to remove as it might remove the wrong
thing. It works for me but you might have something else installed.
Removing ia32-libs is intentional though.
Here
-- the OO package deps are not updated so the
etch/sid installation didn't work for me.
It would be nice to have some more messages during lists update/packages
fetching -- on slow connections it is difficult to understand is it stuck or
still doing something. (I used 'du /var/lib/amd64-archive
.
It would be nice to have some more messages during lists update/packages
fetching -- on slow connections it is difficult to understand is it stuck or
still doing something. (I used 'du /var/lib/amd64-archive/lists' and
'du /var/lib/amd64-archive/pool' to check if the script still working
for the ia32libs?
It replaces the ia32-libs packages and adds more debs to the mix.
The ia32-libs package must carry all the sources and 32bit debs inside
the ia32-libs_ver.tar.gz file for GPL compliance and is insanely huge
(205MB) due to this. It also is only updated infrequently because it
needs
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 14:06 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 20:40 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 18:22 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Hi,
[snip]
37.5 cent packages
Franz Schenk wrote:
ok, this might be off-topic by now, but I always wanted to know:
is this expression related to the saying 'just my two cents' or 'just my
two pennies worth'?
If not, maybe someone could enter with an explanation about the origin
of this phrase?
Maybe this is helpful:
Hi,
I've uploaded an update of amd64-archive to
http://amd64.debian.net/~goswin/amd64-archive/.
Version 0.2 comes with support for rar and qemu and all their libs
preconfigured now. Next thing I will add is probably mplayer-686 and
w32codecs but you can test other packages yourself if you like
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 18:22 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Hi,
[snip]
37.5 cent packages? ;)
(Or is that solely an Americanism?)
--
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail
is probably mplayer-686 and
w32codecs but you can test other packages yourself if you like. Simple
packages just have to be added to the package list.
What does this thing do?
Greetings,
--
Javier Kohen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: blashyrkh #2361802
Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 18:22 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Hi,
[snip]
37.5 cent packages? ;)
(Or is that solely an Americanism?)
I don't get that. Must be an Americanism.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 20:40 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 18:22 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Hi,
[snip]
37.5 cent packages? ;)
(Or is that solely an Americanism?)
I don't get that. Must
On Thursday 14 July 2005 01:40 pm, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 18:22 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Hi,
[snip]
37.5 cent packages? ;)
(Or is that solely an Americanism?)
I don't get that. Must be an Americanism
preconfigured now. Next thing I will add is probably mplayer-686 and
w32codecs but you can test other packages yourself if you like. Simple
packages just have to be added to the package list.
What does this thing do?
Greetings,
It builds a local apt archive of 32bit packages converted to
amd64
Nicholas P. Mueller wrote:
Hello, new to Debian, AMD64,
from some searching I found a message in the list that said security
updates for the amd64 port would be released after the release of Sarge:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2005/05/msg00860.html
Does anyone out there know
Filippo Giunchedi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nicholas P. Mueller wrote:
Hello, new to Debian, AMD64,
from some searching I found a message in the list that said security
updates for the amd64 port would be released after the release of Sarge:
Hello, new to Debian, AMD64,
from some searching I found a message in the list that said security
updates for the amd64 port would be released after the release of Sarge:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2005/05/msg00860.html
Does anyone out there know the timeline for these updates to
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 02:52:10AM +0200, Bluefuture wrote:
The upstream projects has officially released [1] freepascal 2.0
packages for debian[2]. What this the status of the official debian
build for amd64? Actually seems builded on this archs:
unstable (devel): Free Pascal -- Compiler
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 08:42:16AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 02:52:10AM +0200, Bluefuture wrote:
The upstream projects has officially released [1] freepascal 2.0
packages for debian[2]. What this the status of the official debian
build for amd64? Actually seems
Hello debian fellows.
Sinc the update of apt to 0.6.x with the support of package verification
using gnupg, I was wondering if this has been built into the packages
that are stored in debian amd64 repositories? I've tried to implement
this feature on my amd64 box. After fixing couple of issues
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 12:52:47PM +0100, Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote:
Hello debian fellows.
Sinc the update of apt to 0.6.x with the support of package verification
using gnupg, I was wondering if this has been built into the packages
that are stored in debian amd64 repositories? I've tried
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
I was under the impression the majority of packages in debian were not
signed, since no one has come up with a way for the buildd to sign a
package using a package maintainers key (and I imagine no one should try
either).
All packages are signed. Ones uploaded
Andrei Mikhailovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Has anyone anyone manage to make verification of packages/Release files
work under amd64?
You have to obtain the AMD64 Archive Key (for example from a keyserver:
http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindexsearch=0xE415B2B4B5F5BBED
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 08:02 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 12:52:47PM +0100, Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote:
Has anyone anyone manage to make verification of packages/Release files
work under amd64?
Many thanks for any help
I was under the impression the majority
The upstream projects has officially released [1] freepascal 2.0
packages for debian[2]. What this the status of the official debian
build for amd64? Actually seems builded on this archs:
unstable (devel): Free Pascal -- Compiler
2.0.0-2: i386 powerpc sparc
P.s. please reply also to my address
Pavel Jurus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wanted to upgrade one of my computers using this /etc/apt/sources.list
deb http://debian-ppc64.alioth.debian.org/gcc4 unstable main contrib
non-free
Problem is that libc6 is non-upgradable because it missing (together
with other packages created from
because it missing (together
with other packages created from glibc source package) in Packages file.
Looking at http://debian-ppc64.alioth.debian.org/gcc4/pool/main/g/glibc/
however shows libc6_2.3.5-1_amd64.deb which is probably the needed
package. What's the problem with Packages file
I hate to reply to my own mails but Packages file seems to be corrected
now:)
Thanks
Pavel
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 11:52 +0200, Pavel Jurus wrote:
To clarify my question - I'm talking about AMD64 debian port that is
compiled by the gcc4 branch. But since this port is even more
unofficial I'm
Pavel Jurus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To clarify my question - I'm talking about AMD64 debian port that is
compiled by the gcc4 branch. But since this port is even more
unofficial I'm cc:ing this also directly to Andreas. I don't think
debian-ppc64 is the correct list to ask my question but
I wanted to upgrade one of my computers using this /etc/apt/sources.list
deb http://debian-ppc64.alioth.debian.org/gcc4 unstable main contrib
non-free
Problem is that libc6 is non-upgradable because it missing (together
with other packages created from glibc source package) in Packages file
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 08:13:21PM +0200, Miroslav Maiksnar wrote:
Hi,
I just came across strange problem. After upgrade from about 2 months old
testing sarge to current stable sarge I noticed there remain 3
upgradeable packages:
harden-environment 0.1.17 - 0.1.17
python-pyopenssl 0.6
Dne st 8. ervna 2005 23:06 Kurt Roeckx napsal(a):
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 08:13:21PM +0200, Miroslav Maiksnar wrote:
[ . . . ]
It is bit funny, because no matter how many times I try to upgrade them
(to same version as they are now), apt wants to upgrade them. It is quite
annoying,
2005 m. June 3 d., Friday 03:52, Theodore Kisner ra:
Kalle,
thank you very much for rebuilding the kde 3.4.0 packages for amd64. I
have been using them for a month with no problems. Do you have any
interest in building the new 3.4.1 packages? If not, I could take a shot
at building them
On Thursday 02 June 2005 22:58, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
kde 3.4.1 has just been uploaded to experimental yesterday. I
will be building and uploading them there during the weekend.
Thank you Kurt! That's great news...
-Ted
On Friday 03 June 2005 09:54, Andreas Richter wrote:
I have installed packages from pkg-kde.alioth.debian.org and it looks
great. It seems that the kde 3.4.1 packages working correct.
ah yes- my mistake. There were no 3.4.0 packages for amd64, but I see that
there *are* amd64 packages
Richter wrote:
I have installed packages from pkg-kde.alioth.debian.org and it looks
great. It seems that the kde 3.4.1 packages working correct.
ah yes- my mistake. There were no 3.4.0 packages for amd64, but I see that
there *are* amd64 packages for 3.4.1. My apologies for the list traffic
On Friday 03 June 2005 12:17, Rafael Rodríguez wrote:
My kmail 3.4.1 (alioth) segfaults all the time when deleting many mails in
a row (that's pressing del a couple of seconds...). Didn't use to happen
with 3.4.0 :(
hmmm, well, I just upgraded everything to 3.4.1 and in kmail deleted ~400
Frederik Schueler wrote on 31/05/2005 15:36:
Hello,
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/05/msg4.html
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:13:49AM +0200, pedro machado wrote:
Where can i find the security updates for amd 64 ?
security updates for debian-amd64 sarge will be
Kalle,
thank you very much for rebuilding the kde 3.4.0 packages for amd64. I have
been using them for a month with no problems. Do you have any interest in
building the new 3.4.1 packages? If not, I could take a shot at building
them and try to find a place to host them...
cheers,
-Ted
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 05:52:53PM -0700, Theodore Kisner wrote:
Kalle,
thank you very much for rebuilding the kde 3.4.0 packages for amd64. I
have
been using them for a month with no problems. Do you have any interest in
building the new 3.4.1 packages? If not, I could take a shot
Hi,
Sorry if this question have since be posted.
Where can i find the security updates for amd 64 ?
Thanks
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/05/msg4.html
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:13:49AM +0200, pedro machado wrote:
Where can i find the security updates for amd 64 ?
security updates for debian-amd64 sarge will be made available by
the security team after the
Hi. I've just recompiled kdenetwork in order to make kopete usable again with
MSN (rebuilding the latest ones from alioth) and they seem to work. If anyone
wants to give them a try or space to upload them, just drop me a note ;)
Regards,
Rafael Rodríguez
JK == Javier Kohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
vncserver should either be removed or fixed because the current
version is in effect unusable.
JK Note that for this same reason the maintainer refuses to take
JK a patch by Andreas J. that allows vnc4 to be compiled on
JK AMD64.
Hello Per,
El jue, 26-05-2005 a las 10:20 +0200, Per Lundberg escribi:
JK == Javier Kohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
vncserver should either be removed or fixed because the current
version is in effect unusable.
JK Note that for this same reason the maintainer refuses to take
KR == Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
KR Hi, Here is a list of packages that I think important and are
KR either not in the archive, or might require a patched
KR versioned to be uploaded to be useful. [...]
vncserver is also badly broken on amd64 (bug #276948). Seems
El mi, 25-05-2005 a las 10:09 +0200, Per Lundberg escribi:
KR == Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
KR Hi, Here is a list of packages that I think important and are
KR either not in the archive, or might require a patched
KR versioned to be uploaded to be useful
Things got resolved. It turned out I had incompatible versions
of bash and base-files installed, reinstalling them with a properly
named version was all that was required to get it working again. Sorry
to bother you guys!
/Ronny
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Hi,
Here is a list of packages that I think important and are either
not in the archive, or might require a patched versioned to be
uploaded to be useful. I would like to see all of those fixed in Debian.
- syslinux: #249506: Required to build debian-installer, we have a
patched version
101 - 200 of 305 matches
Mail list logo
