Re: Where is debian-non-US
Joe Hart wrote: > Jochen Schulz wrote: >> Correct. And on the EU level they are even discussing to make >> a similar law obligatory for all member states. > > The EU is not a body (yet) that can enforce laws. Therefore, > they cannot mandate laws. Correct me if I am wrong, please, but I believe Jochen meant that the EU is considering making a similar law required to be a member of the EU. That is not creating and enforcing laws, it is specifying what is required to be a member. I am fairly positive that they already do this in many other areas. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Used tasksel to remove packages, now there are dependency issues
When I installed etch on an extra box I had plans for it to be a file and web development server. Then my wife needed a computer, so I gave it to her. But I wanted to tune it a bit, and started by removing all those software services she doesn't need. I used tasksel to remove the following tasks: * Web Server * File Server * Mail Server Now when I run an aptitude install, remove, or purge I get a long list of errors saying it is unable to configure some packages due to broken dependencies. Here is a snipped version, I hope has enough information: # aptitude purge [snip] Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 0B will be used. Setting up openbsd-inetd (0.20050402-5) ... Starting internet superserver: inetdinvoke-rc.d: initscript openbsd-inetd, action "start" failed. dpkg: error processing openbsd-inetd (--configure): subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1 dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of netbase: netbase depends on openbsd-inetd | inet-superserver; however: Package openbsd-inetd is not configured yet. Package inet-superserver is not installed. Package openbsd-inetd which provides inet-superserver is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing netbase (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of exim4-base: exim4-base depends on netbase; however: Package netbase is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing exim4-base (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of exim4-daemon-light: exim4-daemon-light depends on exim4-base (>= 4.63); however: Package exim4-base is not configured yet. [snip similar errors on other packages] Errors were encountered while processing: openbsd-inetd netbase exim4-base exim4-daemon-light nfs-common nfs-kernel-server samba smbfs swat E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) A package failed to install. Trying to recover: Setting up openbsd-inetd (0.20050402-5) ... Starting internet superserver: inetdinvoke-rc.d: initscript openbsd-inetd, action "start" failed. dpkg: error processing openbsd-inetd (--configure): subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1 dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of netbase: netbase depends on openbsd-inetd | inet-superserver; however: Package openbsd-inetd is not configured yet. Package inet-superserver is not installed. Package openbsd-inetd which provides inet-superserver is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing netbase (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of smbfs: smbfs depends on netbase (>= 2.02); however: Package netbase is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing smbfs (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured [snip repeated errors] The following lists came from synaptic (though I may have remembered incorrectly, if so then it must be from aptitude) when I used it to mark a bunch of packages for complete removal since their configuration files were left behind after using tasksel. E: openbsd-inetd: subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1 E: netbase: dependency problems - leaving unconfigured E: exim4-base: dependency problems - leaving unconfigured E: exim4-daemon-light: dependency problems - leaving unconfigured E: nfs-common: dependency problems - leaving unconfigured E: nfs-kernel-server: dependency problems - leaving unconfigured E: samba: dependency problems - leaving unconfigured E: smbfs: dependency problems - leaving unconfigured E: swat: dependency problems - leaving unconfigured Question 1: What should I do? I am pretty sure I don't need exim4* as I have no need for a mail server, but I don't know about netbase and some of the others. Any help will be much appreciated. Question 2: Should I have *not* used tasksel for this? Thanks! Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Used tasksel to remove packages, now there are dependency issues
Thanks for your help. Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > 1.You run Debian. You need a mail transport agent. Many > scripts are set up to mail information to root. Without a MTA, > this doesn't happen. Out-of-the-box exim4 on Etch will deliver > local mail only. Ahhh, that explains why my other machine had exim installed by default too. Thanks. > Since networking is notworking, and so many things in *NIX > rely on networking even without being connected to a network, > you want the minimum trying to run. Run in single mode > (either reboot single or do a shutdown (no -r or -h) to > single-user. When done do a full shutdown -r rather than > change back to RL 2. Networking is definitely working as I can access the web. "aptitude show openbsd-inetd" showed the status as "partially configured". > Its openbsd-inetd that's messing up the works. Try > reinstall: # apt-get install --reinstall openbsd-inetd I tried with both apt-get and aptitude and here is the output (it's long): # aptitude reinstall openbsd-inetd Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Reading extended state information Initializing package states... Done Reading task descriptions... Done Building tag database... Done The following packages will be REINSTALLED: openbsd-inetd 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 reinstalled, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 0B will be used. Writing extended state information... Done Setting up openbsd-inetd (0.20050402-5) ... Starting internet superserver: inetdinvoke-rc.d: initscript openbsd-inetd, action "start" failed. dpkg: error processing openbsd-inetd (--configure): subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1 dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of netbase: netbase depends on openbsd-inetd | inet-superserver; however: Package openbsd-inetd is not configured yet. Package inet-superserver is not installed. Package openbsd-inetd which provides inet-superserver is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing netbase (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of exim4-base: exim4-base depends on netbase; however: Package netbase is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing exim4-base (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of exim4-daemon-light: exim4-daemon-light depends on exim4-base (>= 4.63); however: Package exim4-base is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing exim4-daemon-light (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of exim4: exim4 depends on exim4-base (>= 4.63); however: Package exim4-base is not configured yet. exim4 depends on exim4-daemon-light | exim4-daemon-heavy | exim4-daemon-custom; however: Package exim4-daemon-light is not configured yet. Package exim4-daemon-heavy is not installed. Package exim4-daemon-custom is not installed. dpkg: error processing exim4 (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of nfs-common: nfs-common depends on netbase (>= 4.24); however: Package netbase is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing nfs-common (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of nfs-kernel-server: nfs-kernel-server depends on nfs-common (>= 1:1.0.8-1); however: Package nfs-common is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing nfs-kernel-server (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of samba: samba depends on netbase; however: Package netbase is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing samba (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of smbfs: smbfs depends on netbase (>= 2.02); however: Package netbase is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing smbfs (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of swat: swat depends on samba (= 3.0.24-4); however: Package samba is not configured yet. swat depends on netbase; however: Package netbase is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing swat (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured Errors were encountered while processing: openbsd-inetd netbase exim4-base exim4-daemon-light exim4 nfs-common nfs-kernel-server samba smbfs swat E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) A package failed to install. Trying to recover: Setting up openbsd-inetd (0.20050402-5) ... Starting internet superserver: inetdinvoke-rc.d: initscript openbsd-inetd, action "start" failed. dpkg: error processing openbsd-inetd (--configure): subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1 dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of netbase: netbase de
Re: Used tasksel to remove packages, now there are dependency issues
Nigel Henry wrote: > On Friday 23 March 2007 06:54, Glen Pfeiffer wrote: >> I tried with both apt-get and aptitude and here is the output >> (it's long): [snip output from aptitude] > I resolved it by stopping the daemon using SysV-init Editor, > then simply running apt-get dist-upgrade again, which then ran > to completion. That did it. I ran the following: # /etc/init.d/openbsd-initd stop # aptitude update && aptitude dist-upgrade And everything ran fine this time. Many thanks for everyones help. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: "I do consider Ubuntu to be Debian" , Ian Murdock
Michael M. wrote: > The things you are suggesting are routinely and actively > discouraged on this list -- apt-pinning, mixing branches. Yes > you *can* do it, but be prepared to face the chorus of "you > should be sticking to stable" when you ask for I run etch and ask questions here and have never been told that I should be using stable. What I *have* seen is when someone whines and complains about the bugs they find in etch/sid, they are told that if they can't deal with a few bugs, they should use stable. So it's really simple; ask for help but don't whine and you will get all the help you need. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FileSystem Question
On 06/30/2007 03:00 PM, William Pursell wrote: > Keep in mind that CVS is extremely old, and entirely obsolete. > Subversion was a new implementation of the same idea, and did > in fact address many of CVS's shortcomings. I second that. > However, if you are going to look into using a VCS (Version > Control System) for doing backups like this, look into git. > http://git.or.cz Care to explain why you suggest using Git. I cannot find a reason to use it unless one needs good decentralized version control. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Submit bug reports to Debian or upstream project?
Is it preferable to submit a bug report to Debian or to the upstream project? Assume it is not a Debian only package, like GNOME for example. I have searched for the answer and found This: http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting _If you file a bug in Debian, don't send a copy to the upstream software maintainers yourself, as it is possible that the bug exists only in Debian. If necessary, the maintainer of the package will forward the bug upstream._ That does not tell me if it is preferable to submit it to Debian or upstream. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Submit bug reports to Debian or upstream project?
On 07/06/2007 11:40 AM, Kushal Kumaran wrote: > On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 10:43:43AM -0700, Glen Pfeiffer wrote: > > > > http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting > > _If you file a bug in Debian, don't send a copy to the > > upstream software maintainers yourself, as it is possible > > that the bug exists only in Debian. If necessary, the > > maintainer of the package will forward the bug upstream._ > > > > That does not tell me if it is preferable to submit it to Debian > > or upstream. > > > > Actually, it looks pretty clear that it *is* indeed preferable > to submit to debian. Quoting: > If necessary, the (debian) maintainer of the package will > forward the bug upstream. > >From that I can only assume that you are also stating a fact that it is preferable to submit bugs to Debian and not the upstream project. But you did not say so explicitly, only implicitly if at all. OT: What you consider obvious may be quite vague to others, like me. :-) Interpretation depends on the receiver's experiences and assumptions. Here is how I read it (paraphrased with emphasis added): *If* you file a bug in Debian, do not *also* file it with the upstream project, because the package maintainer will do so if necessary. Do you see how that interpretation does not answer my question? Thanks again for your response. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing a JRE plug-in
On 07/07/2007 10:30 AM, andy wrote: > Jeff D wrote: >> in iceweasel, if you put about:plugins in the address bar, >> does it show that the java plugin is loaded? >> > Yes, about:plugins shows 3 main groups of > application/x-java-bean, x-java-vm, and x-java-applet > > Am I supposed to be seeing something in addition to these? Here is what I see (on Etch with Java5) Java(TM) Plug-in 1.5.0_10-b03 File name: libjavaplugin_oji.so Java(TM) Plug-in 1.5.0_10 And about 35 mime types listed under that. IIRC, all I did was install sun-java5-jre and sun-java5-plugin from the non-free repository and then execute: # update-java-alternatives --set java-1.5.0-sun -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Submit bug reports to Debian or upstream project?
On 07/07/2007 10:50 AM, Bob Proulx wrote: > Glen Pfeiffer wrote: >> Is it preferable to submit a bug report to Debian or to the >> upstream project? Assume it is not a Debian only package, like >> GNOME for example. > > This is a judgement call on your part. If you have good detail about > the problem and are confident that it is actually an upstream bug then > by all means report it upstream. If you can provide a patch for it > against upstream sources then all the better and the more likely it > will be to be fixed sooner. [snip] > Another reason to report bugs to the Debian package is if the version > in the upstream is much later than the version in the software > distribution. For example Debian Stable by design will be stable and > will not change until the next release. This design brings huge > benefits to users of Debian Stable. Stable is not the bleeding edge. > Stable is stable! But it is also a point of contention with some > upstreams (e.g. Mozilla) and upstream will denigrate a distribution > with a stable release when the upstream does not believe in stable > releases. When the upstream only believes that everyone should use > the beeding edge it is best to report bugs to the package maintainer. Thank you. That was a great answer, and I really appreciate it. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Installing OOo 2.2.1 from backports on Stable
I have OOo 2.0.4 installed from the stable repository. I want to install 2.2.1 from backports so I added backports to my sources. When I try to install with "aptitude -t etch-backports install openoffice.org", aptitude proposes an interesting solution. From what I see, I don't think I should accept it. And subsequent solutions seem even worse. I have included the first solution below. My system is 100% updated, so anything it says about Vim, MySql, etc. is a result of trying to install OOo 2.2.1. Should I purge OOo first? This is my first attempt to install from backports, so I am not sure about this. I have searched, but did not find anything helpful. Begin Aptitude Output The following packages are BROKEN: openoffice.org-base openoffice.org-calc openoffice.org-common openoffice.org-core openoffice.org-draw openoffice.org-evolution openoffice.org-gnome openoffice.org-gtk openoffice.org-impress openoffice.org-java-common openoffice.org-math openoffice.org-writer python-uno The following packages are unused and will be REMOVED: libcurl3 libxt-java The following NEW packages will be automatically installed: libportaudio2 openoffice.org-filter-binfilter openoffice.org-filter-mobiledev openoffice.org-style-andromeda The following packages have been kept back: kdelibs-data kdelibs4c2a kdemultimedia-kio-plugins ktuberling libarts1-akode libfinance-quote-perl libkcddb1 libkdegames1 libmysqlclient15off libpisock9 libpisync0 linux-image-2.6-486 mysql-client-5.0 mysql-common mysql-server-5.0 openoffice.org-help-en-us ttf-opensymbol tuxpaint tuxpaint-config tuxpaint-data vim-common vim-full vim-gui-common vim-runtime vim-tiny The following NEW packages will be installed: libportaudio2 openoffice.org-filter-binfilter openoffice.org-filter-mobiledev openoffice.org-style-andromeda The following packages will be upgraded: openoffice.org The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed: openoffice.org-style-crystal openoffice.org-style-hicontrast openoffice.org-style-industrial openoffice.org-style-tango 4 packages upgraded, 4 newly installed, 2 to remove and 35 not upgraded. Need to get 65.4MB of archives. After unpacking 10.7MB will be used. The following packages have unmet dependencies: openoffice.org-gnome: Depends: openoffice.org-core (= 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1) but 2.2.1-1~bpo.1 is to be installed. openoffice.org-core: Conflicts: openoffice.org-calc (< 2.2.1-1~bpo.1) but 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 is installed and it is kept back. Conflicts: openoffice.org-writer (< 2.2.1-1~bpo.1) but 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 is installed and it is kept back. Conflicts: openoffice.org-impress (< 2.2.1-1~bpo.1) but 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 is installed and it is kept back. Conflicts: openoffice.org-draw (< 2.2.1-1~bpo.1) but 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 is installed and it is kept back. Conflicts: openoffice.org-base (< 2.2.1-1~bpo.1) but 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 is installed and it is kept back. Conflicts: openoffice.org-gtk (< 2.2.1-1~bpo.1) but 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 is installed and it is kept back. Conflicts: openoffice.org-gnome (< 2.2.1-1~bpo.1) but 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 is installed and it is kept back. Conflicts: openoffice.org-evolution (< 2.2.1-1~bpo.1) but 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 is installed and it is kept back. openoffice.org-writer: Depends: openoffice.org-core (= 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1) but 2.2.1-1~bpo.1 is to be installed. openoffice.org-impress: Depends: openoffice.org-core (= 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1) but 2.2.1-1~bpo.1 is to be installed. openoffice.org-draw: Depends: openoffice.org-core (= 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1) but 2.2.1-1~bpo.1 is to be installed. openoffice.org-java-common: Conflicts: openoffice.org-base (<= 2.2.0-4) but 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 is installed and it is kept back. Conflicts: openoffice.org-writer (<= 2.2.0-4) but 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 is installed and it is kept back. openoffice.org-gtk: Depends: openoffice.org-core (= 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1) but 2.2.1-1~bpo.1 is to be installed. openoffice.org-evolution: Depends: openoffice.org-core (= 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1) but 2.2.1-1~bpo.1 is to be installed. openoffice.org-math: Depends: openoffice.org-core (= 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1) but 2.2.1-1~bpo.1 is to be installed. openoffice.org-common: Conflicts: openoffice.org-base (< 2.2.0-1) but 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 is installed and it is kept back. Conflicts: openoffice.org-writer (< 2.2.0-1) but 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 is installed and it is kept back. Conflicts: openoffice.org-calc (< 2.2.0-1) but 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 is installed and it is kept back. Conflicts: openoffice.org-impress (< 2.2.0-1) but 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 is installed and it is kept back. Co
Re: Installing OOo 2.2.1 from backports on Stable
On 07/24/2007 04:50 AM, Mark Grieveson wrote: >On 07/24/2007 12:20 AM, Glen Pfeiffer wrote: > > When I try to install with "aptitude -t etch-backports > > install openoffice.org", aptitude proposes an interesting > > solution. From what I see, I don't think I should accept it. > > It looks fine to me; so, I would just accept it. It just seems > to be upgrading openoffice.org, as opposed to wanting to do > something drastic, like remove your xserver, or something. I > upgraded openoffice.org using backports, and it works fine. > What concerns me are the two following sections. Note, I still have a lot to learn about Debian, therefore some of my concern is me being cautious so as not to break anything. > > The following packages are BROKEN: > > openoffice.org-base openoffice.org-calc openoffice.org-common > > openoffice.org-core openoffice.org-draw openoffice.org-evolution > > openoffice.org-gnome openoffice.org-gtk openoffice.org-impress > > openoffice.org-java-common openoffice.org-math > > openoffice.org-writer > > python-uno Now I suppose that is understandable because those are all affected by openoffice.org. But I was not expecting to see them reported as BROKEN. AND: > > The following packages have been kept back: > > kdelibs-data kdelibs4c2a kdemultimedia-kio-plugins ktuberling > > libarts1-akode libfinance-quote-perl libkcddb1 libkdegames1 > > libmysqlclient15off libpisock9 libpisync0 linux-image-2.6-486 > > mysql-client-5.0 mysql-common mysql-server-5.0 > > openoffice.org-help-en-us ttf-opensymbol tuxpaint tuxpaint-config > > tuxpaint-data vim-common vim-full vim-gui-common vim-runtime vim-tiny Why does Aptitude think these packages could be updated? As I stated in my original message, it is completely up-to-date before I try installing OOo 2.2.1. I guess I will give it a shot over the weekend when I have time to fix any breakage. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing OOo 2.2.1 from backports on Stable
On 07/24/2007 08:40 AM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 11:51:28PM -0700, Glen Pfeiffer wrote: >> Should I purge OOo first? This is my first attempt to install >> from backports, so I am not sure about this. I have searched, >> but did not find anything helpful. > > If you want to see a cleaner output from aptitude, just for > fun, then yes, remove OO.o first, but I think it looks clean > and I would go ahead. > >> Begin Aptitude Output >> The following packages are BROKEN: >> [snip package list] > > aptitude likes to make you panic... LOL! And it works too. I have seen output several times that has made me think hard before continuing. But it's silly the way it handles this scenario. It says the packages *are* broken, which is not true. >> The following packages are unused and will be REMOVED: >> libcurl3 libxt-java > > I find this interesting. I would hold these packages for later > investigation as to why they are being removed. Okay, thanks. >> The following packages have been kept back: >> kdelibs-data kdelibs4c2a kdemultimedia-kio-plugins ktuberling >> libarts1-akode libfinance-quote-perl libkcddb1 libkdegames1 >> libmysqlclient15off libpisock9 libpisync0 linux-image-2.6-486 >> mysql-client-5.0 mysql-common mysql-server-5.0 openoffice.org-help-en-us >> ttf-opensymbol tuxpaint tuxpaint-config tuxpaint-data vim-common vim-full >> vim-gui-common vim-runtime vim-tiny > > kept back means that new versions exist, but you are not > installing them. This is a side effect of having backports in > your sources.list. There are newer versions of all these > packages in backports, but you're not using them... which is > probably what you want at this point. I see. I did not think it through it very well. If I use pinning to set the backports priority very low, should I still see that? >> The following packages have unmet dependencies: >> openoffice.org-gnome: Depends: openoffice.org-core (= 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1) >> but 2.2.1-1~bpo.1 is to be installed. >> openoffice.org-core: Conflicts: openoffice.org-calc (< 2.2.1-1~bpo.1) but >> 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 is installed and it is kept back. >>Conflicts: openoffice.org-writer (< 2.2.1-1~bpo.1) >> but 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 is installed and it is kept back. >> [snip more conflicts] > > this just shows you what all the conflicts are. > I guess I was a little confused why aptitude reports those conflicts. I just assumed that because I am installing a new version, that it would not need to show me that the newer version conflicts with the older version. Thanks for your explanation, it was helpful. I will go ahead with the install. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing OOo 2.2.1 from backports on Stable
On 07/24/2007 01:50 PM, Florian Kulzer wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:25:21 -0700, Glen Pfeiffer wrote: >> On 07/24/2007 08:40 AM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: >>> >>> aptitude likes to make you panic... >> >> LOL! And it works too. I have seen output several times that has >> made me think hard before continuing. But it's silly the way it >> handles this scenario. It says the packages *are* broken, which >> is not true. > > It is true, if you realize that aptitude always considers (and > talks about) the situation that would occur after all currently > scheduled actions are carried out. Aptitude has to play "what > if ..." in order to detect bad consequences and propose > solutions. You could argue that "are broken" should be replaced > with "will be broken" to make the message more understandable, > though. I am much less knowledgeable of Debian than most of you, so I hate to disagree, but when *all* currently scheduled actions are carried out, nothing will be broken. That is assuming the upgrade/install succeeds. The packages are only broken during the upgrade/install process. Right? I think this is a very minor issue of how things are presented to the user. And as Mr. Sackville-West said, "Aptitude likes to make you panic", so I am not planning on submitting a change request for this. > On the other hand, you have just demonstrated that the present > wording is very efficient in making the user think twice about > what he/she is doing... ;) I don't disagree with that one bit. Thanks for your response and clarifications. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing OOo 2.2.1 from backports on Stable
On 07/24/2007 03:30 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 02:53:53PM -0700, Glen Pfeiffer wrote: >> On 07/24/2007 01:50 PM, Florian Kulzer wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:25:21 -0700, Glen Pfeiffer wrote: >>>> It says the packages *are* broken, which is not true. >>> >>> It is true, if you realize that aptitude always considers (and >>> talks about) the situation that would occur after all >>> currently scheduled actions are carried out. >> >> I am much less knowledgeable of Debian than most of you, so I >> hate to disagree, but when *all* currently scheduled actions >> are carried out, nothing will be broken. > > just to be pedantic, you haven't yet accepted the solution > presented by aptitude, so no, they are still broken. Once you > accept the solution, then the packages are no longer broken... > but we could do this all day... ;) LOL! You are right, we could go all day. But I am going to do one more and be annoying. Nothing is broken yet, because aptitude has not begun the install. ;) > and nobody calls me Mr... :) Yes sir! ;) I never know how to refer to people that I do not personally know, so I tend to default to formal titles. Update: I accepted the solution by aptitude, and the install went fine. Thanks for your explanations and patience. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A question of fonts
On 07/28/2007 12:20 PM, andy wrote: > Can I have a few recommendations please for the best fonts > package to use for a desktop machine. I have only installed one font package and have no experience with any others. msttcorefonts It is available in the debian-multimedia repository. http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ 1. Add this to your sources.list. deb http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch main 2. Do update. 3. Install the debian-multimedia-keyring. That will get rid of the annoying GPG errors. 4. Install msttcorefonts. If you find any others worthwhile, please report back. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A question of fonts
On 07/28/2007 01:30 PM, Alan Ianson wrote: > On Sat July 28 2007 12:30, Glen Pfeiffer wrote: >> msttcorefonts >> >> It is available in the debian-multimedia repository. >> http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ > > This package is in contrib. No need for debian-multimedia for > this one. Whoops! Thanks for correcting that. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Firefox \ Iceweasel Differences?
On 07/31/2007 09:30 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote: > IIUC websites shouldn't care about/need to know what browser is > used, as long as they are following the standards. You do understand correctly, but emphasis must be placed on the word "shouldn't". Websites *should* not need to care or know about what browser is used. However, even following the standards, any site that reaches a moderate level of design complexity will have issues on different browsers. As a programmer, I feel icky having to tailor a site to different browsers. It feels like a "hack" to me, and I hate hacks. Instead I do the following: 1. Change the design so I do not have the problem. 2. Accept that it will not display the same on all browsers. 3. Make sure it if functional on all browsers. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Firefox \ Iceweasel Differences?
On 07/31/2007 01:50 PM, John Hasler wrote: > Glen Pfeiffer writes: >> Accept that it will not display the same on all browsers. > > Why do you think it should display the same on all browsers? > Or even on all instances of the same browser? Oh, I don't. But there are certain types of designs that only look good in their original form. Hence number one from my list: >> 1. Change the design so I do not have the problem. But it is a very common problem among graphic designers and corporate types. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OFF TOPIC--Free software based domain hosting?
On 08/27/2007 10:50 AM, Nate Bargmann wrote: > So, is there a reasonably priced hoster/registrar based solely > on Free Software? Or, are all of these traits mutually > exclusive? I use www.dreamhost.com which runs Debian on all their servers. They also offer registration, but I don't know anything about it. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Setting [u|f]mask on a bind mount
I tried mounting a directory like so: mount --bind -o umask=0117 /home/files /home/glen/files What I am shooting for, is that all files created in /home/glen/files will have the permissions 660. But the above command seems to have no effect on permissions of created files. I have also tried this with no luck: mount --bind -o fmask=0117 /home/files /home/glen/files Then I read the man page: Note that the filesystem mount options will remain the same as those on the original mount point, and cannot be changed by passing the -o option along with --bind/--rbind. I take that to mean that I cannot change the umask when mounting with --bind. Any ideas on how to achieve my goal? Thanks in advance! -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Setting [u|f]mask on a bind mount
On 09/01/2007 01:00 PM, Bob Proulx wrote: > Glen Pfeiffer wrote: >> I tried mounting a directory like so: >> >> mount --bind -o umask=0117 /home/files /home/glen/files >> >> What I am shooting for, is that all files created in >> /home/glen/files will have the permissions 660. > > But those are the same files as files in another directory, right? > The files can't have different permissions in different places. > > Or are you simply trying to make the files when created have a > specific permission? If so then umask is the only way. Yes, I am trying to change the default permissions of *newly created* files. That is why I tried umask, but it doesn't work with a bind mount. > You would have to change the original mount point options in > order to do this. The directory would need to be on its own > filesystem. You could create a filesystem specific for this > purpose. Then you could bind mount it anywhere else fine. I can't believe I didn't think of this earlier, but my /home is on a separate partition. I changed the umask in /etc/fstab - but that didn't work either. I got errors about a bad superblock when mounting. > This is a good place for a plug for LVM because then a new > mount point could be created very easily. I will consider that if I ever rebuild. > Perhaps saying a little more about the overall problem that you > are trying to solve will spark an idea from someone on the > mailing list. My reasons for this stem from paranoia. I see no reason to allow the world read access by default. Since it is on my home network it is overkill, but I like to prepare for the unknown. For example: I will have house guests that I want to allow use of my computers. But I don't want them to have read access to the shared "family" documents. So I want documents created within that directory to have permissions of 660. I have set the sticky group bit, so created files are owned by the family group. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian in the Enterprise?
On 10/03/2007 02:00 PM, mack stout wrote: > or if other users might be willing to testify that their > company uses debian. Not my company, but: http://www.dreamhost.com/ runs mainly on Debian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamhost -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Did the syntax for a samba /etc/fstab entry change?
On 04/05/2008 10:50 AM, Bob Cox wrote: > [snip] > > //gaia/fileserver on /mnt/fileserver type cifs (rw,mand) > > It is worth mentioning that there is an entry in /etc/hosts for > gaia. > I recall reading that cifs needs an IP address but an entry in your /etc/hosts will work. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sarge + dist-upgrade = ?
Fernando Cacciola wrote: > Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > >> You still have sarge, unless you changed the sources.list to >> point to something else. You've got the most recent sarge w/ >> security updates (I think that is on by default). I guess >> that's 3.1 r3 or so. > > Q: That's because "Etch" is not yet "the official latest > Debian"? or because dist-upgrade won't ever move ahead from > Sarge? dist-upgrade is capable of upgrading you to etch, but it depends on what you have in your sources.list. If sources.lists references "sarge", then dist-upgrade will not upgrade you to etch. If it references "stable" then when etch is released you will be upgraded to etch. Because your sources.list references either sarge or stable, you were not upgraded to etch/testing. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian User List
David Baron wrote: > Most recently, how much of the heavy traffic on this list has > had anything to do with Debian? With Linux? With computers? Likewise, how many threads have we had discussing the OT posts? Quite a few. :-P Instead of complaining about the list, which has been done a lot lately, I suggest you ask us how to reduce your bandwidth usage. I bet you would get a lot of good ideas. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Desktop user: Etch or the next testing?
Wei Chen wrote:
> So I'd say that maybe Stable is really not for Desktop use.
> Testing is the best choice because it is neither too dangerous
> nor too old.
What do you think about adding a new release type maybe called
"current"? Then our release structure would look like this:
-
| Unstable |--
- |
| |
| |
--- |
| Testing | |
--- |
| |
|
| | |
-- ---
| Stable | | Current |
-- ---
Current would get both security and feature updates. We could
advertise this as the perfect blend of stability and up-to-date
software. Immediately after a release, Current would lag behind
Testing so it would be more stable. Conversely, during the freeze
we might be able to pull some packages from Unstable.
I am pretty new to Debian so I am sure there are a thousand
reasons why the above is a bad idea, or just too hard to
implement. But it seems like it's worth discussing. And before
anyone gives me a hard time let me say, "I am not complaining".
--
Glen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Desktop user: Etch or the next testing?
Ron Johnson wrote: > ---- Glen Pfeiffer wrote: >> What do you think about adding a new release type maybe >> called "current"? >> [snip] > > That's called http://www.backports.org Thank you for reminding me. I have not yet had the opportunity to use backports since I started with etch. I may stick with etch for a while after its release to try out some packages from backports. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Desktop user: Etch or the next testing?
On 04/02/2007 04:50 PM, Greg Folkert wrote: > On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 00:45 +0200, Sven Arvidsson wrote: >> There have been a lot of talk and suggestions, for example, >> Joey Hess described Constantly Usable Testing, it sounds a >> bit like your suggestion. >> http://kitenet.net/~joey/code/debian/cut.html > > CUT was exactly what testing was supposed to be, in the > beginning. Period. It hasn't become that. It has gotten to the > point that sometimes testing is borkdened for long periods of > time... in small areas mind you, but still broken. CUT seems like it would be pretty much the same as I was thinking. > I think it would be good to have the Sidux group latch onto > this. They could really improve the whole process. It would > make Testing usable at any one moment. That sounds interesting. Sidux is currently tracking SID; are you proposing that Sidux track Testing instead? Or are you proposing that they could turn Sidux into a more stable version of SID? Can you use Debian repositories? Debian's repositories are one of the top selling points for me. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL v3?
On 04/03/2007 10:50 AM, Joe Hart wrote: > Greg Folkert wrote: >> This is not the right forum for me to express my opinions as >> to what is wrong with GPLV3. > > This tirade of yours, I would like to hear so if you'd like to > voice your opinion, I'm asking. I too am interested. Do you think we can get by without being flamed for yet another OT post? ;-) -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Newbie = Networking Question?
On 04/06/2007 05:20 PM, Randy Patterson wrote: > I have searched for a way to mount that directory to the local > file systems and use it from there but can't seem to find > exactly how to do that. I would like to mount it to something > like; > > /home/randy/workspace You can use the smbmount utility which is part of the smbfs package. Try this: smbmount //myserver/HostedSites /home/randy/workspace \ -o username=randy,password=randy_pwd I use autofs, but see if you can get it mounted manually first before tackling that. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Newbie = Networking Question?
On 04/07/2007 07:00 AM, Randy Patterson wrote: > Thanks so much for your help Glen! It worked perfectly! That's great! I am glad I could help. Do you want to setup autofs now? Autofs automatically mounts resources when you access them. It is commonly used for CD, DVD and floppy drives. It is also used to mount network shares. For example, on my home network, I wanted to mount some shares on my fileserver, but I found that if I rebooted the fileserver with an active mount, certain programs on the client machine would lock up. Autofs has helped with this. http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Automount-1.html#ss1.2 -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automating Upgrades (was Re: Sarge -> Etch: A Painful Upgrade)
On 04/13/2007 10:50 AM, Ralph Katz wrote: > See the bug (latest messages), > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=418911 turns > out I missed one key step that has trapped others, too. Has it been considered that we could automate the recommended steps to upgrade? That would certainly help users avoid some of these gotcha's. How about a package just for the upgrade? I realize that maybe not all steps can be fully automated, but I think that can be handled gracefully. I am fairly new to Debian, but not averse to contributing. If this is something the team would like to have, I would consider doing it (with help). -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Further problems with OOo
On 04/15/2007 10:31 AM, andy wrote: > My wife, using Etch, was writing a long document in OOo, went > to go and save it as *.doc (for transport to work) and the > document crashed. Now everything except the very earliest save > is gone! She is *not* impressed (so much for my Linux > advocacy!). As for recovering, I think you are out of luck. But it is very naive to write a document without saving often. One of the first things users *should* learn is to save often. I rarely write more than a paragraph or two before I hit Ctrl-S. Also, there is an option in OOo to save AutoRecovery information every N minutes. It is off by default on my etch system, so it probably is on yours as well. Go to Tools -> Options and select Load/Save -> General on the left. The fourth check box is for saving AutoRecovery information. Sure, I think it should probably be on by default, but it isn't, so I deal with it. I believe this feature is on by default in MS Word, but that doesn't make it superior. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ruby Gems and Debian packages of Ruby Gems
I searched the archives and the web but I have not found helpful answers to these questions. 1. What are the drawbacks of using the Debian packaged ruby applications like 'rails' instead of the available gem? 2. What are the benefits of using the Debian packaged ruby applications like 'rails' instead of the available gem? 3. Are there drawbacks to mixing and matching? 4. Will Ruby applications installed as a Debian package, for example rails, be able to find gems installed as a 'gem', like pdf-toolkit? I have installed rails as a gem, but only because I didn't know any better. Then I saw the Debian package 'rails', and now I am unsure what to do. I am grateful to Debian for their commitment to the policy, but in this case the *result* is causing me some confusion. But let's not focus on the cause of the confusion, rather if you have any information that may enlighten me, please share. And no offense, but I am not interested in your opinion, only facts. Thanks! -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ruby Gems and Debian packages of Ruby Gems
On 04/26/2007 12:10 AM, Kevin Mark wrote: > Debian has 2 groups involved in Ruby, both have home pages and mailing > lists on the Debian 'alioth' site. This page[0] will explain the > pkg-ruby-extras policy on gems. If you need more details, ask the > mailing list related to them. > [0] http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html > =K Thanks. I have subscribed, but didn't post my question yet. Seems like a pretty low-volume list. The page[0] certainly clarifies the *why*, but does not discuss the practical ramifications of choosing one method over another. I will post my questions on their list soon, after I see some activity. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mr. Mad Duck: about etch-stable fluxbox?
On 06/11/2007 10:30 AM, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2007, Gayle Lee Fairless wrote: [snip] >> BTW, I do have a copy of Martin Kraft's book just in case I >> missed something in it. Please tell me. > > You could also try icewm. I run it on my PII-233 with 64 MB > ram desktop. > > Who is Martin Kraft? He wrote "The Debian System: Concepts and Techniques". http://www.bookpool.com/sm/1593270690 -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
