On 8/25/19, Daniel Rossi wrote:
> I've tried to figure out this myself, but have been forced here. I need
> to enable a feature which was added in git but not packaged for buster
> yet, I have exactly the same problem with Ubuntu Bionic. I would like to
> make unstable packages of this for releasi
I've tried to figure out this myself, but have been forced here. I need
to enable a feature which was added in git but not packaged for buster
yet, I have exactly the same problem with Ubuntu Bionic. I would like to
make unstable packages of this for releasing to raspberry PI also.
I've tried
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:11:27PM +0900, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> The only thing I'd add here is that in this case, I'd create a dummy
> Debian package with no contents but an appropriate version number and
> dependencies, and install it, so the system knows it is there and the
> dependent librar
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 08:51:10AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 07:51:20AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > No, stop. The second step if there is not already a backport is to try
> > to backport it yourself. Maybe ask judd in IRC first, whether a backport
> > is believe
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 07:51:20AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> No, stop. The second step if there is not already a backport is to try
> to backport it yourself. Maybe ask judd in IRC first, whether a backport
> is believed to be *possible*. Sometimes the bot is wrong, but it's a
> starting poi
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:52:37PM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> The best way to achieve this is to use backports, if one exists for the
> packages you are interested in.
>
> Failing that, it's possible that the version of the package in testing or
> unstable can be installed on your stable sys
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 04:07:48PM -0500, David Niklas wrote:
> What I'm trying to do is to avoid running pieces unstable or testing
> software (except for the package I asked for (such as nano)), while
> still having a few newer packages.
The best way to achieve this is to use backports, if one e
Hello,
I've used Debian on and off but now I have a pocketchip from
https://nextthing.co/
and it uses debian and I'm not about to switch.
I follow several projects closely (nano, lynx, a few others), and what I
want to do is to tell apt to:
1. Download the latest and greatest source code of version
aded to
http://mentors.debian.net/package/libburn
but goofed by uploading a state with debhelper version 9,
which produces source packages without warning but fails
with debuild -b.
debian/control and debian/compat would need a change from
"9" back to "8".
But i am unsure yet, whethe
On Friday 21 August 2015 12:37:44 Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> > > "All packages must be signed with the GnuPG key"
> >
> > Either "dpkg-buildpackage without -us -uc" or debsign applied to
> > the changes file.
>
> Will try. And also the proposal to use debuild instead of
> dpkg-buildpackage, wh
Hi,
Dominique Dumon wrote:
> https://ddumont.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/improving-update-of-existing-debian
copyright-file/
This will be of help when i expand my work to packages
where i am not the upstream.
For my own ones i rather seem to know too much about the
license situation of their various
On Thursday 20 August 2015 01:02:32 Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> If it is not too daring, then i would propose this roadmap
> for refurbishing the burner corner of Debian:
>
> - I learn what kind of signing is meant with
> http://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers
> "All packages must be sign
On Wednesday 19 August 2015 19:38:16 Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> I see. The man page effect again.
> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/dreq.en.html#copyright
You can also use "cme update dpkg-copyright" to update debian/copyright file.
See [1] for more details.
[1]
https://ddumont.wor
Hi,
George Danchev wrote:
> I just orphaned the three packages: libburn, libisofs, libisoburn.
> The team has been mostly one-man for a couple of years, but eventually I run
> out of time, energy, and burning hardware to properly maintain these
> packages.
I thought you did this already. Else i w
Thomas Schmitt wrote:
>Hi,
>
>assumed i can build Debian package files of three existing
>orphaned Debian packages with current upstream release on
>Debian 8.1 - where to ask the following questions:
>
>- What more do i have to set up for making them ready
> for submission to a sponsor ? Sid ?
>
>
On Wednesday 19 August 2015 19:54:11 Dominique Dumont wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 August 2015 19:58:21 Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> > assumed i can build Debian package files of three existing
> > orphaned Debian packages with current upstream release on
> > Debian 8.1 - where to ask the following questions:
Hi,
David Wright wrote:
> Why would I want a character that doesn't behave as a space to be
> displayed as a normal space?
That's the question about the use case.
I don't have one. So i made Alt+Spacebar behave like Spacebar.
But the typographical purpose of NO-BREAK SPACE is to look
like space
Hi,
Dominique Dumont wrote:
> Hmm, libburn is marked as "help wanted" [1]. I could not find any bug in
> wnpp [2] marking is as orphan. Where did you get the info that this
> package is orphaned ?
Sorry for the lack of proper Debian terminology.
My upstream packages are de facto unmaintained bec
On Tuesday 18 August 2015 19:58:21 Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> assumed i can build Debian package files of three existing
> orphaned Debian packages with current upstream release on
> Debian 8.1 - where to ask the following questions:
>
> i fetched the Debian source and ran dch
>
> apt-get source l
Hi,
i wrote:
> > License: GPL-3
> >The source code is GPL-2-or-later. By linking with GPL-3 licensed
> >libreadline.so.6 the resulting binaries become GPL-3 licensed, too.
Don Armstrong wrote:
> debian/copyright documents the license of the source code, not license
> the resultant binar
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Regardless, you just express the full set of licenses in
> > debian/copyright. The effective set of licenses of the binary isn't
> > something you have to deal with (luckily).
>
> The FSF would contradict. If Debian links GPLv2+
Hi,
Don Armstrong wrote:
> You can also use mentors.debian.net to upload fixed
> versions of these packages so that people can review them.
I am exploring it ... while trying to silence warnings
from dh_shlibdeps about useless dependencies, and from
dpkg-gencontrol about "unknown substitution var
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> assumed i can build Debian package files of three existing
> orphaned Debian packages with current upstream release on
> Debian 8.1 - where to ask the following questions:
>
> - What more do i have to set up for making them ready
> for submission to a
Hi,
Brian wrote:
> debian-mentors looks good enough.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/ says:
"This list is not meant for users' questions, but for new maintainers'!"
Looking into the recent archives i get the impression that
i lack a glossary of debian-speak. Especially the word
"maintai
On Tue 18 Aug 2015 at 19:58:21 +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> assumed i can build Debian package files of three existing
> orphaned Debian packages with current upstream release on
> Debian 8.1 - where to ask the following questions:
>
> - What more do i have to set up for making them re
Hi,
assumed i can build Debian package files of three existing
orphaned Debian packages with current upstream release on
Debian 8.1 - where to ask the following questions:
- What more do i have to set up for making them ready
for submission to a sponsor ? Sid ?
- Is an experienced packager aro
vdpau-driver
> dpkg -i xserver-xorg-video-nvidia
> dpkg -i nvidia-kernel-dkms
> dpkg -i nvidia-driver
> dpkg -i nvidia-glx
In the end:
> nvidia-xconfig
> shutdown -r now
Thanks for the help, again.
Cheers, Nick
2013/11/26 Nick Rudnick
> Dear all,
>
> how to bui
Nick Rudnick writes:
> how to build Debian source packages,
> e.g. nvidia-graphics-drivers_331.20-1.debian.tar.gz (
> http://packages.debian.org/source/experimental/nvidia-graphics-drivers)??
> It seems different to common DEB as well as tarballs with configure/make.
Others may be
Hi Nick,
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Nick Rudnick wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> how to build Debian source packages, e.g.
> nvidia-graphics-drivers_331.20-1.debian.tar.gz
> (http://packages.debian.org/source/experimental/nvidia-graphics-drivers)??
> It seems different to com
Dear all,
how to build Debian source packages,
e.g. nvidia-graphics-drivers_331.20-1.debian.tar.gz (
http://packages.debian.org/source/experimental/nvidia-graphics-drivers)??
It seems different to common DEB as well as tarballs with configure/make.
Even a search term would help, as trying with
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 05:46:18 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 03:23:04PM +, Camaleón wrote:
>> I don't recall Hugo has said what he tried (exactly) and what was the
>> result.
>
> Really?
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/08/msg00310.html
Really.
The post yo
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 03:23:04PM +, Camaleón wrote:
> I don't recall Hugo has said what he tried (exactly) and what was the
> result.
Really?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/08/msg00310.html
Seems like problem solved?
--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hati
Camaleón wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:38:29 -0500, hvw59601 wrote:
Camaleón wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:02:12 -0500, hvw59601 wrote:
http://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/ has in it 8 debian kernel
source packages that I want to install consecutively to see if bug
http
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 03:06:25 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 02:32:49PM +, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 02:06:19 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
>> > Not me, The OP found an issue, ... so ... why can't he bring it up
>> > there? Entirely appropriate, IMNSVHO.
>
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 02:32:49PM +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 02:06:19 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > Not me, The OP found an issue, ... so ... why can't he bring it up
> > there? Entirely appropriate, IMNSVHO.
>
> But you seemed to dissect the issue and found a documentation
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 02:06:19 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 01:29:10PM +, Camaleón wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, but I don't get what kind of documentation issue do you find
>> here. There's a small "Usage" section in the front page. Sources and
>> binary files are there, so...
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 01:29:10PM +, Camaleón wrote:
>
> Sorry, but I don't get what kind of documentation issue do you find here.
> There's a small "Usage" section in the front page. Sources and binary
> files are there, so...?
Not me, The OP found an issue, ... so ... why can't he bring
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 00:47:18 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 10:09:20AM +, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 10:31:48 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 04:38:29PM -0500, hvw59601 wrote:
>> >> I looked at that but the examples of the deb
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 10:09:20AM +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 10:31:48 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 04:38:29PM -0500, hvw59601 wrote:
> >> I looked at that but the examples of the deb entries they give are
> >> nothing like where the linux source fi
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 10:31:48 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 04:38:29PM -0500, hvw59601 wrote:
>> Camaleón wrote:
>> >On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:02:12 -0500, hvw59601 wrote:
>> >
>> >>http://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/ has in it 8
On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:38:29 -0500, hvw59601 wrote:
> Camaleón wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:02:12 -0500, hvw59601 wrote:
>>
>>> http://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/ has in it 8 debian kernel
>>> source packages that I want to install con
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 04:38:29PM -0500, hvw59601 wrote:
> Camaleón wrote:
> >On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:02:12 -0500, hvw59601 wrote:
> >
> >>http://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/ has in it 8 debian kernel
> >>source packages that I want to install con
Camaleón wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:02:12 -0500, hvw59601 wrote:
http://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/ has in it 8 debian kernel
source packages that I want to install consecutively to see if bug
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683768 is present.
I want to do the
On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:02:12 -0500, hvw59601 wrote:
> http://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/ has in it 8 debian kernel
> source packages that I want to install consecutively to see if bug
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683768 is present.
>
> I want to do th
Hi,
http://snapshot.debian.org/package/linux/ has in it 8 debian kernel
source packages that I want to install consecutively to see if bug
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683768
is present.
I want to do the installs with apt-get source.
How does one do this? Specifically
On 29/01/12 21:27, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Du, 29 ian 12, 18:55:00, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
Much googling on the subject suggests that it might not be possible
to do that. Anyone know whether that's true, if so, why, and if not
how can I do it?
Probably nobody bothered to implement the feat
On Du, 29 ian 12, 18:55:00, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
>
> Much googling on the subject suggests that it might not be possible
> to do that. Anyone know whether that's true, if so, why, and if not
> how can I do it?
Probably nobody bothered to implement the feature since people hacking
on source c
Hi,
Running squeeze, when I want a source package, I do apt-get source
, which works well enough.
However, I'm really a pointy-clicky type, and would prefer to use
synaptic for this.
Much googling on the subject suggests that it might not be possible to
do that. Anyone know whether that's
o I need. (I think I read
somewhere about making apt-get do a dry run to find out)
2) get the sources and stash them locally along with their official
consistency data (md5sums, signing keys, ...)
3) get the build dependencies among the source packages (from where
do you get that graph
On 2009-08-31 22:50, Peng Yu wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Niu Kun wrote:
Peng Yu 写道:
Hi,
I need to install packages from source because I don't have a root
account on my machine. So far I found the following websites, but they
certainly do not have all the source code packages.
ht
Hi !
Niu Kun wrote:
Peng Yu ??:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Niu Kun wrote:
Peng Yu ??:
Hi,
I need to install packages from source because I don't have a root
account on my machine. So far I found the following websites, but they
certainly do not have all the source code packages.
Peng Yu 写道:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Niu Kun wrote:
Peng Yu 写道:
Hi,
I need to install packages from source because I don't have a root
account on my machine. So far I found the following websites, but they
certainly do not have all the source code packages.
http://linux.softp
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Niu Kun wrote:
> Peng Yu 写道:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I need to install packages from source because I don't have a root
>> account on my machine. So far I found the following websites, but they
>> certainly do not have all the source code packages.
>>
>> http://linux.softp
Peng Yu 写道:
Hi,
I need to install packages from source because I don't have a root
account on my machine. So far I found the following websites, but they
certainly do not have all the source code packages.
http://linux.softpedia.com/
http://www.icewalkers.com/Linux/Software/
Can somebody let m
Hi,
I need to install packages from source because I don't have a root
account on my machine. So far I found the following websites, but they
certainly do not have all the source code packages.
http://linux.softpedia.com/
http://www.icewalkers.com/Linux/Software/
Can somebody let me know where I
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 11:34:33PM +0800, sha liu wrote:
> 2009/7/19 Osamu Aoki
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 07:46:59PM +0800, sha liu wrote:
> > If you are building installation image only, you may not need dpkg.
>
> Why not? I thought installation image should prepare all essential package
2009/7/19 Osamu Aoki
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 07:46:59PM +0800, sha liu wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> > What I want to do is:
> > If I want to build a package(for example dpkg) from source, how
> > should I recursively get all the dependent *source* p
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 07:46:59PM +0800, sha liu wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> What I want to do is:
> If I want to build a package(for example dpkg) from source, how
> should I recursively get all the dependent *source* packages of it?
> This means not only the direct de
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 07:46:59PM +0800, sha liu wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> What I want to do is:
> If I want to build a package(for example dpkg) from source, how
> should I recursively get all the dependent *source* packages of it?
> This means not only the direct dependency of
Hi everyone,
What I want to do is:
If I want to build a package(for example dpkg) from source, how
should I recursively get all the dependent *source* packages of it?
This means not only the direct dependency of the package but also the
dependent of the dependent...I know "apt-get buil
Thank You for Your time and answer, Boyd:
> I believe Sven was correcting me and explaining that this is
> absolutely normal.
>
> srcpkgcache.bin is not directly related to deb-src lines. It will
> have contents if you have any remote sources.
Ok now I got it: it is normal and so should be.
-
In <49ed872c.1e048e0a.6abf.b...@mx.google.com>, Sthu Deus wrote:
>Thank You for Your time and answer, Sven:
>> Not really, there is a misunderstanding here. Although its name
>> suggests it, srcpkgcache.bin is _not_ a cache for source packages but
>> rather a cac
In <49ed872c.1e048e0a.6abf.b...@mx.google.com>, Sthu Deus wrote:
>I've checked the dir. w/
>
>ls | grep Source
>
>it returned empty string. Still, after yesterday's update, I see both
>
>pkgcache.bin
>srcpkgcache.bin
>
>are updated and almost of the same size: 14553423 and 14503826
>respectivel
Thank You for Your time and answer, Sven:
> Not really, there is a misunderstanding here. Although its name
> suggests it, srcpkgcache.bin is _not_ a cache for source packages but
> rather a cache for packages from remote sources, see apt-cache(8).
I've read the manual but did
>>/var/cache/apt
>>
>>both,
>>
>>pkgcache.bin
>>srcpkgcache.bin
>>
>>are updated. Is correct behaviour?
>
> Yes.
>
> The srcpkgcache.bin should be mostly empty though, since no source packages
> are available.
Not really, there is a misunderstan
Is correct behaviour?
Yes.
The srcpkgcache.bin should be mostly empty though, since no source packages
are available.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDa
Good day.
I have all deb-src containg strings commented in sources.list, but on
apt-get update
I notice that in
/var/cache/apt
both,
pkgcache.bin
srcpkgcache.bin
are updated. Is correct behaviour? I suppose the srcpkgcache.bin file
corresponds to source packages and therefore, having
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Michal Kapalka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From the home page of debfoster: it has been depreciated, because all
> the features of debfoster are already in aptitude.
The original homepage has this message, but debfoster is still
actively maintained by Debian Devel
> just try to resolve that itself, e.g., write "I need to install packages
> pkgA, pkgB from Etch, and build+install source packages pkgTestingA,
> pkgTestingB from Lenny. Do you want to continue? [Y/N]".
The right thing is to
apt-get source
${EDIT} ./package*.dsc
->
ch is not (yet) in backports. The safest way
> (I guess) to deal with those packages is to install them from source
> using "apt-get build-dep / apt-get -b source / dpkg -i", but there are
> several shortcomings of this method, which I describe below. Any
> thoughts of how one
Michal Kapalka writes:
> Isn't it less safe than source debs? I mean, those packages are compiled
> with newer versions of system libraries than the ones in Etch, so they
> may simply refuse to work.
Libraries have versions. If packages need newer libraries they should
depend on them. If it inst
fic reason you can't/won't do this?
Isn't it less safe than source debs? I mean, those packages are compiled
with newer versions of system libraries than the ones in Etch, so they
may simply refuse to work. The source packages should be safer here --
once they compile on Etch, they s
the suggestion.
On the other hand, I use source debs only for some individual apps that
do not depend on new versions of important libraries (glibc, gtk, etc.)
so (1) the chance of breaking anything is rather low, and (2) the
solution is very convenient and integrates well with all th
vourite packages up to date.
[...]
> It would be nice if "apt-get" (or some other tool) would
> just try to resolve that itself, e.g., write "I need to install packages
> pkgA, pkgB from Etch, and build+install source packages pkgTestingA,
> pkgTestingB from Lenny. Do yo
. Any
> thoughts of how one can manage source packages better would be appreciated.
>
> 1. Installing/building dependencies
>
> Say, I want to build a package pkg1. Usually, "apt-get build-dep pkg1"
> will install all dependencies. However, apt-get will fail if one of
&g
) to deal with those packages is to install them from source
using "apt-get build-dep / apt-get -b source / dpkg -i", but there are
several shortcomings of this method, which I describe below. Any
thoughts of how one can manage source packages better would be appreciated.
1. Installin
> Can anyone shed any light on the differences between the
> > various kernel source packages in the repository,
>
> kernel-source-* are for sarge and below
> linux-source-* are for etch and beyond
> Then do
> apt-cache show $PACKAGE
> and read the Description:
> (for
also sprach Digby Tarvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.04.14.0252 +0200]:
> The example in my Martin Kraft book refers to:
> apt-get install kernel-source-2.6.8
> but I can't find a 'kernel-source-anything'..
Try linux-source-*. The kernel packaging has changed substantially
since my book was pu
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 12:52:41AM +, Digby Tarvin wrote:
> Can anyone shed any light on the differences between the
> various kernel source packages in the repository,
kernel-source-* are for sarge and below
linux-source-* are for etch and beyond
Then do
apt-cache show $PACKAGE
and re
> Can anyone shed any light on the differences between
> the various kernel source packages in the
repository,
> and which is the best choice for just being able to
> reproduce the running kernel?
>
> The example in my Martin Kraft book refers to:
> apt-get instal
Can anyone shed any light on the differences between the
various kernel source packages in the repository, and which is
the best choice for just being able to reproduce the running kernel?
The example in my Martin Kraft book refers to:
apt-get install kernel-source-2.6.8
but I can't
On 08/28/2007 02:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting "Mumia W.." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 08/28/2007 12:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I notice there is a source package for the kernel and a package of
debian patches. Has the kernel source already been patched or would
one need to patch
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:15:08 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting "Mumia W.." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On 08/28/2007 12:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> I notice there is a source package for the kernel and a package of
> >> debian patches. Has the kernel source already been patched
Quoting "Mumia W.." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 08/28/2007 12:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I notice there is a source package for the kernel and a package of
debian patches. Has the kernel source already been patched or would
one need to patch it with all of the included debian patches when
On 08/28/2007 12:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I notice there is a source package for the kernel and a package of
debian patches. Has the kernel source already been patched or would one
need to patch it with all of the included debian patches when building a
custom kernel?
It's already p
I notice there is a source package for the kernel and a package of
debian patches. Has the kernel source already been patched or would
one need to patch it with all of the included debian patches when
building a custom kernel?
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpl
Aptitude lets people browse the binary packages that are available for
Debian--very nice. But what do I do if I want to browse the source packages?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.earthlink.net/~mumia.w.18.spam/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubs
On Sunday 22 October 2006 15:41, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> If your package manager lists these packages as upgradable then you
> either have not run "update" in a while or the progeny mirror is
> seriously broken or you have found a bug in the package manager.
>
I had the same problem in Etch a few
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 08:08:28 -0500, Henry Hollenberg wrote:
> Marc Wilson wrote:
> >On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:08:15PM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote:
> >
> >>So what gives? How can a package NOT exist, but show up as being
> >>upgradeable?
> >
> >
> > Because the packages file lists it, but t
Marc Wilson wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:08:15PM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote:
So what gives? How can a package NOT exist, but show up as being
upgradeable?
Because the packages file lists it, but the mirror is incompletely
updated. Use another mirror or wait for the mirror pulse to
On Mon October 16 2006 06:47 am, David Baron wrote:
> Yes, they are "closed" but the drivers are apparently the same. The glx
> maybe not. I get much better results with those on Nvidia's site than those
> on Sid. I keep the Sid nvidia-kernel-source package around because when
> this is upgrades,
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 01:05:39PM -0400, Kamaraju Kusumanchi wrote:
> On Sunday 15 October 2006 21:39, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:08:15PM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote:
> > > So what gives? How can a package NOT exist, but show up as being
> > > upgradeable?
> >
> > Becaus
On Sunday 15 October 2006 21:39, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:08:15PM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote:
> > So what gives? How can a package NOT exist, but show up as being
> > upgradeable?
>
> Because the packages file lists it, but the mirror is incompletely
> updated. Use anot
ere (on the
> > mirror). however the nvidia-glx-legacy and nvidia-kernel-legacy-source
> > packages are there. when i viewed this mirror with firefox, sarge and
> > sid have the packages but not etch. i have no idea why this is?. go
> > see for yourself- http://ftp.us.debian
Marc Wilson wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:08:15PM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote:
So what gives? How can a package NOT exist, but show up as being
upgradeable?
Because the packages file lists it, but the mirror is incompletely
updated. Use another mirror or wait for the mirror pu
Marc Wilson wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:08:15PM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote:
So what gives? How can a package NOT exist, but show up as being
upgradeable?
Because the packages file lists it, but the mirror is incompletely
updated. Use another mirror or wait for the mirror pu
Marc Wilson wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:08:15PM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote:
So what gives? How can a package NOT exist, but show up as being
upgradeable?
Because the packages file lists it, but the mirror is incompletely
updated. Use another mirror or wait for the mirror pu
On Monday 16 October 2006 01:39, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:08:15PM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote:
> > So what gives? How can a package NOT exist, but show up as being
> > upgradeable?
>
> Because the packages file lists it, but the mirror is incompletely
> updated. Use anot
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 07:08:15PM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote:
> So what gives? How can a package NOT exist, but show up as being
> upgradeable?
Because the packages file lists it, but the mirror is incompletely
updated. Use another mirror or wait for the mirror pulse to finish. You
won't
Robert Baldwin wrote:
i am using debian etch/testing and the mirror us.debian.org
<http://us.debian.org>. when i try to install nvidia-glx and
nvidia-kernel-source it fails b/c they don't exist here (on the
mirror). however the nvidia-glx-legacy and nvidia-kernel-legacy-source
p
1 - 100 of 200 matches
Mail list logo
