e...@gmx.us wrote:
> On 6/4/24 10:59, songbird wrote:
>> t...@tommiller.us wrote:
>>
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> last(1) seems to have disappeared following an upgrade from 12.5 to sid.
>> ...
>>
>>i've been using the "more" com
Ash Joubert wrote:
> On 2024-06-05 02:59, songbird wrote:
>> t...@tommiller.us wrote:
>>> last(1) seems to have disappeared following an upgrade from 12.5 to sid.
>>i've been using the "more" command provided by the util-linux
>> package.
>
>
On 2024-06-05 02:59, songbird wrote:
t...@tommiller.us wrote:
last(1) seems to have disappeared following an upgrade from 12.5 to sid.
i've been using the "more" command provided by the util-linux
package.
You might be thinking of less(1), a program similar to more(1). The
On 6/4/24 10:59, songbird wrote:
t...@tommiller.us wrote:
Hello!
last(1) seems to have disappeared following an upgrade from 12.5 to sid.
...
i've been using the "more" command provided by the util-linux
package.
How do you use "more" to do what "last&quo
t...@tommiller.us wrote:
> Hello!
>
> last(1) seems to have disappeared following an upgrade from 12.5 to sid.
...
i've been using the "more" command provided by the util-linux
package.
songbird
subscribed to this list.
>
> Thanks for your help!
>
> Best!
>
> Tom
>
> <8>
>
> # Prior to upgrade, last(1) is present in 12.5
>
> root@lol ~ # cat /etc/debian_version
>
> 12.5
>
> root@lol ~ # which last
>
> /usr/
On 2024-06-04 16:09, t...@tommiller.us wrote:
last(1) seems to have disappeared following an upgrade from 12.5 to sid.
I remember seeing in the NEWS for util-linux that last(1) was moved to
the wtmpdb package:
$ zcat /usr/share/doc/util-linux/NEWS.Debian.gz
util-linux (2.40.1-2) unstable
ior to upgrade, last(1) is present in 12.5
root@lol ~ # cat /etc/debian_version
12.5
root@lol ~ # which last
/usr/bin/last
root@lol ~ # last --version
last from util-linux 2.38.1
root@lol ~ #
# Update, upgrade, and reboot 12.5 to prepare for sid
root@lol ~ # apt-get update && apt-get f
Mihamed Hammouda wrote:
> I'm trying to cross-compile util-linux 2.33.2 for an arm64 device, make
> command work fine but install no, this is the error:
> libtool: error: error: relink 'libblkid.la' with the above command
> before installing it
> Makefile:58
Hi,
I'm trying to cross-compile util-linux 2.33.2 for an arm64 device, make
command work fine but install no, this is the error:
libtool: error: error: relink 'libblkid.la' with the above command before
installing it
Makefile:5836: recipe for target 'install-usrlib_execLTLI
On 2018-08-12 00:13:31 +, Dale Forsyth wrote:
>
> From: Pétùr
> Sent: Saturday, 11 August 2018 7:41 PM
> To: debian-user
> Subject: New su behavior in util-linux 2.32
>
> Using 'su' generates now an path error when launchin
On 2018-08-13 14:06 +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
> Actually, util-linux is distributed by the Linux Kernel Organization
> (i.e. the folks at kernel.org). So, yes, Debian has to match what Red
> Hat does inasmuch as Red Hat uses a Linux kernel and so does
> Debian. It just makes sens
n with the statement " Doing plain 'su'
is a really bad idea for many reasons".
Could someone explain to me why this is a bad behavior?
It's not what Red Hat does, and therefore "oh, we have to change to
match what Red Hat does".
Actually, util-linux is
On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:41:34AM +0200, Pétùr wrote:
> The new 'su' is useless for me because it cannot launch root program.
> I did the modification in /etc/login.defs and restore the previous
> behavior. However I am concern with the statement " Doing plain 'su'
> is a really bad idea for many
https://www.mycause.com.au/page/183259/a-smile-will-change-a-day-love-that-changed-my-world
From: Pétùr
Sent: Saturday, 11 August 2018 7:41 PM
To: debian-user
Subject: New su behavior in util-linux 2.32
Using 'su' generates now an path error when
su" is
> dangerous to use or a bad idea.
>
>
No one said the old su was dangerous or a bad idea. The new su came about
because "all other distributions are using the implementations from
util-linux."
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=833256
What was said
Le 11/08/2018 à 13:42, Nicolas George a écrit :
> Pétùr (2018-08-11):
>> The new 'su' is useless for me because it cannot launch root program.
> Maybe learn how to use $PATH?
If I modify $PATH for the new "su", I basically re-implement the old
behavior of "su". This is exactly what adding 'ALWAYS_
Le 11/08/2018 à 16:03, Curt a écrit :
> There was a lengthy discussion, but within it I don't remember anyone
> detailing the numerous reasons (or any reason at all) executing plain
> 'su' is a "really bad idea," (where I'm reading "really bad idea" to
> mean having unintended and very detrimental
>
> There was a lengthy discussion, but within it I don't remember anyone
> detailing the numerous reasons (or any reason at all) executing plain
> 'su' is a "really bad idea," (where I'm reading "really bad idea" to
> mean having unintended and very detrimental consequences to the
> hapless user).
On 2018-08-11, Stefan Krusche wrote:
>>
>> The first difference is probably the most user visible one. Doing
>> plain 'su' is a really bad idea for many reasons, so using 'su -' is
>> strongly recommended to always get a newly set up environment similar
>> to a normal login. If you want to
Pétùr (2018-08-11):
> The new 'su' is useless for me because it cannot launch root program.
Maybe learn how to use $PATH?
Regards,
--
Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Am Samstag 11 August 2018 schrieb Pétùr:
> Using 'su' generates now an path error when launching programs such as
> 'shutdown'. The cause is a new behavior described below. ---
> util-linux (2.32-0.4) unstable; urgency=medium
>
> The util-linux implementatio
Using 'su' generates now an path error when launching programs such as
'shutdown'. The cause is a new behavior described below.
---
util-linux (2.32-0.4) unstable; urgency=medium
The util-linux implementation of /bin/su is now used, replacing the
one previously supplied by
On 2013-07-15, Alexandre Teles wrote:
> e2fsprogs pre-depends on util-linux (>=2.15~rc1-1)
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=717012
Isn't that you up (in) there?
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=716923
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debia
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:45:03AM -0300, Alexandre Teles wrote:
> When trying to debootstrap, cdebootstrap (and debootstrap returns):
>
> W: Failure while unpacking required packages. This will be attempted up to
> five times.
If you're debootstrapping sid (rather than stable or testing), then
/cache/apt/archives/util-linux_2.20.1-5.5_i386.deb is at fault)
In the log:
mclinux@mclinux:/var/log/pylaivng$ cat
/tmp/pylaivng-workspaces/pylaivng-workspace-414/lh/build/chroot/debootstrap/debootstrap.log
| grep util-linux
e2fsprogs pre-depends on util-linux (>= 2.15~rc1-1)
Selecting previou
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 06:19:09PM +, Mike O wrote:
> ozhan fenerci yahoo.com.tr> writes:
>
> >
> > Dear List,I know I am not supposed to delete util-linux but it was removed
> > by the command " apt-get remove util-linux'. After I rebooted the compu
I appreciate your advises. I was seriously warned by apt-get not to remove
util-linux. But it was late and I have made a blunder mistake (I was not able
to update my system due to util-linux. Util-linux was giving an error. So I
tried to remove and reinstall again by apt-get)
I will try live
ozhan fenerci yahoo.com.tr> writes:
>
> Dear List,I know I am not supposed to delete util-linux but it was removed by
the command " apt-get remove util-linux'. After I rebooted the computer, the
grub shows no linux boot disk. I wonder how I can recover my system back. I am
u
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 04:44:20PM +0100, ozhan fenerci wrote:
>Dear List,
>
>I know I am not supposed to delete util-linux but it was removed by the
>command " apt-get remove util-linux'. After I rebooted the computer, the
>grub shows no linux boot dis
Dear List,
I know I am not supposed to delete util-linux but it was removed by the command
" apt-get remove util-linux'. After I rebooted the computer, the grub shows no
linux boot disk.
I wonder how I can recover my system back. I am using debian testing/386.
Best Regards,
Ozhan
once the network was up.
>
> interesting. I have no experience with this sort of installation, but
> have some observations/ideas that might help.
>
> > But with current sid I have a problem in that fsck in util-linux-ng 2.16
> > complains that the "Superblock last moun
s sort of installation, but
have some observations/ideas that might help.
>
> But with current sid I have a problem in that fsck in util-linux-ng 2.16
> complains that the "Superblock last mount time (Sat Jan 1 00:01:08
> 2000, now = Sat Jan 1 00:00:49) is in the future".
it appe
I have an embedded board (a PCEngines Wrap board) which has no
persistent clock. With earlier configurations I set the clock with ntpdate
once the network was up.
But with current sid I have a problem in that fsck in util-linux-ng 2.16
complains that the "Superblock last mount time (Sat
On 2009-02-18 20:44 +0100, yasbean wrote:
> I was trying to upgrade from a pure Etch system (i386) to Lenny, and
> have come to an impasse. apt-get install apt (or aptitude install
> aptitude) fails when trying to replace util-linux, saying:
>
> install-info: No dir file specif
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:44:30 -0800, yasbean wrote:
> I was trying to upgrade from a pure Etch system (i386) to Lenny, and
> have come to an impasse. apt-get install apt (or aptitude install
> aptitude) fails when trying to replace util-linux, saying:
>
> install-info: No dir
I was trying to upgrade from a pure Etch system (i386) to Lenny, and
have come to an impasse. apt-get install apt (or aptitude install
aptitude) fails when trying to replace util-linux, saying:
install-info: No dir file specified; try --help for more information.
dpkg: warning - old pre-removal
On 05/15/2008 12:49 PM, Joey Hess wrote:
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
/usr/local/share/perl/5.8.8/Errno.pm is not part of Debian. Get rid of
Well, the sysadmin should be able to put whatever they want in
/usr/local without messing up debian automated systems. Why is apt or
grub or whatever trying
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > > > /usr/local/share/perl/5.8.8/Errno.pm is not part of Debian. Get rid of
> Well, the sysadmin should be able to put whatever they want in
> /usr/local without messing up debian automated systems. Why is apt or
> grub or whatever trying to run perl from /usr/local? If
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 09:55:28 -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 09:59:14PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 06:34:12PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:06:03 -0500, Rob Wright wrote:
> > >
>
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 09:59:14PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 06:34:12PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:06:03 -0500, Rob Wright wrote:
> >
> > > /usr/local/share/perl/5.8.8/Errno.pm is not part of Debian. Get rid of
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 06:34:12PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:06:03 -0500, Rob Wright wrote:
>
> > /usr/local/share/perl/5.8.8/Errno.pm is not part of Debian. Get rid of
> > it and the proper module at /usr/lib/perl/5.8.8/Errno.pm will be
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 06:34:12PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:06:03 -0500, Rob Wright wrote:
> /usr/local/share/perl/5.8.8/Errno.pm is not part of Debian. Get rid of
> it and the proper module at /usr/lib/perl/5.8.8/Errno.pm will be used.
> Running "aptitude install
thought I'd just do a dist-upgrade.
> >
> > Everything seemed ok, except now I'm stuck with util-linux in an
> > inconsistent state, and I don't know quite know how to resolve it. I
> > tried to 'aptitude reinstall', and get the following:
>
&
except now I'm stuck with util-linux in an inconsistent
> state, and I don't know quite know how to resolve it. I tried to 'aptitude
> reinstall', and get the following:
[...]
> Preparing to replace util-linux 2.12r-19
> (using .../util-linux_2.12r-19etch1_amd64.de
Greetings. Tried to use aptitude this morning to install the update for
openssh/openssl. Saw that there were a few upgrades that were needed so I
thought I'd just do a dist-upgrade.
Everything seemed ok, except now I'm stuck with util-linux in an inconsistent
state, and I don&#x
Hi all,
I am having some trouble resolving a package dependency.
I have util-linux 2.12p-4 installed (this is on unstable). It has a
PreDepend on slang1a-utf8 (>> 1.4.9dbs-4). I do have slang1a-utf8
1.4.9-dbs8 installed, but this package has been removed from unstable.
As far as I ca
On 2004-04-12, Joe penned:
> Hello,
>
> I am new to Debian, but not new to Linux. I have an old laptop
> and of course Fedora wont install on it, so I decided to try
> Debian. I installed the stable release, but did not like the fact
> that it installed with kernel 2.2.20 when 2.
Great!
> So I read the site and it said to mail this list.
>
> 1) The first bug I encountered was when it was retrieving
> packages. It failed to retrieve util-linux for some reason, but
> that did not stop the install. It just said it could not
> download the fi
retrieving
packages. It failed to retrieve util-linux for some reason, but
that did not stop the install. It just said it could not
download the file. So I continued. I did try several different
mirrors and got the same message. It seem weird, because it
said it did not install it but after the
89: error: (near initialization for `bdcms[10]')
blockdev.c: In function `report_device':
blockdev.c:331: error: parse error before '[' token
make[1]: *** [blockdev] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/dma/util-linux-2.12/disk-utils'
make: *** [all] Error 1
This is a mak
I'm trying to recompile util-linux source under a sarge
dist and it's failing. Same source as I used only days
ago so I suspect something in an upgrade caused the problem.
I've used source both from upstream and via apt-get. The
only thing that changes is in which .c the error show
versy surrounding how best to handle the new api, as well
as significant differences between distros.
Given that ftp.kernel.org only has util-linux 2.12pre sources, I'm
not expecting there to be any official word, but I was hoping that
there were some opinions on which of the various patches out
Gary Turner wrote:
[...]
>
>I searched BTS for util-linux-locales, and/or Configuring Locale to no
>avail. I am not BTS fluent, so my search could be faulty.
>
>I may be wrong about the package in which I see the error, though doing
>"apt-get install --reinstall util-lin
On an apt-get upgrade, the util-linux-locales package is among the
upgraded packages in Sarge. The "Configuring Locales" screen comes up
and I would like to indicate "no change". The problem is that I am
unable to make a selection. The only option I seem to have is to sc
Hi,
I am compiling the crypto options into kernel under
potato r4. The kernel part was a breeze but when I
try to compile util-linux, I ran into compilation
errors:
cc -c -O -pipe -O2 -m486 -fomit-frame-pointer -I../lib
-Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wstrict-prototypes -DNCH=1
-DSBINDIR=\"
Thus spake Patrick Dahiroc:
> This is the message that apt-get dist-upgrade gave me:
>
> WARNING: The following essential packages will be
> removed
> This should NOT be done unless you know exactly what
> you are doing!
> sysvinit util-linux (due to sysvinit)
>
This is the message that apt-get dist-upgrade gave me:
WARNING: The following essential packages will be
removed
This should NOT be done unless you know exactly what
you are doing!
sysvinit util-linux (due to sysvinit)
should i install back sysvinit and util-linux after
the upgrade or can i
>
> I would suggest installing info, and then just not use it.
>
info is a default part of Debian and at it's latest version on my system.
The problem is that the install-info script doesn't work.
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 04:04:08PM -0800, P Kirk wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> My system can't install new software beause it can't update util-linux. The
> problem is a script called install-info which seems to be trying to install
> info. At first it was saying install-inf
Hi all,
My system can't install new software beause it can't update util-linux. The
problem is a script called install-info which seems to be trying to install
info. At first it was saying install-info: failed to lock dir for editing!
No such file. Now I've manually created a /u
Morten Bo Johansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have fetched the deb-src package of util-linux 2.10q to comply with
>the demands of a kernel 2.4.1. Compiling and installing it seems more
>daunting than usual -- the MCONFIG file in the source archive lists a
>lot of options that
Hi,
I have fetched the deb-src package of util-linux 2.10q to
comply with the demands of a kernel 2.4.1. Compiling and
installing it seems more daunting than usual -- the MCONFIG
file in the source archive lists a lot of options that should
be answered correctly so as not to wind up with a
On 06-Dec-2000 Gryn wrote:
> I'm having trouble upgrading my potato distribution to woody. Most notably,
> I'm having errors when installing util-linux . I'm supposing there is some
> fiddling I need to do with perl 5.6 to get this to work, but I'm quite
> c
I'm having trouble upgrading my potato distribution to woody. Most notably,
I'm having errors when installing util-linux . I'm supposing there is some
fiddling I need to do with perl 5.6 to get this to work, but I'm quite
clueless as to what that would be. Any suggesti
Ciao,
I think there is a problem in util-linux:
there are non more fdisk, cfdisk and sfdisk!
$ dpkg -s util-linux
Package: util-linux
Essential: yes
Status: install ok installed
Priority: required
Section: base
Installed-Size: 908
Maintainer: Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Version:
> (NB: there are _2_ binary packages to install: util-linux and mount.)
>
> Needless to say that before to be eventually included in frozen, this
> package must be _heavily_ tested. So if you're currently running the
> frozen distribution, please install this package and re
1:57 +0100
Source: util-linux
Binary: mount util-linux
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2.9g-6
Distribution: frozen unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Vincent Renardias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description:
mount - Tools for mounting and manipulating filesystems.
util-linux - Miscellaneous
"Ervin D. Walter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I find that the clock binary in util-linux 2.5-6 still makes my real
> time clock go nuts. The binary from 2.5-4 works fine.
>
> Am I missing soomething?
It's broken.
--
Rob
I find that the clock binary in util-linux 2.5-6 still makes my real
time clock go nuts. The binary from 2.5-4 works fine.
Am I missing soomething
70 matches
Mail list logo
