[SOLVED] Re: Up to date Sid: Custom kernel, trying to install Virtualbox

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Curt Howland wrote: > = > Uninstalling modules from DKMS > Attempting to install using DKMS > > Creating symlink /var/lib/dkms/vboxhost/4.2.8/source -> > /usr/src/vboxhost-4.2.8 > > DKMS: add completed. > Failed to install using DKMS, attemptin

Re: Up to date Sid: Custom kernel, trying to install Virtualbox

On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 22:55 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > Curt Howland wrote: > > Also, VB was crashing my system quite reliably last time I had it > > installed, and I just got a new CPU. Since I assume VB was accessing > > some damaged part of my old CPU, I wanted to try VB before and after > > the

Re: Up to date Sid: Custom kernel, trying to install Virtualbox

On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 09:22 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 22:55 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > > Curt Howland wrote: > > > Also, VB was crashing my system quite reliably last time I had it > > > installed, and I just got a new CPU. Since I assume VB was accessing > > > some damaged

Re: Up to date Sid: Custom kernel, trying to install Virtualbox

On Tue, 2013-03-12 at 19:21 -0600, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: > Curt Howland wrote: > > Good evening. Up-to-date Sid, 32 bit. > > > > I've been trying to install VirtualBox, both from the Sid main > > archives and the Oracle > > virtualbox-4.2_4.2.8-83876~Debian~

Re: Up to date Sid: Custom kernel, trying to install Virtualbox

Curt Howland wrote: > Also, VB was crashing my system quite reliably last time I had it > installed, and I just got a new CPU. Since I assume VB was accessing > some damaged part of my old CPU, I wanted to try VB before and after > the CPU swap to get a before/and/after comparison. I am sure you w

Re: Up to date Sid: Custom kernel, trying to install Virtualbox

Curt Howland wrote: Good evening. Up-to-date Sid, 32 bit. I've been trying to install VirtualBox, both from the Sid main archives and the Oracle virtualbox-4.2_4.2.8-83876~Debian~wheezy_i386.deb package. Both give the same error, that the kernel module cannot be built because the kernel s

Re: Up to date Sid: Custom kernel, trying to install Virtualbox

http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2013/03/msg00691.html -- 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/1363136054.1445.416.camel@archlinux

Re: Up to date Sid: Custom kernel, trying to install Virtualbox

On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 01:54 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2013/03/msg00691.html PS: Forwarded Message From: Ralf Mardorf To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: RESOLVED: Re: kernel-soure WAS:display issues Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02

Re: Up to date Sid: Custom kernel, trying to install Virtualbox

On 3/12/2013 7:30 PM, Curt Howland wrote: > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Joel Wirāmu Pauling > wrote: >> Just out of curiosity why are you not using KVM? It is better, faster, >> and integrated with the kernel. virt-manager is more than capable tool >> for provisioning VM's. > > Because I ha

Re: Up to date Sid: Custom kernel, trying to install Virtualbox

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Joel Wirāmu Pauling wrote: > Just out of curiosity why are you not using KVM? It is better, faster, > and integrated with the kernel. virt-manager is more than capable tool > for provisioning VM's. Because I have no experience with it. One must have a place to beg

Re: Up to date Sid: Custom kernel, trying to install Virtualbox

Just out of curiosity why are you not using KVM? It is better, faster, and integrated with the kernel. virt-manager is more than capable tool for provisioning VM's. On 13 March 2013 12:57, Curt Howland wrote: > Good evening. Up-to-date Sid, 32 bit. > > I've been trying to

Up to date Sid: Custom kernel, trying to install Virtualbox

Good evening. Up-to-date Sid, 32 bit. I've been trying to install VirtualBox, both from the Sid main archives and the Oracle virtualbox-4.2_4.2.8-83876~Debian~wheezy_i386.deb package. Both give the same error, that the kernel module cannot be built because the kernel source tree cannot be

Re: Adobe Flash in Chromium out of date: stable debian REPOST OF SOLVED!

On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 14:46 -0400, John L. Cunningham wrote: > dpkg-reconfigure flashplugin-nonfree And once again this marvelous list has come thru for me. Thanks John!! That did the trick. I'm surprised I have not heard of this b/4 but will file it away in my tips/tricks area. frosty BTW: I use

Firefox performance (was: Adobe Flash in Chromium out of date: stable debian)

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 20:33:57 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Sat, 2012-06-16 at 17:48 +, Camaleón wrote: >> That can be because you are using too many addons within Firefox, IIRC. > > 3 addons + an Ubuntu-plug + Personas. > > Is this much? Yes. One is even too much ;-P > Iceweasel 12 for

Re: Adobe Flash in Chromium out of date: stable debian

On Sat, 2012-06-16 at 17:48 +, Camaleón wrote: > That can be because you are using too many addons within Firefox, IIRC. 3 addons + an Ubuntu-plug + Personas. Is this much? Iceweasel 12 for Debian is empty and regarding to the speed, it's the same as for Firefox 13 on Ubuntu with add-ons. F

Re: Adobe Flash in Chromium out of date: stable debian

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 19:29:08 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Sat, 2012-06-16 at 16:46 +, Camaleón wrote: >> Iceweasel "slow"? At least for me Firefox 13 is fast as hell :-) (...) > BOT, yes, Iceweasel and Firefox are slow. It doesn't matter on fast > machines with fast Internet access. Tha

Re: Adobe Flash in Chromium out of date: stable debian

On Sat, 2012-06-16 at 19:29 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Sat, 2012-06-16 at 16:46 +, Camaleón wrote: > > Iceweasel "slow"? At least for me Firefox 13 is fast as hell :-) > > Firefox is very fast, fast enough for my needs, but it can't compare to > browsers with less features on my machine.

Re: Adobe Flash in Chromium out of date: stable debian

On Sat, 2012-06-16 at 16:46 +, Camaleón wrote: > Iceweasel "slow"? At least for me Firefox 13 is fast as hell :-) Firefox is very fast, fast enough for my needs, but it can't compare to browsers with less features on my machine. Firefox 13 sometimes force me to kill it and sometimes to reset t

Re: Adobe Flash in Chromium out of date: stable debian

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:05:16 -0500, John W. Foster wrote: > Far a while now the adobe flash player/plugin in Debian's Chromium > browser has been 'out of date' with the approriate warnings popping up , > asking to update the flashplayer. I thought the flashplayer was &#x

Tip #42 dpkg-reconfigure (was ...Re: Adobe Flash in Chromium out of date: stable debian)

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 03:45:14PM -0500, John W. Foster wrote: > On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 14:46 -0400, John L. Cunningham wrote: > > dpkg-reconfigure flashplugin-nonfree > > And once again this marvelous list has come thru for me. > Thanks John!! > That did the trick. I'm surprised I have not heard

Re: Adobe Flash in Chromium out of date: stable debian

On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 14:46 -0400, John L. Cunningham wrote: > dpkg-reconfigure flashplugin-nonfree And once again this marvelous list has come thru for me. Thanks John!! That did the trick. I'm surprised I have not heard of this b/4 but will file it away in my tips/tricks area. frosty -- To UN

Re: Adobe Flash in Chromium out of date: stable debian

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:05:16AM -0500, John W. Foster wrote: > Far a while now the adobe flash player/plugin in Debian's Chromium > browser has been 'out of date' with the approriate warnings popping up , > asking to update the flashplayer. I thought the flashplayer was

Re: Adobe Flash in Chromium out of date: stable debian

On 2012-06-15, John W. Foster wrote: > Far a while now the adobe flash player/plugin in Debian's Chromium > browser has been 'out of date' with the approriate warnings popping up , > asking to update the flashplayer. I thought the flashplayer was 'built > in'

Adobe Flash in Chromium out of date: stable debian

Far a while now the adobe flash player/plugin in Debian's Chromium browser has been 'out of date' with the approriate warnings popping up , asking to update the flashplayer. I thought the flashplayer was 'built in' in Chromium as it is in Google Chrome. I have both install

Re: Can Pan sort threads by date of most recent post?

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 19:55:25 +, Hendrik Boom wrote: > When I sort threads by date in Pan, it sorts them by their oldest > posts, that is, the first post made in the thread. Is it possible to > get it to sort threads by their most recent post, so I get the currently > most ac

Can Pan sort threads by date of most recent post?

When I sort threads by date in Pan, it sorts them by their oldest posts, that is, the first post made in the thread. Is it possible to get it to sort threads by their most recent post, so I get the currently most active threads near the top of the list? If Pan won't do this, should

Re: [OT] date is wrong

On Sb, 11 feb 12, 19:29:16, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > > After reading your message, I found setting for sorting. I set it to > sort with unread/read and now this problem is solved. I took the easy way out and just corrected the date in the message and regenerated mutt's cache ;)

Re: [OT] date is wrong

On Saturday 11 February 2012 17:29:16 Mika Suomalainen wrote: > Thanks for your help :) I'm glad that it helped! Lisi -- 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

Re: [OT] date is wrong

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11.02.2012 18:29, Lisi wrote: > On Saturday 11 February 2012 12:01:03 Mika Suomalainen wrote: >> Thanks for suggestion, but it (Icedove) thinks that that message >> is received at 09.12.2012. I'm not sure does K9 Mail even have >> sort by received o

Re: [OT] date is wrong

On Saturday 11 February 2012 12:01:03 Mika Suomalainen wrote: > Thanks for suggestion, but it (Icedove) thinks that that message is > received at 09.12.2012. > I'm not sure does K9 Mail even have sort by received option. KMail 1.9.9 says it arrived on 9-12-12, but sorts it as having arrived on We

Re: [OT] date is wrong

ent at 09.12.2012 14:42. This is a problem, because >>> Icedove and K9 Mail but it to the top of inbox, which is very >>> annoying. Is there any other way to get it below than waiting >>> until 09.12.2012 14:43? >> >> Sorting by received date instead of sent d

Re: [OT] date is wrong

t; Icedove and K9 Mail but it to the top of inbox, which is very >> annoying. Is there any other way to get it below than waiting >> until 09.12.2012 14:43? > > Sorting by received date instead of sent date? > > Kind regards, Andrei Thanks for suggestion, but it (Icedove)

Re: date is wrong

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Oh, sorry. Good that the problem was fixed. It's confusing that K9 mail and Icedove put the original message to the top of inbox, because it's sent at December 2012. Andrei Popescu wrote: >On Jo, 09 feb 12, 12:09:45, Mika Suomalainen wrote: >> H

Re: [OT] date is wrong

t; inbox, which is very annoying. >> Is there any other way to get it below than waiting until 09.12.2012 >> 14:43? > > Sorting by received date instead of sent date? > > Kind regards, > Andrei :-) In the date column of Icedove - click on the the header (marked) "D

Re: [OT] date is wrong

to get it below than waiting until 09.12.2012 > 14:43? Sorting by received date instead of sent date? 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: date is wrong

On Jo, 09 feb 12, 12:09:45, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > Hi, > > Try syncing time from some ntp server. > > First install ntpdate if you do not have it already. > > aptitude install ntp > Then run it > > ntpdate pool.ntp.org > (Run both commands as root.) Your advice is conflicting, since ntpdate i

Re: [OT] date is wrong

until 09.12.2012 14:43? On 09.12.2012 14:42, David Roguin wrote: > Hi, > > Today when i boot my notebook, the date and time is utterly wrong. > > $date Sun Dec 9 09:39:14 ART 2012 > > real date should be Wed Feb 09:32 art 2012 > > Anyone else experienced something l

Re: date is wrong

David Roguin wrote: real date should be Wed Feb 09:32 art 2012 Anyone else experienced something like that? I've tried to manually set the time via gnome settings but nothing happened. The following should sync and set your hardware clock: sudo apt-get install rdate sudo rda

Re: date is wrong

oot my notebook, the date and time is utterly wrong. > >$date >Sun Dec 9 09:39:14 ART 2012 > >real date should be Wed Feb 09:32 art 2012 > >Anyone else experienced something like that? I've tried to manually set >the time via gnome settings but nothing happened. >

Re: date is wrong

On Sun, 2012-12-09 at 09:42 -0300, David Roguin wrote: > Hi, > > Today when i boot my notebook, the date and time is utterly wrong. > > $date > Sun Dec 9 09:39:14 ART 2012 > > real date should be Wed Feb 09:32 art 2012 > > Anyone else experienced something lik

date is wrong

Hi, Today when i boot my notebook, the date and time is utterly wrong. $date Sun Dec 9 09:39:14 ART 2012 real date should be Wed Feb 09:32 art 2012 Anyone else experienced something like that? I've tried to manually set the time via gnome settings but nothing happened. Thanks. --

Re: how to get the date of the last upgrade?

On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 11:19:27 +0100, Meike Stone wrote: >>> I tried this and it that seems that this file is not very reliable, or >>> the  logrotate does delete all other. The system is from 2008 an the >>> term.log shows me only two entires from 2011. >> >> Yup, that's for the "latest" update ru

Re: how to get the date of the last upgrade?

>> >> I tried this and it that seems that this file is not very reliable, or >> the  logrotate does delete all other. The system is from 2008 an the >> term.log shows me only two entires from 2011. > > Yup, that's for the "latest" update run. > > The remainder updates are archived under "/var/log/a

Re: how to get the date of the last upgrade?

>> On rpm systems, I can use rpm -qa --last. Is there any similar command >> on debian? > > You could go for > > % ls -rtl /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.list Thanks, that solves my Problem .. Meike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl

Re: how to get the date of the last upgrade?

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:38:15 +0100, Meike Stone wrote: >>> how can I get information when the last upgrade ("update") was done >>> (apt-get upgrade or aptitude *-upgrade). >> >> "/var/log/apt/term.log" should tell. >> >> > > I tried this and it that seems that this file is not very reliable, or >

Re: how to get the date of the last upgrade?

o Meike Stone : > On rpm systems, I can use rpm -qa --last. Is there any similar command > on debian? You could go for % ls -rtl /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.list flori -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@list

Re: how to get the date of the last upgrade?

>> how can I get information when the last upgrade ("update") was done >> (apt-get upgrade or aptitude *-upgrade). > > "/var/log/apt/term.log" should tell. > Hello, I tried this and it that seems that this file is not very reliable, or the logrotate does delete all other. The system is from 2008

Re: how to get the date of the last upgrade?

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:12:41 +0100, Meike Stone wrote: > how can I get information when the last upgrade ("update") was done > (apt-get upgrade or aptitude *-upgrade). "/var/log/apt/term.log" should tell. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.or

how to get the date of the last upgrade?

Hello, how can I get information when the last upgrade ("update") was done (apt-get upgrade or aptitude *-upgrade). I have a few machines here, and I want to know when the last "system update" was executed. The Distributions are debian 5 and 6 Kind regards and thanx for help Meike -- To UNS

Re: More than 150 up-to-date Debian howtos & tutorials online (server, virtualization, etc)

On 01/08/11 09:06, Christoph Pilka wrote: Hi, there's lot of work I've done to document all the stuff, so I'd really appreciate if anyone here has the time to translate the howtos. The idea with the copy back sounds fair. But please don't forget to refer the original work within your translation

Re: More than 150 up-to-date Debian howtos & tutorials online (server, virtualization, etc)

Hi, there's lot of work I've done to document all the stuff, so I'd really appreciate if anyone here has the time to translate the howtos. The idea with the copy back sounds fair. But please don't forget to refer the original work within your translation ;-) Cheerio, Chris > Would you mind if the

Up to date Sid, Compile error, Linux 3.0

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi. I also got this error with the 3.0-rc, but I thought it might get fixed. Up to date Sid, the 2.6.x kernels compiled fine. /usr/bin/make -j4 EXTRAVERSION=-random0.1 ARCH=i386 \ -C Documentation/lguest make

Re: More than 150 up-to-date Debian howtos & tutorials online (server, virtualization, etc)

On 26/07/11 18:18, Christoph Pilka wrote: > Hi folks, > > in the last months I've published more than 150 Debian howtos which > Cheerio, > Chris > > As noted by others (and yourself), many of the works are not in English... I appreciate that you'd like credit your your work, and possibly crea

Re: More than 150 up-to-date Debian howtos & tutorials online (server, virtualization, etc)

On 07/26/2011 08:18 AM, Christoph Pilka wrote: Hi folks, in the last months I've published more than 150 Debian howtos which are online now at http://www.asconix.com/howtos/debian The howtos are covering the following topics so far: * Debian as infrastructure (BIND, Samba ...) * Webservers (A

Re: More than 150 up-to-date Debian howtos & tutorials online (server, virtualization, etc)

On 07/26/2011 04:18 AM, Christoph Pilka wrote: Hi folks, in the last months I've published more than 150 Debian howtos which are online now at http://www.asconix.com/howtos/debian The howtos are covering the following topics so far: * Debian as infrastructure (BIND, Samba ...) * Webservers (A

Re: More than 150 up-to-date Debian howtos & tutorials online (server, virtualization, etc)

+1 german here too On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: > Christoph Pilka wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> in the last months I've published more than 150 Debian howtos which >> are online now at >> http://www.asconix.com/howtos/**debian >> >

Re: More than 150 up-to-date Debian howtos & tutorials online (server, virtualization, etc)

Christoph Pilka wrote: Hi folks, in the last months I've published more than 150 Debian howtos which are online now at http://www.asconix.com/howtos/debian They seem to be all in German even after selecting the UK flag. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org wit

Re: More than 150 up-to-date Debian howtos & tutorials online (server, virtualization, etc)

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 04:18:44 -0400 (EDT), Christoph Pilka wrote: > > in the last months I've published more than 150 Debian howtos which > are online now at ... Looks promising, Christoph. But it appears to be all in German, even when I click on the UK flag. After all, this is the English list

More than 150 up-to-date Debian howtos & tutorials online (server, virtualization, etc)

Hi folks, in the last months I've published more than 150 Debian howtos which are online now at http://www.asconix.com/howtos/debian The howtos are covering the following topics so far: * Debian as infrastructure (BIND, Samba ...) * Webservers (Apache2, Nginx, Lighttpd ...) * Databases (MySQL,

Re: How up-to-date is Debian's stable release kept to fix published kernel security vulnerabilities?

In <20110509043430.ga1...@cox.net>, Robert Holtzman wrote: >On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 10:08:31PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Kelly Dean: >> > http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-2943 was >> > published Sept 30, 2010, and says that Linux 2.6.32.5 is >> > vulnerable. Squeeze

Re: How up-to-date is Debian's stable release kept to fix published kernel security vulnerabilities?

On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 10:08:31PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Kelly Dean: > > > http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-2943 was > > published Sept 30, 2010, and says that Linux 2.6.32.5 is > > vulnerable. Squeeze uses 2.6.32-5, built on Jan 12, 2011. Is > > Squeeze's kernel

Re: How up-to-date is Debian's stable release kept to fix published kernel security vulnerabilities?

* Kelly Dean: > http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-2943 was > published Sept 30, 2010, and says that Linux 2.6.32.5 is > vulnerable. Squeeze uses 2.6.32-5, built on Jan 12, 2011. Is > Squeeze's kernel fixed, or does it have the vulnerability? According to our records, this i

Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

On 04/03/2011 12:35 PM, Kelly Clowers wrote: On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 10:10, Ron Johnson wrote: handwriting What's that? Something that some American schools still teach to children. -- "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people w

Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 10:10, Ron Johnson wrote: > > handwriting What's that? Cheers, Kelly Clowers -- 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/banlktinfdxr+2w

Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 02:06, Scott Ferguson wrote: > > Out of curiosity - I've attached a (tiny) screenscrape of how a post > appears in Thunderbird (yeah I know, but the rest of things are Debian). > I guess the date format on the left is from the list, and the one on the &

Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

On 04/03/2011 04:24 AM, Heddle Weaver wrote: [snip] The logical progression, in the English language and not the American dialect, is 'day' of the 'month' of the specified 'year'. dd/mm/yy. This is obvious. Only obvious if you've grown up that way. However, "3 Jan 2011" *slightly* reduces con

Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

han not (16+ days > a month) - because I can't tell which one is which (dd or mm). > Out of curiosity - I've attached a (tiny) screenscrape of how a post > appears in Thunderbird (yeah I know, but the rest of things are Debian). > I guess the date format on the left is from

Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

On 3 April 2011 19:06, Scott Ferguson wrote: > On 03/04/11 16:54, Lisi wrote: > > On Sunday 03 April 2011 01:20:10 Scott Ferguson wrote: > >> I suspect Liam's response was made in jest :-) > > > > I'm sure it was - and a successful jest. But mine was not. In that > case, > > context made the dat

Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

hed a (tiny) screenscrape of how a post appears in Thunderbird (yeah I know, but the rest of things are Debian). I guess the date format on the left is from the list, and the one on the right is from my system... are my assumptions correct? Also - is that how others have their dates displayed? Chee

Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

On Sunday 03 April 2011 01:20:10 Scott Ferguson wrote: > I suspect Liam's response was made in jest :-) I'm sure it was - and a successful jest. But mine was not. In that case, context made the date's form redundant, but it _is_ a problem. Not major one, a very minor one. But a problem - an

Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

x27;s a >> system already in place, it's the "Debian" way. >> >> (Is there more than one (Debian standard)?) ^ Again I was asking a question. >> >> >From :- >> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-dpkgchangelog >> &

Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

01-Jan-1970?). What makes you say this is UNIX time? The UNIX standard provides many ways of displaying a time, and AFAIK, doesn't really prefer any particular string format. Because that's traditionally how ls presents the file date. For me, UNIX time is nanoseconds from Epoch. T

Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

In <4d96a8c3.9080...@cox.net>, Ron Johnson wrote: >I've always thought that Unix Time is *incredibly stupid* (who the heck >says "Fri Apr 1 23:27:41 CDT 2011"?) >and *monumentally shortsighted* >(did nothing happen before 01-Jan-1970?). What makes you say this is UNIX time? The UNIX standard pro

Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

(Debian standard)?) > > >From :- > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-dpkgchangelog > > The date has the following format[17] (compatible and with the same > semantics of RFC 2822 and RFC 5322): > > day-of-week, dd month hh:mm:ss + I

Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

one of the two Right Ways of displaying time (01-Apr-2011 23:27:41) and has an epoch date of 17-NOV-1858 00:00:00.00 (modified Julian date adopted by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for satellite tracking) and keeps time in a signed 64 bit integer using 100ns resolution). When,

Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

re than one way to skin a cat. In this case, the other Right Way (or should I say Ways) are ISO 8601. of displaying time (01-Apr-2011 23:27:41) Which *is* RFC 2822 and has an epoch date of 17-NOV-1858 00:00:00.00 (modified Julian date adopted by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Obser

Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

displaying time (01-Apr-2011 23:27:41) and has an epoch date of 17-NOV-1858 00:00:00.00 (modified Julian date adopted by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for satellite tracking) and keeps time in a signed 64 bit integer using 100ns resolution). When, of course, the Smithsonian launc

Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

surement system? >> Did someone mention Cultural Imperialism earlier? >> ;-p > > I've always thought that Unix Time is *incredibly stupid* (who the heck > says "Fri Apr 1 23:27:41 CDT 2011"?) and *monumentally shortsighted* > (did nothing happen before 01-Jan

Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

he two Right Ways of displaying time (01-Apr-2011 23:27:41) and has an epoch date of 17-NOV-1858 00:00:00.00 (modified Julian date adopted by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for satellite tracking) and keeps time in a signed 64 bit integer using 100ns resolution). -- "Neither the wi

Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

r international mailing lists, if you stick with ISO 8601, there should >>>>> be no ambiguity in the date: >>>>> >>>>> 2011-04-01 or 20110401 is defined as April 1, 2011, or truncated as >>>>> 11-04-01 or 110401. >>&g

Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 04:57, Kelly Clowers wrote: >> Why not use the Debian standard?? >>day-of-week, dd month hh:mm:ss + ISO format available. -- Mars 2 Stay! http://xkcd.com/801/ /etc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe

Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

should >>>> be no ambiguity in the date: >>>> >>>>     2011-04-01 or 20110401 is defined as April 1, 2011, or truncated as >>>>     11-04-01 or 110401. >>>> >>>> Standards. Who would have thought? >>> >>> Precisel

Re: Debian was hacked: The Canterbury Distribution (howto write the date)

On 02/04/11 13:50, Kelly Clowers wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 07:12, green wrote: >> Aaron Toponce wrote at 2011-04-01 08:11 -0500: >>> For international mailing lists, if you stick with ISO 8601, there should >>> be no ambiguity in the date: >>> >>

Re: checkrestart + out-of-date kernel

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011, Steven Ayre wrote: > Great, thanks! Perhaps checkrestart could be updated to check that file too? Please file a wishlist bug. It will depend on whether the maintainer thinks it is something the tool should warn you about or not. checkrestart is commonly used to *avoid* reboo

Re: checkrestart + out-of-date kernel

Great, thanks! Perhaps checkrestart could be updated to check that file too? -Steve On 2 March 2011 17:11, Darac Marjal wrote: > On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 04:08:15PM +, Steven Ayre wrote: >> I just upgraded the linux kernel package on a Lenny server and then >> ran checkrestart. It reported a

Re: checkrestart + out-of-date kernel

On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 04:08:15PM +, Steven Ayre wrote: > I just upgraded the linux kernel package on a Lenny server and then > ran checkrestart. It reported a few services that needed restarting > because the openssl package had also been updated, but it didn't say > anything about the fact t

checkrestart + out-of-date kernel

I just upgraded the linux kernel package on a Lenny server and then ran checkrestart. It reported a few services that needed restarting because the openssl package had also been updated, but it didn't say anything about the fact that I was running an earlier kernel than the one installed. Are ther

Re: Sorting by date

2011.01.27.avi Jan 23 2011 10:42 SOMETHING 2007.12.20.avi Feb 12 2010 SOMETHING 2010.02.11.avi Jun 26 2009 SOMETHING 2009.06.25.avi How could I get the output where the newest file is at the top? First, pre-process the original to use ISO-standard date format: %Y-%m-%d. That's 4-digit year, da

Re: Sorting by date

3:05 SOMETHING 2011.02.24.avi >>> Feb 11 2011 20:06 SOMETHING 2011.02.10.avi >>> Jan 29 2011 09:17 SOMETHING 2011.01.27.avi >>> Jan 23 2011 10:42 SOMETHING 2007.12.20.avi >>> Feb 12 2010 SOMETHING 2010.02.11.avi >>> Jun 26 2009 SOMETHING 2009.06.25.avi >&

Re: Sorting by date

gt;Feb 27 2011 23:05 SOMETHING 2011.02.24.avi > >>Feb 11 2011 20:06 SOMETHING 2011.02.10.avi > >>Jan 29 2011 09:17 SOMETHING 2011.01.27.avi > >>Jan 23 2011 10:42 SOMETHING 2007.12.20.avi > >>Feb 12 2010 SOMETHING 2010.02.11.avi > >>Jun 26 2009 SOMETHING 200

Re: Sorting by date

2009 SOMETHING 2009.06.25.avi How could I get the output where the newest file is at the top? First, pre-process the original to use ISO-standard date format: %Y-%m-%d. That's 4-digit year, dash, 2-digit month, dash, 2-digit day. Now, (LC_ALL=C sort< input.pp> output.pp) will give

Re: Sorting by date

b 12 2010 SOMETHING 2010.02.11.avi > Jun 26 2009 SOMETHING 2009.06.25.avi > > > How could I get the output where the newest file is at the top? Assuming static data which you've got to process via standard tools, and you can't change the date / data format: sort -k3nr,3 -k1Mr

Re: Sorting by date

.02.11.avi > Jun 26 2009 SOMETHING 2009.06.25.avi > > > How could I get the output where the newest file is at the top? First, pre-process the original to use ISO-standard date format: %Y-%m-%d. That's 4-digit year, dash, 2-digit month, dash, 2-digit day. Now, (LC_ALL=C sort

Re: Sorting by date

On 02/28/2011 02:35 PM, erikmccaskey64 wrote: Original: Jan 23 2011 10:42 SOMETHING 2007.12.20.avi Jun 26 2009 SOMETHING 2009.06.25.avi Feb 12 2010 SOMETHING 2010.02.11.avi Jan 29 2011 09:17 SOMETHING 2011.01.27.avi Feb 11 2011 20:06 SOMETHING 2011.02.10.avi Feb 27 2011 23:05 SOMETHING 2011.02.2

Re: Sorting by date

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:35:26PM -0800, erikmccaskey64 wrote: > > Original: > Jan 23 2011 10:42 SOMETHING 2007.12.20.avi > Jun 26 2009 SOMETHING 2009.06.25.avi > Feb 12 2010 SOMETHING 2010.02.11.avi > Jan 29 2011 09:17 SOMETHING 2011.01.27.avi > Feb 11 2011 20:06 SOMETHING 2011.02.10.avi > Feb 2

Sorting by date

Original: Jan 23 2011 10:42 SOMETHING 2007.12.20.avi Jun 26 2009 SOMETHING 2009.06.25.avi Feb 12 2010 SOMETHING 2010.02.11.avi Jan 29 2011 09:17 SOMETHING 2011.01.27.avi Feb 11 2011 20:06 SOMETHING 2011.02.10.avi Feb 27 2011 23:05 SOMETHING 2011.02.24.avi Output: Feb 27 2011 23:05 SOMETHING 2011

Re: How up-to-date is Debian's stable release kept to fix published kernel security vulnerabilities?

Hello, Johan Grönqvist a écrit : > 2011-02-15 22:46, Kelly Dean skrev: >> http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-2943 was >> published Sept 30, 2010, and says that Linux 2.6.32.5 is vulnerable. >> Squeeze uses 2.6.32-5, built on Jan 12, 2011. Is Squeeze's kernel >> fixed, or does

Re: How up-to-date is Debian's stable release kept to fix published kernel security vulnerabilities?

On 2011-02-15, Kelly Dean wrote: > http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-2943 was published > Sept 30, 2010, and says that Linux 2.6.32.5 is vulnerable. Squeeze uses > 2.6.32-5, built on Jan 12, 2011. Is Squeeze's kernel fixed, or does it have > the vulnerability? My interpr

Re: How up-to-date is Debian's stable release kept to fix published kernel security vulnerabilities?

2011-02-15 22:46, Kelly Dean skrev: http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-2943 was published Sept 30, 2010, and says that Linux 2.6.32.5 is vulnerable. Squeeze uses 2.6.32-5, built on Jan 12, 2011. Is Squeeze's kernel fixed, or does it have the vulnerability? To begin with: I

How up-to-date is Debian's stable release kept to fix published kernel security vulnerabilities?

http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-2943 was published Sept 30, 2010, and says that Linux 2.6.32.5 is vulnerable. Squeeze uses 2.6.32-5, built on Jan 12, 2011. Is Squeeze's kernel fixed, or does it have the vulnerability? http://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/status/re

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >