On Vi, 23 mar 12, 01:27:38, Chris Bannister wrote:
Admittedly, you probably still need libdvdcss2 etc.
I'd miss xbmc.
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
signature.asc
Chris Bannister:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 04:24:18PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
Chris Bannister:
I didn't know about handbrake-cli and looks like it might replace
videotrans and lxdvdrip
From what I can tell from their package descriptions: not quite. I
usually dump DVD contents using
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Jochen Spieker m...@well-adjusted.de wrote:
Chris Bannister:
I suppose that ultimately all you'd need is libav (ffmpeg is
now/will be deprecated)
Oh, didn't know that.
From a recent -devel post [1]:
begin
Actually, ffmpeg changed names to libav recently.
look at this, is interesting
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=401835
On 22/03/12 17:49, Jochen Spieker wrote:
Pierre Frenkiel:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote:
I didn't have that problem. Is it reproducible?
yes. I tried apt-get several times before
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Alberto Fuentes wrote:
look at this, is interesting
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=401835
this is more than 5 years old. It would be interesting to check wether this
bug has been fixed, but the answer of march 2007 is not encouraging.
--
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 05:01:57PM +0100, Alberto Fuentes wrote:
On 21/03/12 07:08, Chris Bannister wrote:
Remember, Aptitude's resolver system is different to apt-get's
I think the problem is not the the resolver (apt-get and aptitude
should get dependences about the same if not problem
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 02:10:13PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
I reaklly like handbrake-cli, that's why I had to keep d-m.org in the
end.
I've only removed d-m.org from my laptop. The desktop running Lenny
still and where I burn DVD/CD will still have to have d-m.org.
I didn't know about
Chris Bannister:
I didn't know about handbrake-cli and looks like it might replace
videotrans and lxdvdrip
From what I can tell from their package descriptions: not quite. I
usually dump DVD contents using 'mplayer -dumpstream' and then encode
the resulting directory structure using
On 2012-03-22, Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote:
root@tal:~# apt-cache policy libavformat-extra-53
You don't have to be root to do that, did you know?
Just an observation because I use apt-cache frequently and it's
convenient (and potentially less dangerous for slippery
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 04:16:32PM +, Curt wrote:
On 2012-03-22, Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote:
root@tal:~# apt-cache policy libavformat-extra-53
You don't have to be root to do that, did you know?
True, I normally have a tty open for root anyway and the tty where I
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 04:24:18PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
Chris Bannister:
I didn't know about handbrake-cli and looks like it might replace
videotrans and lxdvdrip
From what I can tell from their package descriptions: not quite. I
usually dump DVD contents using 'mplayer
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 04:54:39PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
Sometimes aptitude's TUI is really useful. Like yesterday, when I
down-pinned debian-multimedia.org and wanted to replace all packages
from there with their official Debian counterparts (if possible).
Mmmm, interesting. I've
Chris Bannister:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 04:54:39PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
Sometimes aptitude's TUI is really useful. Like yesterday, when I
down-pinned debian-multimedia.org and wanted to replace all packages
from there with their official Debian counterparts (if possible).
Mmmm,
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote:
/etc/apt/preferences.d/00multimedia:
Package: *
Pin: release o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages
Pin-Priority: 1
I tried that, but then, apt-get dist-upgrade proposed to upgrade
8 packages, but not ffmpeg, although I have:
== apt-cache policy ffmpeg
Pierre Frenkiel:
ffmpeg:
Installed: 5:0.7.11-0.1
Candidate: 5:0.7.11-0.1
Version table:
*** 5:0.7.11-0.1 0
1 http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ squeeze/main i386 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 0
100
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote:
idem with aptitude full-upgrade
The epoch (the version number prefix, before the ':') is used to
explicitly enforce this. 4:x is always older than 5:y. Christian
Marillat does this on purpose. I don't know his reasons.
In order to downgrade from
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:49:42 +0100
Jochen Spieker m...@well-adjusted.de wrote:
Hello Jochen,
The epoch (the version number prefix, before the ':') is used to
explicitly enforce this. 4:x is always older than 5:y. Christian
Marillat does this on purpose. I don't know his reasons.
Some of the
Pierre Frenkiel:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote:
In order to downgrade from 5:0.7.11-0.1 to 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 you need to
tun 'apt-get install ffmpeg=4:0.8-2~bpo60+1'.
this is an example where aptitude is superior to apt-get:
with apt-get install (or dist-install), I went into
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote:
I didn't have that problem. Is it reproducible?
yes. I tried apt-get several times before shifting to aptitude.
Is the difference coming from the fact that you are on amd64 and I am on
i386?
I'll try later on my laptop which has a amd64
Pierre Frenkiel:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote:
I didn't have that problem. Is it reproducible?
yes. I tried apt-get several times before shifting to aptitude.
Is the difference coming from the fact that you are on amd64 and I am on
i386?
I'll try later on my laptop
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:45:51PM +, Camaleón wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:10:07 +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
Camaleón:
(...)
Did you first update the packages database?
apt-get update
aptitude update
apt-get and aptitude both use the same package database. Running
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:08:29 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:45:51PM +, Camaleón wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:10:07 +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
Camaleón:
(...)
Did you first update the packages database?
apt-get update
aptitude update
Camaleón:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:08:29 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
Remember, Aptitude's resolver system is different to apt-get's
That's why I prefer to refresh both separately. apt-get was happy with
the current db state while aptitude wasn't.
From what I know, I have trouble
On 21/03/12 07:08, Chris Bannister wrote:
Remember, Aptitude's resolver system is different to apt-get's
I think the problem is not the the resolver (apt-get and aptitude should
get dependences about the same if not problem found, and therefore
aptitude full-upgrade should do the same as
Hi,
On 2 of my machines I have mysql-common installed
# aptitude show mysql-common
Package: mysql-common
State: installed
Automatically installed: no
Version: 5.1.49-3
Priority: optional
Section: database
[]
However, now apt-get wants to install an update but aptitude will not.
# apt-get
On 03/19/2012 11:58 AM, Bonno Bloksma wrote:
Hi,
On 2 of my machines I have mysql-common installed
[...]
As we don't know what kind of setup you're having (stable, bpo, testing,
unstable...), it's hard to tell what's up. How about aptitude dist-upgrade?
--
Rares Aioanei
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
-get wants to install an update but aptitude will not.
(...)
Did you first update the packages database?
apt-get update
aptitude update
Then, I would try to make them more verbose:
apt-get -V upgrade
aptitude -vvv upgrade
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ
Camaleón:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:58:12 +, Bonno Bloksma wrote:
Version: 5.1.49-3
Priority: optional
Section: database
[]
Is this a squeeze system? -Then you should make sure you have
security.debian.org in your sources.list. The current version from s.d.o
is 5.1.61-0+squeeze1.
You
On Monday 19 March 2012 12:10:07 Jochen Spieker wrote:
Camaleón:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:58:12 +, Bonno Bloksma wrote:
Version: 5.1.49-3
Priority: optional
Section: database
[]
Is this a squeeze system? -Then you should make sure you have
security.debian.org in your
Lisi:
Surely it is worth following the earlier suggestion and doing an aptitude
full-upgrade before trying more complicated things?
The OP has explicitly has explicitly stated that he/she is interested in
the reason for the behaviour. Work-arounds are too easy. :)
J.
--
Ultimately, the
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:10:07 +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
Camaleón:
(...)
Did you first update the packages database?
apt-get update
aptitude update
apt-get and aptitude both use the same package database. Running the
'udpate' for both of them is not required.
I just run apt-get
.
It is either a normal apt-get upgrade or an aptitude full-upgrade. But why.?
I will just do an apt-get upgrade now.
Bonno Bloksma
On Monday 19 March 2012 12:32:19 Jochen Spieker wrote:
Lisi:
Surely it is worth following the earlier suggestion and doing an
aptitude full-upgrade before trying more complicated things?
The OP has explicitly has explicitly stated that he/she is interested in
the reason for the behaviour.
On Monday 19 March 2012 14:17:44 Bonno Bloksma wrote:
It is either a normal apt-get upgrade or an aptitude full-upgrade. But
why.?
Because they are not the same? If they were identical there would be no point
in having the two of them.
Lisi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ
. I'd like to
think the aptitude full-upgrade (or apt-get dist-upgrade) is only to be
used when doing major upgrades. But ~# aptitude full-upgrade
The following packages will be upgraded:
mysql-common
1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 69.6
Lisi:
On Monday 19 March 2012 12:32:19 Jochen Spieker wrote:
The OP has explicitly has explicitly stated that he/she is interested in
the reason for the behaviour. Work-arounds are too easy. :)
It's NOT a workaround. It is correct usage.
Sure it is correct usage, but it hides the reason
On Monday 19 March 2012 16:39:13 Jochen Spieker wrote:
Lisi:
On Monday 19 March 2012 12:32:19 Jochen Spieker wrote:
The OP has explicitly has explicitly stated that he/she is interested in
the reason for the behaviour. Work-arounds are too easy. :)
It's NOT a workaround. It is correct
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Lisi lisi.re...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday 19 March 2012 14:17:44 Bonno Bloksma wrote:
It is either a normal apt-get upgrade or an aptitude full-upgrade. But
why.?
Because they are not the same? If they were identical there would be no point
in having
38 matches
Mail list logo
