Re: /etc/apt/sources.list example [WAS Re: medically smart watches]

On 2/25/24 07:14, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: I have to agree, and pursuing that seems to disclose I do not have the non-frre in my configs. So I'm now asking for help to add it to my /etc/apt/sources *.list stuff. For apt sources.list - have a look at: https://wiki.debian.org/Source

/etc/apt/sources.list example [WAS Re: medically smart watches]

t; > As I see it, is https://wiki.debian.org/BluetoothUser now the best place > > to go. > > > I have to agree, and pursuing that seems to disclose I do not have the > non-frre in my configs. So I'm now asking for help to add it to my > /etc/apt/sources *.list stuf

Re: Apt sources.list

On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 12:18:35PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Anyway, in the time of freeze like now (probably with more > users trying testing), isn't it important that testing gets > security updates? It's not really about what's "important", but what's feasible given the available resource

Re: Apt sources.list

se, even for users using unstable: have "stable-security" in apt sources (e.g. /etc/apt/sources.list). Since stable is new, most packages are based on the same version as stable. That way, users can benefit from security updates for stable. > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianTestin

Re: Apt sources.list

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 1:46 PM Frank wrote: > > Op 18-04-2023 om 16:33 schreef Vincent Lefevre: > > On 2023-04-15 21:59:19 +0200, Frank wrote: > >> Op 15-04-2023 om 18:12 schreef Tixy: > >>> Testing doesn't get explicit security support so there's no point in > >>> having 'testing-security' lines

Re: Apt sources.list

Op 18-04-2023 om 16:33 schreef Vincent Lefevre: On 2023-04-15 21:59:19 +0200, Frank wrote: Op 15-04-2023 om 18:12 schreef Tixy: Testing doesn't get explicit security support so there's no point in having 'testing-security' lines in sources.list (I guess it'll give an error anyway). No error.

Re: Apt sources.list

On 2023-04-15 21:59:19 +0200, Frank wrote: > Op 15-04-2023 om 18:12 schreef Tixy: > > On Sat, 2023-04-15 at 08:11 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > > > According to https://www.debian.org/releases/, bookworm at this time is > > > "testing". But when the next release comes, bookworm will st

Re: Apt sources.list

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 12:45 AM wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 09:20:22PM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > [...] > > > Corporations don't need browser cooperation for Data Loss Prevention > > > (DLP) (but they already have it). Corporations just run an > > > interception proxy, like NetSkope.

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 09:20:22PM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: [...] > > Corporations don't need browser cooperation for Data Loss Prevention > > (DLP) (but they already have it). Corporations just run an > > interception proxy, like NetSkope. The NetScope Root CA is loaded into > > every browse

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 4:52 PM Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 3:06 PM Tim Woodall wrote: > > > > On Sat, 15 Apr 2023, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > > > Now, personally I don't feel this is a threat model that I need to > > > worry about. I just use plain old http sources at home

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 3:06 PM Tim Woodall wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Apr 2023, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > Now, personally I don't feel this is a threat model that I need to > > worry about. I just use plain old http sources at home, and if "They" > > learn that I've downloaded rxvt-unicode and mutt,

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023, Greg Wooledge wrote: Now, personally I don't feel this is a threat model that I need to worry about. I just use plain old http sources at home, and if "They" learn that I've downloaded rxvt-unicode and mutt, well, good for Them. The thread model I'm most concerned abou

Re: Apt sources.list

Frank writes: > Are you kidding? No way! Unstable is never pushed into testing just > like that. There are packages that will never move to testing at all! That's correct. Immediately after the release Testing and Stable are identical. Unstable is unchanged. When the freeze is lifted packages th

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sun 16 Apr 2023 at 07:14:31 (+0200), Frank wrote: > Op 15-04-2023 om 22:15 schreef Andrew M.A. Cater: > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:14:11PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 16:45:40 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > > > > > > > I would suggest that you remain on bookworm until b

Re: Apt sources.list

Op 16-04-2023 om 13:12 schreef Andrew M.A. Cater: Release day when someone pushes the magic switch and the symlinks move :) [snip] "Testing" == "Previous contents of Unstable" (== Trixie / Debian 13) Are you kidding? No way! Unstable is never pushed into testing just like that. There are p

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 20:30:11 -0400 Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 11:09 AM wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:01:27 +0100 > > Alain D D Williams wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:52:06AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > While we are talking about this, is there any reason

Re: Apt sources.list

On 15/04/2023 19:54, davidson wrote: On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 12:18:57PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote: It's nice not to be telling everyone who can sniff a plaintext connection which packages you are installing, Without doubt, this is an advantage of a TL

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 12:10:33AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > On release day, bookworm -> "stable", > > So far so good. > > > "unstable" -> testing == trixie > > Really? I thought there was always a delay for packages to move from > unstable to testing. > Let's try this again because re

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 10:54:10PM +, davidson wrote: [...] > What's wrong, Tomas? Don't you want to watch pornographic videos and > conduct your banking with the same application? I'm glad I don't have to use the browser for any of those. Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signa

Re: Apt sources.list

Op 15-04-2023 om 22:15 schreef Andrew M.A. Cater: On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:14:11PM +0100, Brian wrote: On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 16:45:40 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: I would suggest that you remain on bookworm until bookworm is released as stable. At that point (and only then) change bookwor

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sun 16 Apr 2023 at 00:10:33 (-0400), Stefan Monnier wrote: > > On release day, bookworm -> "stable", > > So far so good. > > > "unstable" -> testing == trixie > > Really? I thought there was always a delay for packages to move from > unstable to testing. Well, I suppose it gives the naïve u

Re: Apt sources.list

> On release day, bookworm -> "stable", So far so good. > "unstable" -> testing == trixie Really? I thought there was always a delay for packages to move from unstable to testing. Stefan

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 11:09 AM wrote: > On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:01:27 +0100 > Alain D D Williams wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:52:06AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > While we are talking about this, is there any reason why all the > > http: should not be https: ? > > > > I have done thi

Re: Apt sources.list

>> Now, personally I don't feel this is a threat model that I need to >> worry about. I just use plain old http sources at home, and if >> "They" learn that I've downloaded rxvt-unicode and mutt, well, good >> for Them. > My understanding is that mandating HTTPS for all connections is supposed >

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 Greg Wooledge wrote: On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 10:54:10PM +, davidson wrote: In case you wish to obscure what software you *install*, but need not conceal the software you *download*: Step one: Make a list of the packages you want, and then augment it with as many plausi

Re: Apt sources.list

On 2023-04-15 at 19:11, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 10:54:10PM +, davidson wrote: > >> In case you wish to obscure what software you *install*, but need >> not conceal the software you *download*: >> >> Step one: Make a list of the packages you want, and then augment >> it

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 10:54:10PM +, davidson wrote: > In case you wish to obscure what software you *install*, but need not > conceal the software you *download*: > > Step one: Make a list of the packages you want, and then augment it > with as many plausible alternatives and red herrings

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 12:18:57PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote: pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: Okay. Let's open this can of worms. I wish more would. The ONLY reason https is used on most sites is because Google *mandated* it years ago. ("Mandate" me

Re: Apt sources.list

Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: ... > On release day, bookworm -> "stable", "unstable" -> testing == trixie > Trixie is copied, essentially as the kickstarter for new "unstable". > "Unstable" == Forky. Unstable == Sid Forky will happen sometime in the future when they start talking about freezing tes

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:14:11PM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 16:45:40 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > > > I would suggest that you remain on bookworm until bookworm is released as > > stable. At that point (and only then) change bookworm to trixie and carry > > on. As soon as b

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 16:45:40 + "Andrew M.A. Cater" wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 01:23:05PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 08:11:17 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > > > > Folks: > > > > > > Here is my sources.list file: > > > > > > --- > > > > > > deb http://deb

Re: Apt sources.list

Op 15-04-2023 om 18:12 schreef Tixy: On Sat, 2023-04-15 at 08:11 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: According to https://www.debian.org/releases/, bookworm at this time is "testing". But when the next release comes, bookworm will still be bookworm, but "testing" will be bookworm "plus". I'd

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 07:21:17PM +0100, Alain D D Williams wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 11:00:52AM -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > > Okay. Let's open this can of worms. The ONLY reason https is used on > > most sites is because Google *mandated* it years ago. ("Mandate" means > > w

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 11:00:52 -0400 wrote: > Okay. Let's open this can of worms. The ONLY reason https is used on > most sites is because Google *mandated* it years ago. ("Mandate" means > we'll downgrade your search ranking if you don't use https.) There is > otherwise no earthly reason to have a

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 11:00:52AM -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > Okay. Let's open this can of worms. The ONLY reason https is used on > most sites is because Google *mandated* it years ago. ("Mandate" means > we'll downgrade your search ranking if you don't use https.) There is > otherwi

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 12:18:57PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote: > pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > > > Okay. Let's open this can of worms. The ONLY reason https is used on > > most sites is because Google *mandated* it years ago. ("Mandate" means > > we'll downgrade your search ranking if you don't

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 01:23:05PM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 08:11:17 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > > Folks: > > > > Here is my sources.list file: > > > > --- > > > > deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free > > deb-src http://debian.uc

Re: Apt sources.list

pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > Okay. Let's open this can of worms. The ONLY reason https is used on > most sites is because Google *mandated* it years ago. ("Mandate" means > we'll downgrade your search ranking if you don't use https.) There is > otherwise no earthly reason to have an encrypt

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 2023-04-15 at 08:11 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > Folks: > > Here is my sources.list file: > > --- > > deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free > deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free > > deb http://security.debi

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:01:27 +0100 Alain D D Williams wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:52:06AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 01:23:05PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 08:11:17 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com > > > wrote: > > > > --- > > > > > > > > de

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:01:27 +0100 Alain D D Williams wrote: > While we are talking about this, is there any reason why all the > http: should not be https: ? > > I have done this on my own machine without ill effect. One reason is if one is using a local cache which does not inspect https stre

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:23:05 +0100 Brian wrote: > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 08:11:17 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > > Folks: > > > > Here is my sources.list file: > > > > --- > > > > deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib > > non-free deb-src http://debian.uchicag

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 02:59:49PM +0100, Alain D D Williams wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 03:48:31PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 02:01:27PM +0100, Alain D D Williams wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > While we are talking about this, is there any reason why all the

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 03:48:31PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 02:01:27PM +0100, Alain D D Williams wrote: > > [...] > > > While we are talking about this, is there any reason why all the http: > > should > > not be https: ? > > It's just unnecessary CPU on the serv

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 02:01:27PM +0100, Alain D D Williams wrote: [...] > While we are talking about this, is there any reason why all the http: should > not be https: ? It's just unnecessary CPU on the server, that's all. Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:52:06AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 01:23:05PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 08:11:17 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > > --- > > > > > > deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free > > > deb-src

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 01:23:05PM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 08:11:17 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > --- > > > > deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free > > deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free > > > >

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 08:11:17 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > Folks: > > Here is my sources.list file: > > --- > > deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free > deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free > > deb http://security.

Apt sources.list

Folks: Here is my sources.list file: --- deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security bookworm-security main contrib non-free deb-src http://security

Re: About /etc/apt/sources.list | Warehouse for users of the stable version

f > only bullseye and bullsey-updates were added to /etc/apt/sources.list and he > added all four bullseys to /etc/apt/sources.list at the same time? > > Please give me some of your professional advice. Hi.. This is my second attempt to help answer, LOL. After looking at your link th

Re: About /etc/apt/sources.list | Warehouse for users of the stable version

tps://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libisofs as "browse source code" to the right under the title "links".) > Would it make any difference if > only bullseye and bullsey-updates were added to /etc/apt/sources.list and he > added all four bullseys to /etc/apt/sources.list at t

About /etc/apt/sources.list | Warehouse for users of the stable version

/sources.list and he added all four bullseys to /etc/apt/sources.list at the same time? Please give me some of your professional advice. Thank! Best Regards, - Yunsheng Xie Email: c0ldz...@outlook.com

Re: xterm. Valid /etc/apt/sources.list [Was 26th pass]

now we have a claim that in addition to all your *other* problems, > you have broken Debian sources on at least one of your systems. No > actual *proof*, mind you. Just a claim. > > Or... is it even Debian? Hell. It's probably not. It's probably > your heavily customize

Re: what's wrong with my "/etc/apt/sources.list"? Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and is therefore disabled by default

Hi Evelyn, On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 06:00:08PM +0200, Evelyn Pereira Souza wrote: > E: The repository 'http://security.debian.org/debian-security > bullseye/updates Release' does not have a Release file. A few people have by now pointed out the specific cause of your problem, but the root cause is

Re: what's wrong with my "/etc/apt/sources.list"? Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and is therefore disabled by default

> deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security bullseye/updates main contrib > non-free > deb-src http://security.debian.org/debian-security bullseye/updates main > contrib non-free I think you are missing bullseye-security. I have this: deb http://mirrors.linode.com/debian-security/ bulls

Re: what's wrong with my "/etc/apt/sources.list"? Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and is therefore disabled by default

On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 12:06:18PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2021-08-15 at 12:00, Evelyn Pereira Souza wrote: > > > Hi > > > > apt-get update > > Ign:1 http://security.debian.org/debian-security bullseye/updates InRelease > > Err:2 http://security.debian.org/debian-security bullseye/updates

Re: what's wrong with my "/etc/apt/sources.list"? Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and is therefore disabled by default

t; N: Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and is > therefore disabled by default. > N: See apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user > configuration details. > > > cat /etc/apt/sources.list > # > > # deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 10.10

Re: what's wrong with my "/etc/apt/sources.list"? Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and is therefore disabled by default

On Sun 15 Aug 2021 at 12:06:18 -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2021-08-15 at 12:00, Evelyn Pereira Souza wrote: > > > Hi > > > > apt-get update > > Ign:1 http://security.debian.org/debian-security bullseye/updates InRelease > > Err:2 http://security.debian.org/debian-security bullseye/updates Re

Re: what's wrong with my "/etc/apt/sources.list"? Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and is therefore disabled by default

On 2021-08-15 at 12:00, Evelyn Pereira Souza wrote: > Hi > > apt-get update > Ign:1 http://security.debian.org/debian-security bullseye/updates InRelease > Err:2 http://security.debian.org/debian-security bullseye/updates Release >404 Not Found [IP: 199.232.138.132 80] > deb http://security

what's wrong with my "/etc/apt/sources.list"? Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and is therefore disabled by default

ee apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user configuration details. cat /etc/apt/sources.list # # deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 10.10.0 _Buster_ - Official amd64 xfce-CD Binary-1 20210619-16:12]/ bullseye main #deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 10.10.0 _Buster_ - Official amd64 xf

Re: APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates

Cater Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 6:22 AM To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 06:55:30PM +, Gregory McPherran wrote: > Hi, > > This shows the new security line form as: > DebianBullseye - Deb

Re: APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 08:52:18AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 10:22:17AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > > Take the opportunity to at least upgrade to Debian 9 and, ideally, 10. > > Debian 11 should be here inside a month - if you can get to 10, you'll > > have at least

Re: APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 10:22:17AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: Take the opportunity to at least upgrade to Debian 9 and, ideally, 10. Debian 11 should be here inside a month - if you can get to 10, you'll have at least a further year of security support for 10. Worth noting that skipping re

Re: APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates

bian.org/debian-security bullseye-security > main > > This shows the new security line form as: > sources.list(5) — apt — Debian unstable — Debian > Manpages<https://manpages.debian.org/unstable/apt/sources.list.5.en.html#EXAMP

Re: APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates

-security bullseye-security > main > > This shows the new security line form as: > sources.list(5) — apt — Debian unstable — Debian > Manpages<https://manpages.debian.org/unstable/apt/sources.list.5.en.html#EXAMPLES> > deb http://security.debian.org

Re: APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 06:55:30PM +, Gregory McPherran wrote: >Is one of"http://security.debian.org/debian-security";or >"http://security.debian.org"; the correct format ? > >Or is the "debian-security" portion optional ? I don't think `debian-security` in the URL suffix is optio

APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates - Documentation Discrepancy

orm as: sources.list(5) — apt — Debian unstable — Debian Manpages<https://manpages.debian.org/unstable/apt/sources.list.5.en.html#EXAMPLES> deb http://security.debian.org bullseye-securitymain Is one of"http://security.debian.org/debian

Re: APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 04:32:52PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: Try both and see which one works. If the wiki is wrong, edit the wiki so that it's correct. (Then hope some jerk doesn't revert your changes.) There's only one person acting like a jerk here.

Re: APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates

tures> > > deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security bullseye-security > >main > > > > This shows the new security line form as: > > sources.list(5) — apt — Debian unstable — Debian > > Manpages<https://manpages.debian.org/unstable/apt/source

Re: APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates

ity bullseye-security > main > > This shows the new security line form as: > sources.list(5) — apt — Debian unstable — Debian > Manpages<https://manpages.debian.org/unstable/apt/sources.list.5.en.html#EXAMPLES> > deb http://security.debian.org

APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates

orm as: sources.list(5) — apt — Debian unstable — Debian Manpages<https://manpages.debian.org/unstable/apt/sources.list.5.en.html#EXAMPLES> deb http://security.debian.org bullseye-securitymain Is one of"http://security.debian.org/debian

Re: Editing /etc/apt/sources.list breaks update

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Fungi4All wrote: > LXDE is much more reliable than lxqt. LXQT was buggy and broken still a year or so ago. Now it works nicely and looks good. It will finally replace LXDE. It provides a light environment especially if you can use other QT applications. I tried i

Re: Editing /etc/apt/sources.list breaks update

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Fungi4All wrote: > I don't think it says such a thing anywhere, buster can not change > to testing as there is nothing to change for the next 2 years. > > I say you cut that ftp.fi and make it into deb.debian and then > $ sudo apt update > $ sudo apt-get dist-upgr

Re: Editing /etc/apt/sources.list breaks update

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Fungi4All wrote: > Isn't Debian 9.1 Stretch? Ah damn, the "9.1" was a typo from me. I experimented with both Stretch and the testing installations under VirtualBox. My post was about "testing" which is now "buster", installed from: debian-testing-i386-netinst.is

Re: Editing /etc/apt/sources.list breaks update

ch? > I wanted to use the testing branch also after buster goes stable. Isn't this Spring/Summer 2019? > According to this page: > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianTesting > it is possible by editing /etc/apt/sources.list. > I followed the instructions and changed "buster"

Re: Editing /etc/apt/sources.list breaks update

On 16 September 2017 at 23:25, Erik Christiansen wrote: > On 16.09.17 15:44, Juha Manninen wrote: >> BTW, the reply address of this mailing list is set wrong. In some >> other lists I can click Reply and it goes to the list. Here it would >> go to the person who sent the last message. I have to e

Re: Editing /etc/apt/sources.list breaks update

On 16.09.17 21:28, Juha Manninen wrote: > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Erik Christiansen > > List-Id: > > List-Post: ... > I use the browser interface for GMail. Ok, it is not very geeky but it > works for me. > I cannot see any GMail setting that would a

Re: Editing /etc/apt/sources.list breaks update

On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Erik Christiansen wrote: > The deficiency lies in your MUA settings. Take a look at the headers on > the list traffic you receive: > > List-Id: > List-Post: > > Without knowing which MUA you use, it's difficult to do the work

Re: Editing /etc/apt/sources.list breaks update

Eero Volotinen wrote: > You need to import needed gpg key. > Try something like this > gpg --keyserver pgpkeys.mit.edu --recv-key 7638D0442B90D010 > gpg -a --export 7638D0442B90D010 | sudo apt-key add - No! You should *never* manually import any ReleaseKey. Those should always only come fro

Re: Editing /etc/apt/sources.list breaks update

On 16.09.17 15:44, Juha Manninen wrote: > BTW, the reply address of this mailing list is set wrong. In some > other lists I can click Reply and it goes to the list. Here it would > go to the person who sent the last message. I have to edit the > recipient field. The deficiency lies in your MUA set

Re: Editing /etc/apt/sources.list breaks update

# export LC_MESSAGES=C root@debian:/home/juha# gpg --keyserver pgpkeys.mit.edu --recv-key 7638D0442B90D010 key 7638D0442B90D010: 10 signatures not checked due to missing keys gpg: key 7638D0442B90D010: "Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key (8/jessie) " not changed gpg: Total number processed: 1 gpg

Re: Editing /etc/apt/sources.list breaks update

Juha Manninen [2017-09-16 11:57:32+03] wrote: > # apt-get update > Nouda:1 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing InRelease [135 kB] > Vrhe:1 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing InRelease > Seuraavia allekirjoituksia ei voinut varmentaa koska julkista > avainta ei ole saatavilla: NO_PUBKEY 7638D0

Re: Editing /etc/apt/sources.list breaks update

t; I have installed Debian 9.1.0 buster for i386 using the small netinst > image. Works well. I tested different desktops, too. > > I wanted to use the testing branch also after buster goes stable. > According to this page: > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianTesting > it is possible by ed

Editing /etc/apt/sources.list breaks update

is possible by editing /etc/apt/sources.list. I followed the instructions and changed "buster" to "testing" and commented out security update lines. It now looks like this : deb http://ftp.fi.debian.org/debian/ testing main deb-src http://ftp.fi.debian.org/debian/ test

Re: how to get xvid codec even though non-free is there in my /etc/apt/sources.list

Le tridi 23 prairial, an CCXXV, shirish शिरीष a écrit : > Vlc gives me this - > > [7fa1180009c8] vdpau_avcodec generic error: decoder profile not > supported: 7 This means that it is trying to use a hardware-accelerated decoder, and the hardware does not support decoding that particular vide

Re: how to get xvid codec even though non-free is there in my /etc/apt/sources.list

at bottom :- On 11/06/2017, shirish शिरीष wrote: > Dear Friends, > > Please CC me as I'm not subscribed to the list. I am trying to watch a > video which unfortunately uses xvid codec. I do have libxvidcore4 > installed (using stretch) but it still complains about not having the > right codec. Ca

how to get xvid codec even though non-free is there in my /etc/apt/sources.list

Dear Friends, Please CC me as I'm not subscribed to the list. I am trying to watch a video which unfortunately uses xvid codec. I do have libxvidcore4 installed (using stretch) but it still complains about not having the right codec. Can anyone help ? -- Regards, Shirish Agar

Re: debian 6.0.4 apt sources.list

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 09:41:52AM +0100, basti wrote: > Hello, > debian 6 is End-of-Life since 31. Mai 2014 (29. Februar 2016 for LTS), I > recommend am upgrade. > If it is not possible try "deb http://archive.debian.org/debian/ squeeze > contrib main non-free" in sources.list, > see https://www.d

Re: debian 6.0.4 apt sources.list

I think you may not be subscribed, so here is your earlier question in addition to this one. Lisi On Tuesday 08 November 2016 06:09:16 Shawn Li (李松) wrote: > Hello， > > I have downloaded debian-6.0.4-i386-DVD-1.iso from debian.org,and I install > it to my computer.when the install finish,I got a

debian 6.0.4 apt sources.list

hello， I have installed debian 6.0.4,but I can not install gcc by apt-get,maybe the sources.list error, could you please give me the correct sources.list can be use,thank you

Re: Need /etc/apt/sources.list

On Sunday 08 May 2011 22:12:23 Dotan Cohen wrote: > That does not mean that I intend to > debate the subject for three days over tens of posts. So why are you doing it?? Here's a revolutionary idea: you could let someone else have the last word and get on with your life. No-one but you yourself

Re: Need /etc/apt/sources.list

On Mon, 09 May 2011 00:12:23 +0300, Dotan Cohen wrote: > On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 13:28, Camaleón wrote: >>> There is a point when I don't care about being right or wrong, I made >>> my say and I'll not argue over trivial things with people who I'd >>> really rather get along with. >> >> Fine, but

Re: Need /etc/apt/sources.list

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 13:28, Camaleón wrote: > On Sun, 08 May 2011 09:42:49 +0300, Dotan Cohen wrote: > >> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 12:41, Camaleón wrote: I just tried tinyurl with wget and got the same IP address (and 200 response) as you. I didn't check the links, though. >>> >>> Then?

Re: URL shortening (was Re: Need /etc/apt/sources.list)

On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 09:28:54AM +0300, Dotan Cohen wrote: > > There were actually a few cases of these link-shortening services > going under. Tr.im went under and was bought, Canonical and Google > both bought and saved one (I don't remember the names) and for a while > bit.ly was under threat

Re: Need /etc/apt/sources.list

On Sun, 08 May 2011 09:42:49 +0300, Dotan Cohen wrote: > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 12:41, Camaleón wrote: >>> I just tried tinyurl with wget and got the same IP address (and 200 >>> response) as you. I didn't check the links, though. >> >> Then? Are you still getting trouble to reach the tinyurl web

Re: Need /etc/apt/sources.list

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 12:41, Camaleón wrote: >> I just tried tinyurl with wget and got the same IP address (and 200 >> response) as you. I didn't check the links, though. > > Then? Are you still getting trouble to reach the tinyurl web site? If > yes, there could be a filter/proxy in between of y

Re: Need /etc/apt/sources.list

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 07:50, Freeman wrote: > Craigevil is very cool but his sources.list has open lines so I cleaned it > up, I hope. It's late here. Check it. Especailly for something that wrapped. > That's great, thanks! I will go cherry-pick through there. -- Dotan Cohen http://gibberish

Re: Need /etc/apt/sources.list

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 23:34, Heddle Weaver wrote: >> I appreciate your willingness to help, don't get me wrong. But just as >> I am here to learn, I thought that you might also be interested in >> learning the error of using url-shortening services. > > Oh, I remember you now. > Have we a histor

Re: URL shortening (was Re: Need /etc/apt/sources.list)

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 01:33, Arno Schuring wrote: > However, this mailing list is archived. That means that links given on > this mailing list are not simply fire-and-forget, they should be able > to be resolved years from now. And while we cannot guarantee that any > link remains valid, it is fo

Re: Need /etc/apt/sources.list

On Fri, 06 May 2011 23:07:15 +0300, Dotan Cohen wrote: > I just tried tinyurl with wget and got the same IP address (and 200 > response) as you. I didn't check the links, though. Then? Are you still getting trouble to reach the tinyurl web site? If yes, there could be a filter/proxy in between o

  1   2   3   4   >