On 22/10/2023, Max Nikulin wrote:
The rmadison CLI tool may query repositories that are not in
sources.list.
* rmadison is part of devscripts
* apt install devscripts
* it works like charm
* uncommented testing, unstable,
experimental from my sources.list
[ no need now ]
On 22/10/2023 04:32, Cindy Sue Causey wrote:
$ apt-cache policy firefox That should help, but it will only provide
query results that are relative to your sources.list lines above. To
show suites not represented in sources.list, the already recommended
packages webpage covers those.
The rmadi
On 10/21/23, జిందం వాఐి wrote:
> On 2023-10-21 18:00, Dan Ritter wrote:
>> జిందం వాఐి wrote:
>>> * i want to check package versions
>>> available in various suites [ stable, testing,
>>> experimental, etc.. ] using cli
>>> * for example_ firefox
>&g
be made to work reasonably stably
with significant use of apt package pinning, but it would almost
certainly be better (certainly easier and more predictable) to pick
one suite than to pull in everything and the proverbial kitchen sink
in terms of package versions.
--
Michael Kjörling
On 2023-10-21 18:00, Dan Ritter wrote:
జిందం వాఐి wrote:
* i want to check package versions
available in various suites [ stable, testing,
experimental, etc.. ] using cli
* for example_ firefox
apt can look for versions available in the repositories that you
have retrieved (by specifying the
జిందం వాఐి wrote:
> * i want to check package versions
> available in various suites [ stable, testing,
> experimental, etc.. ] using cli
> * for example_ firefox
apt can look for versions available in the repositories that you
have retrieved (by specifying the repos in /etc/apt/sou
On Oct 21, 2023, జిందం వాఐి wrote:
> * i want to check package versions
> available in various suites [ stable, testing,
> experimental, etc.. ] using cli
> * for example_ firefox
As far as I'm aware, the only real option here would be a web-browser
(e.g. lynx or elink
* i want to check package versions
available in various suites [ stable, testing,
experimental, etc.. ] using cli
* for example_ firefox
--
regards,
జిందం వాఐి [ jindam, vani ]
web_
http://jgfpvd4jhz2fpyuevggr37mqhukv4kw2kpsfii5zygdsgdctqdob3uyd.onion
[matrix]_ @jindam.vani:oikei.net
Hi,
> Outside Debian there are companies producing operating systems based on
> Debian and providing commercial support for those operating systems,
> probably the biggest example is Ubuntu provided by Canonical:
>
> https://ubuntu.com/
> https://canonical.com/
Yet, if at all possible, you should
On Tue, 2023-08-01 at 13:50 -0600, Alan Serrano Peña wrote:
> Is there a commercial version of Debian?
> Any version with technical support?
The Debian project provides the Debian operating system for free and
provides technical support for free by volunteers. In addition, there
are a number of
Good afternoon, I have a question about Debian versions. Is there a
commercial version of Debian? Any version with technical support?
No, Debian is a free software, but you can get commercial support from
third-parties.
I was reading on the website that there is a version called Debian
LTS
On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 4:15 PM Alan Serrano Peña wrote:
> Good afternoon, I have a question about Debian versions. Is there a
> commercial version of Debian? Any version with technical support? I was
> reading on the website that there is a version called Debian LTS,
> specifical
Good afternoon, I have a question about Debian versions. Is there a commercial
version of Debian? Any version with technical support? I was reading on the
website that there is a version called Debian LTS, specifically Debian 10
"Buster," but I'm not sure if this version meets
Hello, everybody out there!
Thank you for your answers. I realize I have not made myself clear, my
bad.
Indeed, I do not want to change the Python version of the whole
distribution: I do not want to mess up the system. My need is to follow
the up-to-date Python stable version for m
Dan Ritter writes:
> You will want to let the Debian python packages alone, and
> install new pythons from source in /opt/python-VER or such. Then
> use venvs to make sure that you are always getting the python
> you really want.
There's a tool called pyenv which handles downloads, compilations
ement and so on, and you really can't mess with
> it without breaking something.
>
> Install *additional* versions of python3 as you need them, for your own
> development work.
>
> I'll let the Python experts describe how to do this, if you don't already
> know how.
Yoann LE BARS writes:
> Hello, everybody out there!
>
> For the upcoming two years, I will have to follow the new versions of
> Python. Not the preview release, but the up-to-date stable release –
> well, I can wait for a couple of weeks after the rele
Yoann LE BARS wrote:
>
> Hello, everybody out there!
>
> For the upcoming two years, I will have to follow the new versions of
> Python. Not the preview release, but the up-to-date stable release – well, I
> can wait for a couple of weeks after the release of the l
n of python3 installed, and
that this version comes from Debian repositories.
Keep the python3 that's provided by Debian, for Debian's use. It's
part of package management and so on, and you really can't mess with
it without breaking something.
Install *additional* versions
Hello, everybody out there!
For the upcoming two years, I will have to follow the new versions of
Python. Not the preview release, but the up-to-date stable release –
well, I can wait for a couple of weeks after the release of the last
stable version.
As far as I know, Python is not
On 2023-04-22 12:13 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> There are many signs of a new kernel version in the latest updates:
> linux-libc-dev, linux-source, linux-kbuild all show an upgrade
> available from 5.10.162-1 to 5.10.178-2.
>
> Conspicuously absent are any of the linux-image packages; the most
> r
There are many signs of a new kernel version in the latest updates:
linux-libc-dev, linux-source, linux-kbuild all show an upgrade
available from 5.10.162-1 to 5.10.178-2.
Conspicuously absent are any of the linux-image packages; the most
recent ones are 5.10.162-1. I figured they might just be d
> the volume occupied by /usr/lib/modules/ (3.5GB) &
> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu (1.4GB) - as far as I can tell, this latter
> directory only has essential, current files. I have been using this
> volume for over a year, & the modules directory now has over a
> dozen kernels fr
u (1.4GB) - as far as I can tell, this latter
directory only has essential, current files. I have been using this
volume for over a year, & the modules directory now has over a
dozen kernels from previous versions of the operating system. I can
see the need to retain the last couple of versio
On 3/11/23, Greg Wooledge wrote:
...
> Hmm, that didn't work either. Now it's time to read the documentation.
> (read, read, read)
> OK, here we go:
>
> unicorn:/tmp/src$ rsync -a --include="*/" --include="*.foo"
> --include="*.bar" --exclude="*" . /tmp/dest/
> unicorn:/tmp/src$ find /tmp/dest
>
OK. Let me just discard every single piece of quoted content from this
thread, because none of it makes ANY sense.
Here is what I see in the Subject: header:
1) Some piece of the verbose output of rsync, for unknown reason.
2) A question about how to do a specific task with rsync.
At some point
On 3/11/23, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Albretch Mueller wrote:
>> The one liner reporting that error is:
>>
>> time( sudo rsync --rsync-path="/usr/local/bin/rsync" --debug=ALL
>> --archive --verbose --compress --recursive --checksum --include="*/"
>> --include=".${_X}" --exclude="*" --prune-empty-dir
Albretch Mueller wrote:
> The one liner reporting that error is:
>
> time( sudo rsync --rsync-path="/usr/local/bin/rsync" --debug=ALL
> --archive --verbose --compress --recursive --checksum --include="*/"
> --include=".${_X}" --exclude="*" --prune-empty-dirs "${_SRC}"
> "${_DST}" 1> "${_LOG
The one liner reporting that error is:
time( sudo rsync --rsync-path="/usr/local/bin/rsync" --debug=ALL
--archive --verbose --compress --recursive --checksum --include="*/"
--include=".${_X}" --exclude="*" --prune-empty-dirs "${_SRC}"
"${_DST}" 1> "${_LOG_FL}" 2> "${_ERRS_LOG}" ) >> "${_TM_L
Thanks Greg. Good to know that.
regards.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 9:08 AM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 08:38:22AM +0800, winnie hw wrote:
> > sorry this is maybe not related to debian directly.
> > but how can I compare two versions of a package by progr
anation that would cover all of them,
but it was starting to develop too many moving parts and sub-clauses for
that to seem to be worthwhile in the immediate context.)
These versions also don't even display one key component of Debian
version numbers that isn't found in versions elsewhe
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 07:42:24PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Also, while Debian uses a sane, consistent version numbering system it
> is not safe to make assumptions about what non-Debian developers do.
The best thing I can say about Debian's version strings is that they
are documented.
unicorn
Also, while Debian uses a sane, consistent version numbering system it
is not safe to make assumptions about what non-Debian developers do.
There have been some very original systems used, and developers have
been known to change systems in midstream.
--
John Hasler
j...@sugarbit.com
Elmwood, WI
On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 08:38:22AM +0800, winnie hw wrote:
> sorry this is maybe not related to debian directly.
> but how can I compare two versions of a package by programming?
> for instance, v1.24.0.1 should be later than v1.23.99.999.
Debian's dpkg(1) command has a --compare-v
Hello,
sorry this is maybe not related to debian directly.
but how can I compare two versions of a package by programming?
for instance, v1.24.0.1 should be later than v1.23.99.999.
Thank you.
On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 at 15:39, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> You've been bitten by a subtle but unfortunately common problem,
> yes. In multi-arch systems the versions of packages have to be totally
> in sync. But the +b1 syntax here means that the i386 package has had a
> binNMU (
Mark wrote:
>
>I have a package installation problem which leads to a question about
>how (and if) package versions interact in different architectures.
>
>My system is an amd64 bookworm system, with multi-arch support and
>some packages from i386 installed, to support a vendor
Hi list
I have a package installation problem which leads to a question about
how (and if) package versions interact in different architectures.
My system is an amd64 bookworm system, with multi-arch support and
some packages from i386 installed, to support a vendor-supplied
printer driver and
and probably used it until I stopped
using a dial-up modem, which I'm guessing was well after 2000 -- I might have
some clues somewhere in various notes, but I don't want to go looking for them
at the moment.
At some point, version 1.10 was released (that may have been the last relea
--
Sent with Tutanota, the secure & ad-free mailbox.
10 Feb 2022, 01:51 by u...@isnogud.escape.de:
> To me this looks somewhat surprising that in Debian buster a package
> depends on 2 versions of a library:
>
> # apt-cache depends texlive-binaries |grep lua
> D
On Wed 09 Feb 2022 at 16:51:54 (+0100), Urs Thuermann wrote:
> To me this looks somewhat surprising that in Debian buster a package
> depends on 2 versions of a library:
>
> # apt-cache depends texlive-binaries |grep lua
> Depends: libtexlua52
> Depends: libtexlua52
>
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 04:51:54PM +0100, Urs Thuermann wrote:
> To me this looks somewhat surprising that in Debian buster a package
> depends on 2 versions of a library:
>
> # apt-cache depends texlive-binaries |grep lua
> Depends: libtexlua52
> Depends: libtexlua52
>
To me this looks somewhat surprising that in Debian buster a package
depends on 2 versions of a library:
# apt-cache depends texlive-binaries |grep lua
Depends: libtexlua52
Depends: libtexlua52
Depends: libtexlua53
Depends: libtexlua53
Depends: libtexluajit2
Depends: libtexluajit2
On Mi, 08 dec 21, 22:24:41, Stanislav Vlasov wrote:
>
> 3) you may set repos from debian 11 and install software AND
> dependencies - your debian will be partially upgraded and some another
> soft may be broken. Don't recommend this way, system may be broken and
> need reinstall in worst case.
If
That's all right. thank you.
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 1:25 AM Stanislav Vlasov
wrote:
> 2021-12-08 15:51 GMT+05:00, Piper H :
> > On Debian 10, can I force install the software which is released on
> Debian
> > 11?
> > For example, a given software has default installation version 1.0 for
> > debi
2021-12-08 15:51 GMT+05:00, Piper H :
> On Debian 10, can I force install the software which is released on Debian
> 11?
> For example, a given software has default installation version 1.0 for
> debian 10, but has version 2.0 for debian 11.
> I want to use the version 2.0 on debian 10, how will I
do it?
A few packages have advanced versions available through the
backports repository, but by no means all.
So in general, upgrade to Debian 11.
-dsr-
On Debian 10, can I force install the software which is released on Debian
11?
For example, a given software has default installation version 1.0 for
debian 10, but has version 2.0 for debian 11.
I want to use the version 2.0 on debian 10, how will I do it?
Thank you.
Piper
On 12/7/2021 5:15 PM, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 03:54:37PM +0100, Max Nadig wrote:
Hi,
I was trying to install Debian 10 via WSL on windows. The problem is, I
automatically get v11 Bullseye.
Is there some way to specify the version or load a custom Debian version with
W
On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 03:54:37PM +0100, Max Nadig wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was trying to install Debian 10 via WSL on windows. The problem is, I
> automatically get v11 Bullseye.
> Is there some way to specify the version or load a custom Debian version with
> WSL?
>
> I already posted this questio
Hi,
I was trying to install Debian 10 via WSL on windows. The problem is, I
automatically get v11 Bullseye.
Is there some way to specify the version or load a custom Debian version with
WSL?
I already posted this question into the WSL Git repo. So far I couldn't find a
solution for this.
https
On Mi, 15 sep 21, 09:54:29, John Hasler wrote:
> The Wanderer writes:
> > In theory you could, but in practice it would break well before that.
>
> I run Sid on my desktop. It's been years since I've had any breakage.
> I suspect that it's because I run FVWM, avoid anything connected with
> freed
On 9/15/2021 6:45 AM, Brian wrote
> I was also rather hoping Tanstaafl would contribute a few words on how
> the unstable model contrasts with Gentoo's rolling release model.
Well, it's been many years, but basically, you could select what
'branch' you were on using keywords (stable, testing, etc)
The Wanderer writes:
> In theory you could, but in practice it would break well before that.
I run Sid on my desktop. It's been years since I've had any breakage.
I suspect that it's because I run FVWM, avoid anything connected with
freedesktop.org or Gnome, and am careful about when to upgrade.
On 2021-09-14, Brian wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm... ok, so, I could run sid 'forever', as long as I keep it updated
>> regularly?
>
> Why not? Update when you want to. How does this differ from Gentoo's
> rolling release aspect? Go for testing if you want to be a little
> conservative?
>
>> Anyone do thi
does.)
>
> I am in agreement with what you say as regards stable vs unstable.
> For the avoidance of doubt, I would always advise stable for a user.
> It has been thoroughly tested, gets timely security upgrades and is
> supported by the images team with point releases. What is the
On Tue 14 Sep 2021 at 22:42:12 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2021-09-14 at 16:33, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
> > On 9/13/2021 11:02 AM, Brian wrote
> >
> >> On Mon 13 Sep 2021 at 10:18:54 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> So, I'm considering Debian for a new homebrew MX gateway I
; started running a stable install in paralel (shared /home, which brought
> its own set of complexity).
>
I feel for you. It's worth thinking that sid is where you'll get package
churn, packages built with different compilers / libc versions potentially,
churn of desktop packag
On Ma, 14 sep 21, 16:33:55, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
> Hmmm... ok, so, I could run sid 'forever', as long as I keep it updated
> regularly?
Technically, yes.
> Anyone do this for important (maybe not 'mission critical') servers?
I used to run sid as the main system on my daily driver laptop.
Having
On Ma, 14 sep 21, 23:18:48, Brian wrote:
> On Tue 14 Sep 2021 at 16:33:55 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm... ok, so, I could run sid 'forever', as long as I keep it updated
> > regularly?
>
> Why not? Update when you want to. How does this differ from Gentoo's
> rolling release aspect? Go fo
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 04:33:55PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 9/13/2021 11:02 AM, Brian wrote
> > On Mon 13 Sep 2021 at 10:18:54 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> So, I'm considering Debian for a new homebrew MX gateway I want to set
> >> up, but it depends...
> >>
> >> I'm a form
On 2021-09-14 at 16:33, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 9/13/2021 11:02 AM, Brian wrote
>
>> On Mon 13 Sep 2021 at 10:18:54 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> So, I'm considering Debian for a new homebrew MX gateway I want
>>> to set up, but it depends...
>>>
>>> I'm a former Gentoo user, and
On Tue 14 Sep 2021 at 16:33:55 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 9/13/2021 11:02 AM, Brian wrote
> > On Mon 13 Sep 2021 at 10:18:54 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> So, I'm considering Debian for a new homebrew MX gateway I want to set
> >> up, but it depends...
> >>
> >> I'm a former
Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> Anyone do this for important (maybe not 'mission critical') servers?
>
> I'm sure someone does, but it's not *wise*.
yes indeed. server + sid is contradicting somehow unless you do development
of server software
--
FCD6 3719 0FFB F1BF 38EA 4727 5348 5F1F DCFE BCB0
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 04:33:55PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> Hmmm... ok, so, I could run sid 'forever', as long as I keep it updated
> regularly?
>
> Anyone do this for important (maybe not 'mission critical') servers?
I'm sure someone does, but it's not *wise*.
On 9/13/2021 11:02 AM, Brian wrote
> On Mon 13 Sep 2021 at 10:18:54 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> So, I'm considering Debian for a new homebrew MX gateway I want to set
>> up, but it depends...
>>
>> I'm a former Gentoo user, and really appreciated the rolling release
>> aspect, since i
Hi,
14 sept. 2021, 16:35 de amaca...@einval.com:
> Debian 11 - Bullseye - released on 14th July 2021 will have [at least] five
> years
> support as stable/oldstable.
>
> Three years between releases
>
~ two years ;)
> plus a year after the next release plus usually
> two years LTS support after
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 02:33:23AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 13 sep 21, 10:18:54, Tanstaafl wrote:
> >
> > I'm a former Gentoo user, and really appreciated the rolling release
> > aspect, since it meant no huge jumps between LTS releases with other
> > distros.
>
Debian 11 - Bullseye
On Lu, 13 sep 21, 10:18:54, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
> I'm a former Gentoo user, and really appreciated the rolling release
> aspect, since it meant no huge jumps between LTS releases with other
> distros.
You already received good answers for your questions, so I'll just add
that one of Debian's stre
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:58:26AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> 6) After that year, the release goes into "long-term support" mode, and
>received security bug fix support from a different team. The LTS
>team may choose to support only server packages, not desktop packages.
>
A slight
On Mon 13 Sep 2021 at 10:18:54 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> Hello,
>
> So, I'm considering Debian for a new homebrew MX gateway I want to set
> up, but it depends...
>
> I'm a former Gentoo user, and really appreciated the rolling release
> aspect, since it meant no huge jumps between LTS releases
and when will
> the next one be released, and what will be its EOL?
Debian doesn't have "LTS versions" in the way you're thinking. Every
Debian release goes through the same lifecycle:
1) Prior to release, a given version undergoes a period as "testing".
Use
>
> So... what is the current LTS version and when is its EOL, and when will
> the next one be released, and what will be its EOL?
>
In Debian world "stable" version created every several years, so you can
move from one stable to another.
Here is info about
Hello,
So, I'm considering Debian for a new homebrew MX gateway I want to set
up, but it depends...
I'm a former Gentoo user, and really appreciated the rolling release
aspect, since it meant no huge jumps between LTS releases with other
distros.
So... what is the current LTS version and when is
On 2021-04-23 at 17:26 +0100, Morgan Read wrote:
> Is there any method to allow v4 and v5 to be both installed together?
Both packages have the same name, so the package manager treats them as
the same. Rename the package name of the old version (e.g. to master-
pdf-editor-4) and you should be fin
On 23/04/2021 6:20 pm, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> I suggest you look inside those .deb files: they seem to both name the
> package they install `master-pdf-editor` but dpkg does not allow
> installing different versions of a given package at the same time.
> So you'll need to edi
> You probably want to look inside the control archives rather than the
> data archives:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deb_%28file_format%29
>
> If both control archive files are using a package name of
> "master-pdf-editor", you can try Stefan's suggestion of renaming one
> and seeing if they'
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:48:13 +0100
Morgan Read wrote:
> On 23/04/2021 6:20 pm, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > I suggest you look inside those .deb files: they seem to both name the
> > package they install `master-pdf-editor` but dpkg does not allow
> > installing differen
install removed it.
>
> The packages that Code Industry provides are clearly designed to get rid
> of v4, obviously because they now want people to buy those features.
> However, installing v4 over v5 never used to remove v5...
>
> So, I wonder if alien might have done something
master-pdf-editor
I suggest you look inside those .deb files: they seem to both name the
package they install `master-pdf-editor` but dpkg does not allow
installing different versions of a given package at the same time.
So you'll need to edit those `.deb` to change the package name from
`maste
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 17:22:48 +0100
Morgan Read wrote:
> Hello Folks,
>
> Some little time ago I made a jump from another distro into Debian.
>
> When I made that jump I took with me a few proprietary applications that
> I make a lot of use of. One in particular is causing me a bit of a
> heada
Hello Folks,
Some little time ago I made a jump from another distro into Debian.
When I made that jump I took with me a few proprietary applications that
I make a lot of use of. One in particular is causing me a bit of a
headache - Master PDF Editor by Code Industry:
https://code-industry.net/fr
Hello Folks,
Some little time ago I made a jump from another distro into Debian.
When I made that jump I took with me a few proprietary applications that
I make a lot of use of. One in particular is causing me a bit of a
headache - Master PDF Editor by Code Industry:
https://code-industry.net/fr
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for a prompt reply and for the details.
Given that LDoc itself in its original sources doesn't specify any
restrictions on the Lua version, wouldn't it make more sense to:
- Remove the Lua-Versions line
- Make lua-ldoc package depend just on lua-any (it will bring som
Hi,
Eugene Pakhomov wrote:
> wouldn't it make more sense to:
> - Remove the Lua-Versions line
> - Make lua-ldoc package depend just on lua-any (it will bring some lua with
> it by itself)
Whatever works best for you locally. :))
But if you ever meet a Debian Developer who is
h "Lua-Versions" make sense?
https://sources.debian.org/src/dh-lua/27/man/lua-any.1.txt
rather gives me the idea to add "5.3" before "5.2".
I'd try that and test all my use cases.
Have a nice day :)
Thomas
the first place? The commit that added the
patch doesn't have a helpful message and I cannot find any relevant
information.
Would just removing the line with "Lua-Versions" make sense?
Regards,
Eugene
Cool, thanks!
On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 09:30, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Maxim A Piskunov wrote:
> > Hello, Team!
> >
> > Anybody can clarify what happens with old ISO images?
> >
> > For example, here just no ISO files
> > https://cdimage.debian.org/mirror/cdimage/archive/7.0.0/ia64/iso-cd/
>
> "By defa
On Sat 16 May 2020 at 09:08:01 -0700, Maxim A Piskunov wrote:
> Hello, Team!
>
> Anybody can clarify what happens with old ISO images?
>
> For example, here just no ISO files
> https://cdimage.debian.org/mirror/cdimage/archive/7.0.0/ia64/iso-cd/
You will be happy with
https://cdimage.debian.
Hi,
Maxim A Piskunov wrote:
> Anybody can clarify what happens with old ISO images?
They get decommissioned but can be reconstructed from Jigdo files and
the big package archive.
> For example, here just no ISO files
> https://cdimage.debian.org/mirror/cdimage/archive/7.0.0/ia64/iso-cd/
Go to
Maxim A Piskunov wrote:
> Hello, Team!
>
> Anybody can clarify what happens with old ISO images?
>
> For example, here just no ISO files
> https://cdimage.debian.org/mirror/cdimage/archive/7.0.0/ia64/iso-cd/
"By default, for each release here we keep all the images in
jigdo format to save on sp
Hello, Team!
Anybody can clarify what happens with old ISO images?
For example, here just no ISO files
https://cdimage.debian.org/mirror/cdimage/archive/7.0.0/ia64/iso-cd/
languages:
There are people who want a language (and libraries/modules)
installed because something else uses it. Those people should
definitely use the Debian-maintained versions.
Then there are people who want to develop software in a given
language. They can usually start off using the Debian
Generic answer, applying to all languages:
There are people who want a language (and libraries/modules)
installed because something else uses it. Those people should
definitely use the Debian-maintained versions.
Then there are people who want to develop software in a given
language. They can
On Jo, 06 feb 20, 10:55:48, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 05 feb 20, 20:30:17, Felix Miata wrote:
> > How does one discover package versions on the mirrors? I know linux-image-*
> > is
> > there. How does one search for the versions of it hosted there?
> > apt-sh
On Mi, 05 feb 20, 20:30:17, Felix Miata wrote:
> How does one discover package versions on the mirrors? I know linux-image-* is
> there. How does one search for the versions of it hosted there?
> apt-show-versions
> linux-image-amd64 shows only one, and not which repo it comes from
Hi,
Jean-Philippe MENGUAL
Le 06/02/2020 à 02:30, Felix Miata a écrit :
How does one discover package versions on the mirrors? I know linux-image-* is
there. How does one search for the versions of it hosted there?
apt-show-versions
linux-image-amd64 shows only one, and not which repo it
Michael Stone composed on 2020-02-05 22:56 (UTC-0500):
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 08:30:17PM -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
>>How does one discover package versions on the mirrors? I know linux-image-* is
>>there. How does one search for the versions of it hosted there?
>>apt-
On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 08:30:17PM -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
How does one discover package versions on the mirrors? I know linux-image-* is
there. How does one search for the versions of it hosted there?
apt-show-versions
linux-image-amd64 shows only one, and not which repo it comes from. Where
David Wright composed on 2020-02-05 20:36 (UTC-0600):
> On Wed 05 Feb 2020 at 20:30:17 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote:
>> How does one discover package versions on the mirrors? I know linux-image-*
>> is
>> there. How does one search for the versions of it hosted there?
1 - 100 of 861 matches
Mail list logo
