On Thu, 2020-05-28 at 16:15 -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote:
>
> I'm on
> 4.9.0-6-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.9.88-1+deb9u1 (2018-05-07) x86_64
> GNU/Linux
> from the beowulf repository; but then I'm running beowulf for quite
> a
> while now.
> I can't say I understand the version numbers -- both 4.9.0-6 an
Since you mention 4.19...
I've got: kernel version: 4.19.98-1 (2020-01-26) kernel release:
4.19.0-8-amd64cpu: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-
3740QM CPU @ 2.70GHz
I mentioned previously that when I run a cpu-heavy application (cpu
cryptominer) for a number of hours (14 ho
On Sat, 2020-05-23 at 19:54 +0100, Jim Jackson wrote:
> Generally, why does apparmor get installed on a dist-upgrade, when
> it
> wasn't there initially? It isn't as if it's a new "thing".
That's a good question.
> I got it
> on my ascii -> beowulf upgrade, and removed it.
That was the first
On Sat, 2020-05-23 at 21:08 +0300, Dimitris via Dng wrote:
> bug report link, was about /var/cache, not /var/log (?).. anyway, the
>
> default apparmor profile has this :
>
>
>
> # some people like to put logs in /var/log/named/ instead of having
>
> # syslog do the heavy lifting.
>
> /
Hello list,
This issue has a workaround that works fine but I want to throw this
info out there in case it's useful to anyone else or to the devs.
I've got a couple dns servers that I installed initially with ascii.
After upgrading to Beowulf, bind9 wouldn't start any more. Turned out
to be a p
ting.
I guess that if I used the netinstall image I wouldn't have any issues.
I can test that if you'd like on one or both machines and report back.
On Mon, 2020-01-13 at 13:02 -0700, 'smee wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-01-11 at 10:50 +0100, Svante Signell via Dng wrote:
> > On F
On Sat, 2020-01-11 at 10:50 +0100, Svante Signell via Dng wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-01-10 at 18:15 -0700, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2020-01-10 at 11:25 +0100, Svante Signell via Dng wrote:
> > I just installed a fresh ascii install, ran update-initramfs -u and
> >
On Sat, 2020-01-11 at 09:52 -0700, 'smee wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-01-11 at 10:50 +0100, Svante Signell via Dng wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-01-10 at 18:15 -0700, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2020-01-10 at 11:25 +0100, Svante Signell via Dng
> > > >
On Sat, 2020-01-11 at 10:50 +0100, Svante Signell via Dng wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-01-10 at 18:15 -0700, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2020-01-10 at 11:25 +0100, Svante Signell via Dng wrote:
> > I just installed a fresh ascii install, ran update-initramfs -u and
> >
On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 21:51 -0500, fsmithred via Dng wrote:
> On 1/12/20 9:19 PM, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> > Oh I see, I'm on 2.29.0 but it is locally compiled and not
> > installed. I
> > guess if I were to compile the same version again in Beowulf (since
> >
Oh I see, I'm on 2.29.0 but it is locally compiled and not installed. I
guess if I were to compile the same version again in Beowulf (since
it's the latest) it would pickup the correct version...?
On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 20:59 -0500, fsmithred via Dng wrote:
> On 1/12/20 8:40 PM,
I tried running i2pd on my recently upgraded Beowulf instance but found
it errors out looking for libboost 1.62.0 libraries, which
libboostx.xx-dev appears to be an automatic install.
Should I expect any problems rolling libboost1.67.0 back to 1.62.0. A
quick search reveals that trying to install
On Sat, 2020-01-11 at 00:11 -0600, goli...@devuan.org wrote:
> On 2020-01-10 23:55, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> > Is there a reason I don't see 'Expert Install' as an option in my
> > ascii
> > live installer image? I don't seem to be able to
Is there a reason I don't see 'Expert Install' as an option in my ascii
live installer image? I don't seem to be able to locate it
anywhere...am I just missing it?
Thanks
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mail
> On Fri, 2020-01-10 at 11:25 +0100, Svante Signell via Dng wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 16:17 -0700, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> > > Actually, after apt remove *nonfree (and a reboot for good
> > > measure),
> > > update-initramfs -u still comes back w
ascii fresh and seewhat I
get.
On Fri, 2020-01-10 at 11:25 +0100, Svante Signell via Dng wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 16:17 -0700, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> > Actually, after apt remove *nonfree (and a reboot for good
> > measure),
> > update-initramfs -u still comes
On Fri, 2020-01-10 at 20:35 +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 'smee via Dng writes:
>
> > Sorry to fill up everyone's inbox today with this subject, and
> > again
> > with this email, but I thought I'd add this last bit in relation to
> >
Apologies again, but I feel I should share one more relevant
observation. The one thing that DOES appear to have changed since
removing *nonfree is that the WICD icon disappeared from my panel
(xfce, top right corner, default icon setting there). Seems relevant,
again because it's the only noticeab
Sorry to fill up everyone's inbox today with this subject, and again
with this email, but I thought I'd add this last bit in relation to
this whole thing.
According to the ascii release notes, the nonfree firmware should be
for the wi-fi driver. Maybe later patches included the addition of
graphic
On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 17:30 -0700, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> But, right there on that same page, where it lists ascii, why does it
> not list the new policy?
>
> Also, can you point me to where ascii's policy on nonfree software? A
> web search for 'devuan ascii non
:27 -0700, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> Sorry that was in Jessie. I guess I never saw the one for ascii.
>
> On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 17:24 -0700, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> > But what about this... out of date? Can't be mis-interpreting
> > it...that
> > really implies
Sorry that was in Jessie. I guess I never saw the one for ascii.
On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 17:24 -0700, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> But what about this... out of date? Can't be mis-interpreting
> it...that
> really implies that any default install of Devuan should not have
> nonfree
vuan.org wrote:
> On 2020-01-09 15:28, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> > Actually, when you run the ascii live installer, both of those
> > programs
> > are present.
> >
> > Should that be the case? I thought devuan include nothing nonfree
> > by
> > defa
all any of them
manually.
On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 16:39 -0700, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> It seems like it did that, tried to remove a number of packages that
> aren't installed, but also found those intel and amd programs, and
> removed those. Seems to have accomplished exactly what I ne
:34:34PM -0700, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> > Below is the output from apt remove *nonfree.
>
> It looks as if this command removed, or tried to remove, all packages
> whose name
> ended in "nonfree".
>
> But wouldn't it look for files whose names ended in &q
Actually, after apt remove *nonfree (and a reboot for good measure),
update-initramfs -u still comes back with the same exact output
including that last line...
On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 23:13 +0100, Svante Signell via Dng wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 14:34 -0700, 'smee via Dng wrote:
&
On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 14:28 -0700, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> Actually, when you run the ascii live installer, both of those
> programs
> are present.
>
> Should that be the case? I thought devuan include nothing nonfree by
> default...I have to make it part of my routine to remove
2020-01-09 at 14:21 -0700, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> I just checked another machine that is still running ascii, on which
> I
> would never have installed anything nonfree, or via wget or dpkg, and
> yet both firmware-linux-nonfree and firmware-misc-nonfree are there.
>
> I&#x
spect they won't be, which will mean one of the few programs I run on
that machine would be at fault, so that should make it easier to narrow
down. This is pretty odd though.
On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 14:00 -0700, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> Well I'll just remove the damn things
Well I'll just remove the damn things and see if nothing blows up :)
On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 21:55 +0100, Antony Stone wrote:
> > Sorry if we're getting off track here but I honestly don't recall
> > installing anything nonfree on this machine.
>
> We may never get to the bottom of this mystery
rote:
> On Thursday 09 January 2020 at 21:40:16, 'smee via Dng wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 21:29 +0100, Antony Stone wrote:
> > > On Thursday 09 January 2020 at 21:25:51, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> > > > "i firmware-linux-nonfree Depends fi
On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 21:29 +0100, Antony Stone wrote:
> On Thursday 09 January 2020 at 21:25:51, 'smee via Dng wrote:
>
> > > Does "aptitude why firmware-misc-nonfree" help?
> >
> > nothing other than itself listed after depends...
> >
>
date, please try 'aptitude
update' (or equivalent); otherwise some packages or versions are not
available from the current repository sources
On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 21:13 +0100, Antony Stone wrote:
> On Thursday 09 January 2020 at 21:00:57, 'smee via Dng wrote:
>
> > apt
ee wrote:
> apt show showed that firmware-misc-nonfree was not installed
> manually.
>
> I tried a apt --fix-broken install firmware-misc-nonfree but that
> didn't do anything except mark it as manually installed.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 12:57 -0700, 'smee
apt show showed that firmware-misc-nonfree was not installed manually.
I tried a apt --fix-broken install firmware-misc-nonfree but that
didn't do anything except mark it as manually installed.
On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 12:57 -0700, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> Is firmware-misc-nonfree a d
Is firmware-misc-nonfree a dependency for something? I don't recall
installing it manually and didn't think it would be there by default.
Apt doesn't say auto or manual, but it is installed. Maybe needs an
update...
On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 20:38 +0100, Svante Signell via Dng wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-01
20-01-09 at 11:31 -0700, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> > Here is the output from apt when I upgraded. Various repeating
> > messages
> > about missing firmware.
> > I haven't rebooted yet, or done anything else really. Slightly
> > worried
> > I
Here is the output from apt when I upgraded. Various repeating messages
about missing firmware.
I haven't rebooted yet, or done anything else really. Slightly worried
I'll lose graphics when I reboot because of the message.
Reading state information... Done
The following packages will be upgrade
I noticed that in Beowulf, on Xfce at least, focus follows mouse was
enabled during the upgrade.
For those experiencing the same who want to disable it, I did so via
Settings > Window Manager > Focus tab and chose the 'Click to focus'
radio button.
_
I ended up
finding the solution was to run 'apt --fix-broken install' just like
that without specifying any package. After running that, dist-upgrade
worked.
On Sun, 2020-01-05 at 11:15 -0700, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> Updated my daily driver, everything so far looks good.
>
&g
Updated my daily driver, everything so far looks good.
I use xfce with Xfce-orange for the theme and noticed the orange turned
red. Not a problem, just an observation.
I had the problem with su root that tempo had and used tito's solution
to fix it. (thanks temp and tito)
One odd thing that hap
if I
continue having trouble I'll try changing -iso-level 3 to compliance
iso_9660_level=3 and see if that helps anything.
Thanks for the help!
On Fri, 2020-01-03 at 12:16 -0500, fsmithred via Dng wrote:
> On 1/3/20 7:50 AM, 'smee via Dng wrote:
> > In attempting to make a c
In attempting to make a copy to upgrade (and report back), I ran into
the size limit (got an error in the log that the squashfs was 37 g and
I think it said allowable was 4 gb). I understand why a typical iso
would need to be small, but is there a way I can increase this size
limitation for my cust
Is there a clear rule about when the sender displays as an individual,
vs "individual via DNG"?
Just during this discussion I've seen it both ways. It hasn't been a
problem for me, likely because I seldom participate (that won't always
be the case), but I can see it being a hassle for a regular
c
44 matches
Mail list logo
