Ash Joubert wrote:
> You are welcome. There is a bug report with much discussion:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1065022
Thanks again Ash, that was quite informative.
Regards
--
Florent
On 2024-03-01 06:16, Florent Rougon wrote:
Ash Joubert wrote:
A workaround that worked for me was to reinstall
gsettings-desktop-schemas:
Same problem here and your workaround does help (before it, I couldn't
even get Firefox to display a “File Open” dialog without crashing).
Thanks a lot!
Hi,
Since the upgrade of the Pango library to 1.52 in Debian/unstable, I'm
seeing an annoying bug in gnuplot with the wxt terminal. The issue can
be reproduced with the following command:
echo 'set terminal wxt; plot x' | gnuplot -persist
A window appears, but it is not drawn and it cannot
Hi,
Ash Joubert wrote:
> There is a huge transition underway on unstable to migrate to 64-bit time_t.
> After upgrading to the new libglib2.0-0t64, nothing could find gsettings
> desktop schemas, breaking applications like rednotebook and reportbug (lol),
> and after a reboot, stopp
There is a huge transition underway on unstable to migrate to 64-bit
time_t. After upgrading to the new libglib2.0-0t64, nothing could find
gsettings desktop schemas, breaking applications like rednotebook and
reportbug (lol), and after a reboot, stopping services like at-spi from
starting
I'm pretty sure you can bind mount /proc, /sys, /dev, /run, chroot and
then update-initramfs to regen.
Thanks Tim. You make it sound so simple.
I searched for "chroot to mounted disk to update initramfs" and found
several detailed descriptions of the process.
I'm pretty sure you can bind mount /proc, /sys, /dev, /run, chroot and
then update-initramfs to regen.
Thanks Tim. You make it sound so simple.
I searched for "chroot to mounted disk to update initramfs" and found
several detailed descriptions of the process.
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023, Andy Dorman wrote:
I have not yet figured out how to fix our two broken servers since we can't
boot them to update them. Since we have several identical running servers
and can mount and manipulate the file system of the dead servers, is it
possible to just copy a good
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 4:09 PM Andy Dorman wrote:
>
> I have continued to research this and I think I found the problem.
>
> I also think the dbus update timing mentioned in the subject is entirely
> coincidental. I hope I haven't caused any unnecessary excitement or work
> for anyone in the
I have continued to research this and I think I found the problem.
I also think the dbus update timing mentioned in the subject is entirely
coincidental. I hope I haven't caused any unnecessary excitement or work
for anyone in the dbus package team. My apologies if I did.
A few months back
yan S3950 mobo servers running debian
Unstable with various recent kernels, the latest being 6.1.0-3-amd64.
Despite being on the bleeding edge with the unstable distro, this has
been a very reliable setup over the years. I love Debian. However,
after a recent update, we had to reboot a cou
soutiens à 100% cette proposition. Rétrograder de Unstable à Stable
n'est pas un processus soutenu par les dev de Debian et tu n'as aucune
garantie que ça fonctionne. Tu vas perdre des heures de travail pour un
résultat aléatoire. Seule solution viable: réinstaller depuis une image
officielle stable.
Le Sat, 16 Sep 2023 22:03:02 +0200,
firenze...@orange.fr a écrit :
> Bonjour tout le monde,
>
> Dans l'espoir de résoudre un problème que je pensais lié à un pilote
> graphique pour carte Nvidia (assez ancienne), j'avais mis le système
> Debian d'un proche à niveau vers Unstable.
Bonjour tout le monde,
Dans l'espoir de résoudre un problème que je pensais lié à un pilote
graphique pour carte Nvidia (assez ancienne), j'avais mis le système
Debian d'un proche à niveau vers Unstable. Mais maintenant que je me
suis rendu compte que ça n'avait rien à voir (une souris USB de
Phoronix rapporte des soucis avec le pilote nouveau utilisé en
conjonction avec un noyau Linux 6.3:
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Avoid-Nouveau-Linux-6.3
ined about missing SSD drive (nvme). I currently don't know if
both could be related, but I'd say it's unlikely.
Some information about my system:
I installed Debian testing since latest Debian stable had many issues
(no audio, not wifi, unstable 3D graphics...). Debian stable with
backports did
my system:
I installed Debian testing since latest Debian stable had many issues
(no audio, not wifi, unstable 3D graphics...). Debian stable with
backports didn't helped much (it fixed some issues but not all).
Therefore, the most practicable is Debian testing.
The issue I have
nter the unstable
distribution [1], and possibly the testing distribution as well.
[1]:"""
I would like to upload linux version 6.1.6-1 to unstable.
[...]
Notably though there is no fix for #1028451
"""
So I quote below from that bug report [2][3] for readers here
Hi list readers
A FYI: I am far from expert in these things but I noticed that a kernel
with a known bug affecting AMD graphics is about to enter the unstable
distribution [1], and possibly the testing distribution as well.
[1]:"""
I would like to upload linux version 6.1.
On Tue 06 Sep 2022 at 16:32:30 +, jindam, vani wrote:
> i want to install gv from experimental.
> bug if new version is released in
> unstable, will apt full-upgrade will
> install from unstable?
Yes.
> my plan: enable experimental repo on
> sources.list. update my ex
i want to install gv from experimental.
bug if new version is released in
unstable, will apt full-upgrade will
install from unstable?
my plan: enable experimental repo on
sources.list. update my existing gv
using apt -t experimental install gv
regards,
jindam, vani
On 2022-07-23 09:29:33 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Sometimes, the only way to fix security bugs is to use a newer upstream
> version. The Debian teams try hard to avoid it, but it has happened
> before, and it will happen again.
Yes, they did that with firefox in the past, with a major
On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 11:34:45AM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:
> > Then why "nvidia-driver" in Stable was switched from previous "460.91.03-1"
> > version to "470.129.06-6~deb11u1"?
>
>
>
Hi,
i wrote:
> > Well, "stable" means old software with old bugs. Those who want the new
> > bugs, which are introduced by fixing the old ones, have to run something
> > else.
Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:
> Then why "nvidia-driver" in Stable was switched from previous "460.91.03-1"
> version to
| amd64, arm64
nvidia-driver | 470.129.06-6 |
testing/non-free | amd64, arm64
nvidia-driver | 470.129.06-6 |
unstable/non-free | amd64, arm64
nvidia-driver | 510.73.08-3 |
experimental/non-free | amd64, arm64
This ch
Hi,
> Surely "Closes:" is very convenient, but wouldn't you agree that this
> puts the users of Stable at a disadvantage?
Well, "stable" means old software with old bugs. Those who want the new
bugs, which are introduced by fixing the old ones, have to run something
else.
I understand that
On Sat, 2022-07-23 at 09:04 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> what is Debian's policy wrt bugs reported for a package in Stable (e.g.
> some daemon eating up 100% CPU)? Looking at the "Closes:" feature for
> debian/changelog I have the impression that
Hi folks,
what is Debian's policy wrt bugs reported for a package in Stable (e.g.
some daemon eating up 100% CPU)? Looking at the "Closes:" feature for
debian/changelog I have the impression that a fix in Unstable is seen
to be sufficient "to get rid" of the bug report.
Sure
ion
about what you were actually doing. It's probably going to be some
temporary dependency weirdness in unstable.
Cheers,
Andy
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Hello everyone,
really sorry to bother with a stupid question, however I was wondering, I
got a warning that CRON is about to be removed in the upgrade, but it seems
it's still on. Is there a plan to remove it eventually?
Thank you and I apologize If this list is only for Debian stable.
Best
Hello,
Since I've installed the package linux-image-amd64 (5.16.12-1~bpo11+1) from
bullseye-backports, the speed of the wireless connection is very unstable.
Ping varies constantly from 5 to 1500 ms while it is stable and around 5 ms for
the other wireless devices running with bullseye 5.10
:
> > > On Vi, 14 ian 22, 15:37:21, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 10:56:19AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > > So clang-13 1:13.0.1~+rc1-1~exp4 testing is in testing/unstable,
> > > > > but the changelog says:
> > >
ote:
> > On Vi, 14 ian 22, 15:37:21, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 10:56:19AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > So clang-13 1:13.0.1~+rc1-1~exp4 testing is in testing/unstable,
> > > > but the changelog says:
> > >
Is already in Debian BTS:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1007992
Regards,
Jörg.
Karthik () wrote:
>
> Same here
I took a look at the syslog and found something:
Mar 23 13:21:51 kernel: [ 347.474189] vlc[2625]: segfault at
30200 ip 7f75b88659ae sp 7f75 b8d23b00 error 4 in
libigdgmm.so.12.1.0[7f75b87fc000+78000]
Mar 23 13:21:51 kernel: [ 347.474197] Code: ff 4c
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022, 5:54 PM Miguel A. Vallejo wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Since the lass update last night in Sid / Unstable, I'm getting
> segmentation faults from some programs, like VLC:
>
Same here
>
> vlc video.mkv
> VLC media player 3.0.17.3 Vetinari (revis
Hello!
Since the lass update last night in Sid / Unstable, I'm getting
segmentation faults from some programs, like VLC:
vlc video.mkv
VLC media player 3.0.17.3 Vetinari (revision 3.0.13-8-g41878ff4f2)
[55c0d2e29460] main libvlc: Running vlc with the default
interface. Use 'cvlc' to use vlc
On 2022-01-15 18:33:23 +0100, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Vi, 14 ian 22, 15:37:21, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 10:56:19AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > So clang-13 1:13.0.1~+rc1-1~exp4 testing is in testing/unstable,
> > > but the change
On Vi, 14 ian 22, 15:37:21, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 10:56:19AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > So clang-13 1:13.0.1~+rc1-1~exp4 testing is in testing/unstable,
> > but the changelog says:
> >
> > llvm-toolchain-13 (1:13.0.1~+rc1-1~exp4) e
On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 10:56:19AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
So clang-13 1:13.0.1~+rc1-1~exp4 testing is in testing/unstable,
but the changelog says:
llvm-toolchain-13 (1:13.0.1~+rc1-1~exp4) experimental; urgency=medium
Because despite what the changelog or the version string say
Hi,
zira:~> apt-show-versions -a clang-13
clang-13:amd64 1:13.0.0-9+b2 install ok installed
No stable version
No stable-updates version
clang-13:amd64 1:13.0.1~+rc1-1~exp4 testing ftp.debian.org
clang-13:amd64 1:13.0.1~+rc1-1~exp4 unstable ftp.debian.org
clang-13:amd64 1:13.0.1~+rc
On Debian Sid I recommend disabling the unattended-upgrades services entirely:
sudo systemctl disable --now unattended-upgrades
On Friday, October 1, 2021 2:36:37 PM CEST Miguel A. Vallejo wrote:
> A few days ago I noticed my debian unstable started to update packages
> automatically. A
On 01/10/2021 15:43, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
Probably to reconfigure the unattended-upgrades functionality in apt
dpkg-reconfigure unattended-upgrades
should do it.
IMO unattended-upgrades should be uninstalled in Sid. No reason to auto
update. Everything should be checked by hand.
--
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 02:36:37PM +0200, Miguel A. Vallejo wrote:
> A few days ago I noticed my debian unstable started to update packages
> automatically. A quick inspection showed apt was updated, and also the
> configuration files in /etc/apt/apt.conf.d, including a
> 20auto-u
A few days ago I noticed my debian unstable started to update packages
automatically. A quick inspection showed apt was updated, and also the
configuration files in /etc/apt/apt.conf.d, including a
20auto-upgrades file with all options enabled.
Because auto update in sid is at least dangerous
On 20/9/21 08:34, Will wrote:
> I'm on Debian unstable. Firefox is currently stuck on 88.x. Was there a
> reason unstable wasn't tracking against later releases? The latest
release
> for Firefox is - AFAICT - version 92. Not in a rush to get to
version 92,
> but I've
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021, at 5:34 PM, Will wrote:
> Ah! I didn't know about that. I'll look at tracker in the future. Of
> course, the next question is: what's the hold up for getting the latest rustc
> into unstable? Guess I'll wait a bit longer. Hope it's not too long.
>
&g
Ah! I didn't know about that. I'll look at tracker in the future. Of
course, the next question is: what's the hold up for getting the latest
rustc into unstable? Guess I'll wait a bit longer. Hope it's not too long.
Cheers,
-W
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 5:21 PM Kushal Kumaran wrote:
> On
On Sun, Sep 19 2021 at 03:51:17 PM, Will wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I'm on Debian unstable. Firefox is currently stuck on 88.x. Was there a
> reason unstable wasn't tracking against later releases? The latest release
> for Firefox is - AFAICT - version 92. Not in a rush to ge
Greetings,
I'm on Debian unstable. Firefox is currently stuck on 88.x. Was there a
reason unstable wasn't tracking against later releases? The latest release
for Firefox is - AFAICT - version 92. Not in a rush to get to version 92,
but I've noticed it's lagged behind recently. :)
Thanks,
-W
On Vi, 03 sep 21, 19:05:23, Daniel M. wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm running debian testing ("bookworm" at the moment) and have firefox
> 88 installed from unstable. My sources.list contains testing and
> unstable main, contrib and non-free lines and I have pinning set
hello, :-)
apparemment ce que tu veux c'est un binaire donc ne regarde ni la page
tracker qui mélange plusieurs informations, ni la page du paquet source
mais bien la page du paquet binaire, qui indique que unstable est en
version 88 tandis qu'experimental est en version 92:
https
:
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/firefox
>
> Je vois que la version est 89.0.2-1 pour unstable.
>
> Mais sur ma machine 'apt show firefox -a' me montre seulement une version
> 88.0.1-1 !?
>
> Pourquoi donc ?
>
> Gaëtan
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On 9/5/21, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
>
> This is the problem with web browsers getting bigger, more complex
> dependencies, more infrastructure complexities - and it has always
> been so. Web browsers are also the go-to applications for stress
> testing any machine once again.
You nailed that!
On Sun 05 Sep 2021 at 19:31:32 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 08:56:36PM +0200, Oliver Schoede wrote:
> > On Fri, 03 Sep 2021 20:50:06 +0200
> > Sven Joachim wrote:
> > >
> > >Version 91 is only in experimental.
> > >
> >
> > Probably blocked by some Rust stuff again.
On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 08:56:36PM +0200, Oliver Schoede wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2021 20:50:06 +0200
> Sven Joachim wrote:
> >
> >Version 91 is only in experimental.
> >
>
> Probably blocked by some Rust stuff again. Anyone who's waiting and if
> possible please get a flatpak and get on with
On Fri, 03 Sep 2021 20:50:06 +0200
Sven Joachim wrote:
>
>Version 91 is only in experimental.
>
Probably blocked by some Rust stuff again. Anyone who's waiting and if
possible please get a flatpak and get on with your life. Debian is
providing that for a reason, too. We've been at the same point
On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 13:50:19 +0200
"Daniel M." wrote:
> To my understanding, unstable has 91.0.1-1 and experimental has
> 91.0.1-2 as seen in https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/firefox.
>
Or you can download v92.0.b9 from
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/developer
rhkra...@gmail.com writes:
> Top posting and not quoting anything as I'm coming from a different POV.
>
> If the OP needs firefox 91 (or whatever), there is another option, installing
> the package available from Mozilla as a separate executable.
Sure. I've had an issue with the Debian Buster's
Top posting and not quoting anything as I'm coming from a different POV.
If the OP needs firefox 91 (or whatever), there is another option, installing
the package available from Mozilla as a separate executable.
(Aside: I had to do that (for an earlier version of Firefox) because a website
> If you mean the line from that page "[2021-08-18] Accepted firefox
> 91.0.1-1 (source) into unstable (Mike Hommey)", that doesn't mean binary
> packages are available as you've noticed.
Okay, that explains it. In fact, i was referring to the versions table
in the left column.
"Daniel M." writes:
> The debian package tracker (https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/firefox)
> states that version 91.0.1-1 of firefox should be available, but I can
> in no way install it.
If you mean the line from that page "[2021-08-18] Accepted firefox
91.0.1-1 (sou
On Sat, Sep 04, 2021 at 01:50:19PM +0200, Daniel M. wrote:
> To my understanding, unstable has 91.0.1-1 and experimental has
> 91.0.1-2 as seen in https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/firefox.
>
The buildd status page for the firefox package [0] shows that the
builders have the package in
On Samstag, 4. September 2021 07:50:19 -04 Daniel M. wrote:
> To my understanding, unstable has 91.0.1-1 and experimental has
> 91.0.1-2 as seen in https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/firefox.
Unstable here still with 88.0.1-1 not 91...
same as OP
Have no time neither today nor tomorrow t
To my understanding, unstable has 91.0.1-1 and experimental has
91.0.1-2 as seen in https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/firefox.
On 2021-09-03 19:05 +0200, Daniel M. wrote:
> I'm running debian testing ("bookworm" at the moment) and have firefox
> 88 installed from unstable. My sources.list contains testing and
> unstable main, contrib and non-free lines and I have pinning set up to
> 900 testing,
Hi everyone,
I'm running debian testing ("bookworm" at the moment) and have firefox
88 installed from unstable. My sources.list contains testing and
unstable main, contrib and non-free lines and I have pinning set up to
900 testing, 500 unstable. Default-Release is set to "testin
On 17/08/2021 15:50, David Wright wrote:
> On Tue 17 Aug 2021 at 10:46:49 (+0100), Peter Hillier-Brook wrote:
>> On 17/08/2021 02:21, Robbi Nespu wrote:
>>> I have been using debian testing (bullseye) for 1 year (plus) and I want
>>> to use sid as my daily driver.
>>>
>>> I change source.list to
On Tue 17 Aug 2021 at 10:46:49 (+0100), Peter Hillier-Brook wrote:
> On 17/08/2021 02:21, Robbi Nespu wrote:
> > I have been using debian testing (bullseye) for 1 year (plus) and I want
> > to use sid as my daily driver.
> >
> > I change source.list to sid
> > $ cat /etc/apt/sources.list
> >
On 17/08/2021 02:21, Robbi Nespu wrote:
> I have been using debian testing (bullseye) for 1 year (plus) and I want
> to use sid as my daily driver.
>
> I change source.list to sid
> $ cat /etc/apt/sources.list
> deb http://ftp.jp.debian.org/debian/ sid main contrib non-free
> deb-src
That great knowing it nothing wrong.. well then I just wait, since it
nothing much and my source.list is correct
--
Robbi Nespu
D311 B5FF EEE6 0BE8 9C91 FA9E 0C81 FA30 3B3A 80BA
https://robbinespu.gitlab.io | https://mstdn.social/@robbinespu
L="https://www.debian.org/support;
> > BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/;
> >
> > Hurmm.. that is unexpected, are this is normal or did I missed something?
>
> Be patient. A new base-files package hasn't been uploaded into unstable
> yet. I'm sure it'll happen so
his is normal or did I missed something?
Be patient. A new base-files package hasn't been uploaded into unstable
yet. I'm sure it'll happen sooner or later.
https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=base-files
I have been using debian testing (bullseye) for 1 year (plus) and I want
to use sid as my daily driver.
I change source.list to sid
$ cat /etc/apt/sources.list
deb http://ftp.jp.debian.org/debian/ sid main contrib non-free
deb-src http://ftp.jp.debian.org/debian/ sid main contrib
i don't often normally use this program to
catch it when something breaks right away. :(
it is a very handy tool if you do things with
music of different kinds.
currently it is giving me an error like this
for any format i try to convert:
=
$ pacpl --to wav 1.mp4
Perl Audio
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 05:08:50AM +, Robbi Nespu wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 07:55:30 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > So, your Subject as received by me, after I un-mangle it, reads something
> > like this:
> >
> > If some package have serious bug and fixed o
On Sat 30 Jan 2021 at 05:27:30 (+), Robbi Nespu wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:58:06 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2021-3156
> > is a timely example of how Debian deals with such problems.
> > Note in particular the line
> >
> > stretch
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 05:27:30AM +, Robbi Nespu wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:58:06 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2021-3156
> > is a timely example of how Debian deals with such problems.
> > Note in particular the line
> >
> >
Hi
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:58:06 -0600, David Wright wrote:
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2021-3156
is a timely example of how Debian deals with such problems.
Note in particular the line
stretch (security) 1.8.19p1-2.1+deb9u3 fixed
showing that stretch's version gets a fix,
On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 07:55:30 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> So, your Subject as received by me, after I un-mangle it, reads something
> like this:
>
> If some package have serious bug and fixed on
> unstable and testing release, how long it will be available on stable
release.
>
> I not using dnsmasq but I curious how and will it be backport to
> stable on cases like this?
>
> Stable = 2.80-1 (vulnerable)
> Testing = 2.83-1 (fix)
> Unstable = 2.84-1 (fix)
>
> There is 2 revision gap between stable and testing, do the secu
ect as received by me, after I un-mangle it, reads something
like this:
If some package have serious bug and fixed on
unstable and testing release, how long it will be available on stable
release?
The answer to this question is: however long it takes for the current
testing to become stable.
A
dnsmasq but I curious how and will it be backport to
stable on cases like this?
Stable = 2.80-1 (vulnerable)
Testing = 2.83-1 (fix)
Unstable = 2.84-1 (fix)
There is 2 revision gap between stable and testing, do the security
team will apply the fixes on 2.80-1 or will update the package rev up
and will it be backport to stable
on cases like this?
Stable = 2.80-1 (vulnerable)
Testing = 2.83-1 (fix)
Unstable = 2.84-1 (fix)
There is 2 revision gap between stable and testing, do the security team
will apply the fixes on 2.80-1 or will update the package rev up to 2.83-1?
1. https://security
On Sun, 27 Dec 2020 22:24:58 +0100
Sven Hartge wrote:
> Celejar wrote:
>
> > Some recent update to unstable seems to have broken Xfce4 for me:
>
> The Xfce team is uploading Xfce 4.16 at the moment. Because not all
> components can be uploaded in one go, this may
Celejar wrote:
> Some recent update to unstable seems to have broken Xfce4 for me:
The Xfce team is uploading Xfce 4.16 at the moment. Because not all
components can be uploaded in one go, this may cause some temporary
problems or instability.
I'd advise you to wait some days until all uplo
On 28-12-2020 05:58, Celejar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some recent update to unstable seems to have broken Xfce4 for me: I
> can't suspend the the machine anymore. When I try the keyboard shortcut
> I've configured (that has worked for years), I get an error popup
> window:
>
&
Hi,
Some recent update to unstable seems to have broken Xfce4 for me: I
can't suspend the the machine anymore. When I try the keyboard shortcut
I've configured (that has worked for years), I get an error popup
window:
Received error while trying to log out
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 17:45:51 +0300
Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 10:19:01AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 17:02:22 +0300
> > Reco wrote:
...
> > > Indeed. Switch back to fetchmail, because the less you're depending on
> > > python and the software that
Hi.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 01:20:17PM -0400, songbird wrote:
> Reco wrote:
> ...
> > Because python. Be it python 2 or python 3 - it's (in)famous for one
> > thing - lack of backwards compatibility. Sooner or later they replace
> > python 3.8 (current sid) with, say, python 3.9 - and the
Reco wrote:
...
> Because python. Be it python 2 or python 3 - it's (in)famous for one
> thing - lack of backwards compatibility. Sooner or later they replace
> python 3.8 (current sid) with, say, python 3.9 - and the things will
> break again.
> Because they did on 3.7->3.8 transition, did before
On 10/27/20, Reco wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 10:45:23AM -0400, songbird wrote:
>> Reco wrote:
>> ...
>> > Indeed. Switch back to fetchmail, because the less you're depending on
>> > python and the software that uses it - the better ;)
>>
>> i never used fetchmail so that wouldn't be a
>>
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 10:45:23AM -0400, songbird wrote:
> Reco wrote:
> ...
> > Indeed. Switch back to fetchmail, because the less you're depending on
> > python and the software that uses it - the better ;)
>
> i never used fetchmail so that wouldn't be a
> "switching back" and since i
Hi.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 10:19:01AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 17:02:22 +0300
> Reco wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 01:31:19PM +, mick crane wrote:
> > > > this was just a quick heads-up for those who are stuck
> > > > on getmail like i
Reco wrote:
...
> Indeed. Switch back to fetchmail, because the less you're depending on
> python and the software that uses it - the better ;)
i never used fetchmail so that wouldn't be a
"switching back" and since i already have my setup
working as i want for getmail6 why would i bother
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 17:02:22 +0300
Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 01:31:19PM +, mick crane wrote:
> > > this was just a quick heads-up for those who are stuck
> > > on getmail like i am (and quite happy with it). :)
> > >
> >
> > as far as getmail goes maintainer
Hi.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 01:31:19PM +, mick crane wrote:
> > this was just a quick heads-up for those who are stuck
> > on getmail like i am (and quite happy with it). :)
> >
>
> as far as getmail goes maintainer thinks is an unnecessary panic.
>
> ""getmail goes out of
mick crane wrote:
...
> as far as getmail goes maintainer thinks is an unnecessary panic.
>
> ""getmail goes out of official support by my distro" may be a
> theoretical
> problem, or a philosophical one, but it it certainly is not a
> significant
> practical problem. Keep a Python 2 binary
On 2020-10-27 13:08, songbird wrote:
well, yesterday finally became the day when i tried to
see if i could get the old getmail to be left alone, but
nope, none of the options worked.
the good news, is that getmail6 is in unstable and was
a drop in replacement for getmail. there's a bit
well, yesterday finally became the day when i tried to
see if i could get the old getmail to be left alone, but
nope, none of the options worked.
the good news, is that getmail6 is in unstable and was
a drop in replacement for getmail. there's a bit of an
odd message coming out
1 - 100 of 6436 matches
Mail list logo
