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/SourcesList

/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 stuff. > &g

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

Re: Apt sources.list

or 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/DebianTesting . This

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'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: 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

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

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

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

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

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 >>

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"

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

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

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

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".

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 > >

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

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 >

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

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

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

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

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: > > > > --- > > > > > > > >

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

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

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

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 > > >

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

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

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

ce 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 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

/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 th

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]

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 customized version of Raspbian tha

Re: pregunta sobre format línia deb a /etc/apt/sources.list

Ha funcionat!   Gràcies Josep

Re: pregunta sobre format línia deb a /etc/apt/sources.list

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 at 08:37, Àlex wrote: > Bon dia, benvolguts/des > Hola, Àlex, > > a Debian Testing , a /etc/apt/sources.list tinc la línia: > > deb [arch=amd64] https://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/debian/ > bullseye contrib > > Avui he tingut nec

pregunta sobre format línia deb a /etc/apt/sources.list

Bon dia, benvolguts/des a Debian Testing , a /etc/apt/sources.list tinc la línia:    deb [arch=amd64] https://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/debian/ bullseye contrib Avui he tingut necessitat d'afegir a la línia anterior el següent:    [signed-by=/usr/share/keyrings/virtualbox-archive

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

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/

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

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

pdating 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 10.10.0 _Buster_ - O

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: 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

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

) 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 xfce-CD Binary-1

Re: APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates

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 - Debian

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

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: 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

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

e 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 bullseye-securitymain Is one of"http://security.debian.or

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

e 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 bullseye-securitymain Is one of"http://security.debian.or

Re: ¿Hay alguna diferecia en especificar las fuentes unstable o sid en el archivo /etc/apt/sources.list?.

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 01:25:12PM +0200, Julio Herrero wrote: > > > El 25 jun 2020, a las 12:55, Jose Luis Alarcon Sanchez > > escribió: > > > > Buenos dias. > > Buenos días > > > > Es una pequeña duda: en el archivo sources.list se puede especificar para el > > repositorio main (y para otros)

Re: ¿Hay alguna diferecia en especificar las fuentes unstable o sid en el archivo /etc/apt/sources.list?.

> El 25 jun 2020, a las 12:55, Jose Luis Alarcon Sanchez > escribió: > > Buenos dias. Buenos días > > Es una pequeña duda: en el archivo sources.list se puede especificar para el > repositorio main (y para otros) bien la distribucion sid o bien unstable, o > también otras experimentales o

¿Hay alguna diferecia en especificar las fuentes unstable o sid en el archivo /etc/apt/sources.list?.

Buenos dias. Es una pequeña duda: en el archivo sources.list se puede especificar para el repositorio main (y para otros) bien la distribucion sid o bien unstable, o también otras experimentales o las estables que existan en cada momento. Lo que no tengo claro es si el sistema resultante, la

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

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

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:

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

h? > 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" to "

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DebianTesting > it 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 >

Editing /etc/apt/sources.list breaks update

it 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

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

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

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

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

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: /etc/apt/sources.list

Yo creo que los novatos de ahora somos más perezosos para leer documentación que los de antes. No voy a negar que yo he preguntado en listas cosas sin leer quizá con la suficiente atención y tiempo la documentación que al final tengo que leer para entender como funciona tal o cual cosa; así que

Re: /etc/apt/sources.list

El 13/01/16 a las 21:47, Aradenatorix Veckhôm Awecaelus escribió: Yo creo que los novatos de ahora somos más perezosos para leer documentación que los de antes. No voy a negar que yo he preguntado en listas cosas sin leer quizá con la suficiente atención y tiempo la documentación que al final

Re: /etc/apt/sources.list

El Wed, 13 Jan 2016 21:59:54 -0300 Angel Claudio Alvarez escribió: > El Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:10:12 -0300 > "alparkom ." escribió: > > > 2016-01-11 21:24 GMT-03:00 Angel Claudio Alvarez > > : > > > > > > Por que no LEES

Re: /etc/apt/sources.list

El 11/01/16 a las 20:40, alparkom . escribió: Si la leo mijo, pasa que prefiero leer el resumen escrito de alguien de aquí, a leerme 10 páginas de alguna wiki. Tu sabes... 30 minutos leyendo la wiki y 45 segundos el mensaje por la lista. Además, para que esta la lista si responderás de esa

  1   2   3   4   5   >