Re: apt-cacher transition from apache to apache2

2004-11-08 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 08:34:11AM +0200, Alexandros Papadopoulos wrote: > [sent this to debian-user, got no suggestions - I hope this is not too > OT on this list] > > On a sarge system, I was using apt-cacher with apache. No problems > there. Once I replaced apache with apache2, apt-cacher wor

Re: apt-cacher transition from apache to apache2

2004-11-08 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Alexandros Papadopoulos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.08.0929 +0100]: > There's this already: > helios:/etc/apache2/conf.d# ls -l apt* > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 27 Nov 8 08:51 apt-cacher -> > /etc/apt-cacher/apache.conf > > Does that mean it's included? Yes. > So it seems the cgi is

Re: apt-cacher transition from apache to apache2

2004-11-08 Thread Alexandros Papadopoulos
On Monday 08 November 2004 08:47, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Alexandros Papadopoulos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.08.0734 > +0100]: > > changing /etc/apt-cacher/apt-cacher.conf and then > > reloading/restarting apache2 does not honor the changes. > > Well, you should not need to restart

Re: apt-cacher transition from apache to apache2

2004-11-07 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Alexandros Papadopoulos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.08.0734 +0100]: > changing /etc/apt-cacher/apt-cacher.conf and then > reloading/restarting apache2 does not honor the changes. Well, you should not need to restart apache2 since apt-cacher is a CGI. Apparently, apache2 loads it perma

Re: apt-get upgrade

2004-10-27 Thread Francesco P. Lovergine
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 09:20:26AM +1300, Johnno wrote: > > dpkg package is install, any ideas? > One main suggestion: use an appropriate list, you are OT here. -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PR

Re: apt-get upgrade

2004-10-24 Thread Steve Kemp
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 09:20:26AM +1300, Johnno wrote: > When I do a apt-get upgrade on one the the servers here I get this error > message: > > Do you want to continue? [Y/n] > dpkg: `ldconfig' not found on PATH. > dpkg: `start-stop-daemon' not found on PATH. > dpkg: `install-info' not found on

Re: apt-get upgrade

2004-10-24 Thread Norbert Tretkowski
* Johnno wrote: > NB: root's PATH should usually contain /usr/local/sbin, /usr/sbin and /sbin. [...] > dpkg package is install, any ideas? What's the content of your root's $PATH? Norbert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PRO

Re: apt-get upgrade

2004-10-24 Thread Doug Griswold
echo $PATH as root and see if /usr/local/sbin, /usr/sbin and /sbin are in root's path. If they are maybe you issued "su" instead of "su -". >>> "Johnno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/24/04 4:20 PM >>> Hello When I do a apt-get upgrade on one the the servers here I get this error message: Do you want t

Re: apt-get upgrade

2004-10-24 Thread Gaddis, Jeremy L.
On Sun, 2004-10-24 at 16:20, Johnno wrote: > Hello > > When I do a apt-get upgrade on one the the servers here I get this error > message: [snip] > NB: root's PATH should usually contain /usr/local/sbin, /usr/sbin and /sbin. export PATH=$PATH:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/local/sbin Preferably that'd b

Re: apt-get update

2004-10-21 Thread Steve Kemp
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 10:01:05PM +1300, Johnno wrote: > Hello All, > > When I do a apt-get update I get this error: > > Fetched 6847kB in 33s (203kB/s) > Reading Package Lists... Error! > E: Dynamic MMap ran out of room > E: Error occured while processing lg-issue29 (NewFileVer1) > E: Problem w

Re: apt-get install posfix points to 1.1.1

2004-10-08 Thread Andrew Miehs
On Friday 08 October 2004 22:07, Andrew P. Kaplan wrote: > I am trying to upgrade postfix using apt-get install put it only has > version 1.1.1 when I went to the debian the latest package is also 1.1.1 > How do I get a later package. Hello Andrew, http://www.backports.org/ word of warning - d

Re: Apt-Get Update/Upgrade Question

2004-09-29 Thread Aurélien Beaujean
Le mercredi 29 septembre 2004 à 06:51, David Thurman écrivait: > Is their a way to set our /etc/apt/sources.list file or a apt-get > command to ignore MS and SA when doing security updates? You can put thoses packages « on hold » : echo " hold" | dpkg --set-selections -- Auré -- To UNSUBSCRI

Re: apt upgrade

2004-09-08 Thread Lucas Albers
Norbert Tretkowski said: > * Ivan Adams wrote: >> My quiestion is how I can avoid that kind of problems when on some >> Debian I have that kind of apt scripts. > > Disable those kind of scripts, and use apt-cron to let you inform by > mail when updates are available. I'de also reccomend running ap

Re: apt upgrade

2004-09-08 Thread Norbert Tretkowski
* Ivan Adams wrote: > My quiestion is how I can avoid that kind of problems when on some > Debian I have that kind of apt scripts. Disable those kind of scripts, and use apt-cron to let you inform by mail when updates are available. Norbert -- personal - http://www.inittab.de/ debian - http://p

Re: apt upgrade

2004-09-07 Thread Craig Sanders
[ cc-ed back to debian-isp ] On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 09:21:20PM +0300, Ivan Adams wrote: > but how can i understand when there have critical backdoor in some of my > packets in all Debians and need upgrade! subscribe to the security alert lists and upgrade when advised. you're trying to automate

Re: apt upgrade

2004-09-07 Thread Craig Sanders
On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 10:58:40PM +0300, Ivan Adams wrote: > I used script with apt-get upgrade -y on Debian 3.0 Woody in crond. > Everything was ok when one day call me for problem in that linux. When I > enter in console I saw in logs that previous day he was apt-get upgrade -y > and upgraded s

Re: apt upgrade

2004-09-05 Thread Arnt Karlsen
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 22:58:40 +0300, Ivan wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi, > I used script with apt-get upgrade -y on Debian 3.0 Woody in crond. > Everything was ok when one day call me for problem in that linux. > When I enter in console I saw in logs that previous day he was apt-get >

Re: apt-get upgrade or .tgz

2004-03-03 Thread Craig Sanders
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 09:03:51AM -0500, Andrew P. Kaplan wrote: > I have an old version of Postfix running on my Debian box. I don't remember > if I used apt-get or installed from a .tgz file. If I use apt-get install I > am concerned I could end up with two version of Postfix. What's the best wa

Re: apt-get upgrade or .tgz

2004-03-03 Thread Craig Sanders
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 09:03:51AM -0500, Andrew P. Kaplan wrote: > I have an old version of Postfix running on my Debian box. I don't remember > if I used apt-get or installed from a .tgz file. If I use apt-get install I > am concerned I could end up with two version of Postfix. What's the best wa

Re: apt-get upgrade or .tgz

2004-03-03 Thread Gavin Hamill
On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 14:03, Andrew P. Kaplan wrote: > I have an old version of Postfix running on my Debian box. I don't remember > if I used apt-get or installed from a .tgz file. If I use apt-get install I > am concerned I could end up with two version of Postfix. What's the best way > to upgrad

Re: apt-get upgrade or .tgz

2004-03-03 Thread Gavin Hamill
On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 14:03, Andrew P. Kaplan wrote: > I have an old version of Postfix running on my Debian box. I don't remember > if I used apt-get or installed from a .tgz file. If I use apt-get install I > am concerned I could end up with two version of Postfix. What's the best way > to upgrad

Re: apt-get and mounting /tmp with noexec option

2004-01-18 Thread Dan MacNeil
How about running apache chroot'd so what apache thinks is /tmp and what apt-get thinks is /tmp are two different things? fstab would look something like: (untested) # /dev/sdc1 /var/www/tmp/ noexec, blah,blah,blah

Re: apt-get and mounting /tmp with noexec option

2004-01-18 Thread Dan MacNeil
How about running apache chroot'd so what apache thinks is /tmp and what apt-get thinks is /tmp are two different things? fstab would look something like: (untested) # /dev/sdc1 /var/www/tmp/ noexec, blah,blah,blah -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: apt-get and mounting /tmp with noexec option

2004-01-18 Thread Arnoud Warmerdam
At 05:06 AM 18-01-2004, you wrote: noexec /tmp is NOT supported under Debian. So it actually is bad practise to mount /tmp noexec? Does it break other things than apt? Also, are you aware that it provides very little protection? Yes, but seeing a server nearly compromised made me very eager to ta

Re: apt-get and mounting /tmp with noexec option

2004-01-18 Thread Arnoud Warmerdam
At 05:06 AM 18-01-2004, you wrote: noexec /tmp is NOT supported under Debian. So it actually is bad practise to mount /tmp noexec? Does it break other things than apt? Also, are you aware that it provides very little protection? Yes, but seeing a server nearly compromised made me very eager to ta

Re: apt-get and mounting /tmp with noexec option

2004-01-18 Thread Frode Haugsgjerd
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 03:06:07PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote: -snip- > noexec /tmp is NOT supported under Debian. Also, are you aware that it > provides very little protection? Try an experiment: > > $ cp /bin/ls /tmp > $ /tmp/ls > [permission denied] > $ /lib/ld-linux.so.2 /tmp/ls > [directory list

Re: apt-get and mounting /tmp with noexec option

2004-01-18 Thread Frode Haugsgjerd
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 03:06:07PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote: -snip- > noexec /tmp is NOT supported under Debian. Also, are you aware that it > provides very little protection? Try an experiment: > > $ cp /bin/ls /tmp > $ /tmp/ls > [permission denied] > $ /lib/ld-linux.so.2 /tmp/ls > [directory list

Re: apt-get and mounting /tmp with noexec option

2004-01-17 Thread Rob Weir
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 03:53:35AM +0100, Arnoud Warmerdam said > Hi, > > I have mounted my /tmp directory (which has it's own partition) with the > noexec option. The reason i did this, was that a poorly written cgi-script > caused a binary to be downloaded and executed in /tmp. Luckily, the

Re: apt-get and mounting /tmp with noexec option

2004-01-17 Thread Rob Weir
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 03:53:35AM +0100, Arnoud Warmerdam said > Hi, > > I have mounted my /tmp directory (which has it's own partition) with the > noexec option. The reason i did this, was that a poorly written cgi-script > caused a binary to be downloaded and executed in /tmp. Luckily, the

Re: apt-get and mounting /tmp with noexec option

2004-01-14 Thread Frode Haugsgjerd
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 03:53:35AM +0100, Arnoud Warmerdam wrote: > Hi, > > I have mounted my /tmp directory (which has it's own partition) with the > noexec option. The reason i did this, was that a poorly written cgi-script > caused a binary to be downloaded and executed in /tmp. Luckily, the

Re: apt-get and mounting /tmp with noexec option

2004-01-14 Thread Frode Haugsgjerd
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 03:53:35AM +0100, Arnoud Warmerdam wrote: > Hi, > > I have mounted my /tmp directory (which has it's own partition) with the > noexec option. The reason i did this, was that a poorly written cgi-script > caused a binary to be downloaded and executed in /tmp. Luckily, the

Re: apt-get bcm5700-module-2.4.18

2003-11-20 Thread Alex Borges
> Allthough its things like this that break ones automatically > kernelbuildingsystem for +25 debianservers :( I use to have script > that did build an *.deb package based on config in .config but now i > need to come up with something clever that compile the source against > the running kernel...

Re: apt-get bcm5700-module-2.4.18

2003-11-20 Thread Alex Borges
> Allthough its things like this that break ones automatically > kernelbuildingsystem for +25 debianservers :( I use to have script > that did build an *.deb package based on config in .config but now i > need to come up with something clever that compile the source against > the running kernel...

Re: apt-get bcm5700-module-2.4.18

2003-11-20 Thread Thomas Kirk
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 01:54:07PM -0600, Alex Borges wrote: > Well, its a source module, so you will have to compile it for your > running kernel. Other than that, ive a year and a half worth of uptime > out of it on a woody install (gigabit and all) and it works well. > > This module is part o

Re: apt-get bcm5700-module-2.4.18

2003-11-20 Thread Thomas Kirk
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 01:54:07PM -0600, Alex Borges wrote: > Well, its a source module, so you will have to compile it for your > running kernel. Other than that, ive a year and a half worth of uptime > out of it on a woody install (gigabit and all) and it works well. > > This module is part o

Re: apt-get bcm5700-module-2.4.18

2003-11-20 Thread Alex Borges
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 08:38, Dan MacNeil wrote: > Two questions: > > 1) Has anyone done a: > > apt-get install bcm5700-module-2.4.18 > Well, its a source module, so you will have to compile it for your running kernel. Other than that, ive a year and a half worth of uptime out of it on a w

Re: apt-get bcm5700-module-2.4.18

2003-11-20 Thread Alex Borges
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 08:38, Dan MacNeil wrote: > Two questions: > > 1) Has anyone done a: > > apt-get install bcm5700-module-2.4.18 > Well, its a source module, so you will have to compile it for your running kernel. Other than that, ive a year and a half worth of uptime out of it on a w

Re: apt-get update failure???

2003-09-18 Thread Tarragon Allen
On Friday 19 September 2003 14:04, Dan MacNeil wrote: > We've a couple debian systems to patch for the new sshd problems. > > On one of them that is monitored closely and patched quickly. The other is > patched less quickly. > > The system that is patched less quickly claims to be up to date but no

Re: APT needs /var/lib/dpkg/

2003-08-09 Thread Joey Hess
Markus Kolb wrote: > I want to use APT (apt-get and apt-cache) for some repository games as a > backend-tool. Of course as non-root user. > Is there a possibility to tell apt-get and apt-cache to not look for > status-file and lock-file in /var/lib/dpkg/ instead in some other > directory? Yes,

Re: APT needs /var/lib/dpkg/

2003-08-05 Thread Jon Wood
On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 19:25, Markus Kolb wrote: > Hi, > > I want to use APT (apt-get and apt-cache) for some repository games as a > backend-tool. Of course as non-root user. > Is there a possibility to tell apt-get and apt-cache to not look for > status-file and lock-file in /var/lib/dpkg/ inst

Re: apt-get

2003-07-04 Thread Donovan Baarda
On Fri, 2003-07-04 at 17:20, Craig wrote: > Hi Guys > > How do I setup dpkg/apt-get to hold back on a specific package when > doing an > apt-get upgrade ? I use aptitude and hold the selected package by pressing 'h'. Sorta like dselect but much better :-) -- ---

Re: apt-get

2003-07-04 Thread Markus Oswald
On Fri, 2003-07-04 at 09:20, Craig wrote: > Hi Guys > > How do I setup dpkg/apt-get to hold back on a specific package when > doing an > apt-get upgrade ? Take a look at apt_preferences(5) >From the manpage: [...] VERSIONING One purpose of the preferences file is to let the user

Re: apt-get

2003-07-04 Thread IMAC, Sebastian Mangelkramer
Hi, You could do this easyly with dselect. best regards, sebastian Craig said: > Hi Guys > > How do I setup dpkg/apt-get to hold back on a specific package when > doing an > apt-get upgrade ? > > Many thanks > Craig > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsub

Re: apt-get

2003-07-04 Thread Donovan Baarda
On Fri, 2003-07-04 at 17:20, Craig wrote: > Hi Guys > > How do I setup dpkg/apt-get to hold back on a specific package when > doing an > apt-get upgrade ? I use aptitude and hold the selected package by pressing 'h'. Sorta like dselect but much better :-) -- ---

Re: apt-get

2003-07-04 Thread Markus Oswald
On Fri, 2003-07-04 at 09:20, Craig wrote: > Hi Guys > > How do I setup dpkg/apt-get to hold back on a specific package when > doing an > apt-get upgrade ? Take a look at apt_preferences(5) >From the manpage: [...] VERSIONING One purpose of the preferences file is to let the user

Re: apt-get

2003-07-04 Thread Craig Sanders
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 09:20:19AM +0200, Craig wrote: > Hi Guys > > How do I setup dpkg/apt-get to hold back on a specific package when doing an > apt-get upgrade ? i don't think that apt-get can do it, but the following shell script will hold a package: ---cut here--- #! /bin/bash # dpkg-hol

Re: apt-get

2003-07-04 Thread IMAC, Sebastian Mangelkramer
Hi, You could do this easyly with dselect. best regards, sebastian Craig said: > Hi Guys > > How do I setup dpkg/apt-get to hold back on a specific package when > doing an > apt-get upgrade ? > > Many thanks > Craig > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsub

Re: apt-get

2003-07-04 Thread Craig Sanders
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 09:20:19AM +0200, Craig wrote: > Hi Guys > > How do I setup dpkg/apt-get to hold back on a specific package when doing an > apt-get upgrade ? i don't think that apt-get can do it, but the following shell script will hold a package: ---cut here--- #! /bin/bash # dpkg-hol

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade problem

2003-04-03 Thread Matt Ryan
lsattr /usr/bin/du - chances are it was made immutable ('i' attribute). Matt. - Original Message - From: "Brad Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Roger Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 12:10 AM Subject: Re: apt-get dist-

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade problem

2003-04-03 Thread Matt Ryan
lsattr /usr/bin/du - chances are it was made immutable ('i' attribute). Matt. - Original Message - From: "Brad Lay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Roger Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 12

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade problem

2003-04-02 Thread Roger Ward
Unfortunatly, I think you are right :(. This machine turns out to have had some exploitable stuff on it, which was what I was trying to upgrade... -Roger Quoting Brad Lay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > First thing I would be doing is apt-get install chkrootkit - I had a > machine do this exact same p

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade problem

2003-04-02 Thread Roger Ward
Unfortunatly, I think you are right :(. This machine turns out to have had some exploitable stuff on it, which was what I was trying to upgrade... -Roger Quoting Brad Lay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > First thing I would be doing is apt-get install chkrootkit - I had a > machine do this exact same p

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade problem

2003-04-02 Thread Brad Lay
First thing I would be doing is apt-get install chkrootkit - I had a machine do this exact same problem. I found it had been rootkitted. YMMV. It could be something else but I'd check anyway. Regards, Brad Lay ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Roger Ward wrote: > I have a wierd error fr

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade problem

2003-04-02 Thread Brad Lay
First thing I would be doing is apt-get install chkrootkit - I had a machine do this exact same problem. I found it had been rootkitted. YMMV. It could be something else but I'd check anyway. Regards, Brad Lay ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Roger Ward wrote: > I have a wierd error fr

Re: apt-get install or apt-get source

2001-11-04 Thread daniel
Whoever told you that is wrong... If you know how to program stuff and you can modify any source you get then you may have a use in getting the source code of a package, or even if compiling yourself gives you a functionality you need that is not in the precompiled packages. But if you are just g

Re: apt-get install or apt-get source

2001-11-04 Thread daniel
Whoever told you that is wrong... If you know how to program stuff and you can modify any source you get then you may have a use in getting the source code of a package, or even if compiling yourself gives you a functionality you need that is not in the precompiled packages. But if you are just

Re: apt-get

2001-10-18 Thread Anthony J. Breeds-Taurima
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Craig wrote: > Hi again fellas > > Is there a why to upgrade only on package using apt-get ? If you only want to upgrade one paackage: # apt-get update # apt-get install fubar That will install the newest version of fubar and any required libraries. Yours Tony. /* * "The

Re: apt-get

2001-10-18 Thread Anthony J. Breeds-Taurima
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Craig wrote: > Hi again fellas > > Is there a why to upgrade only on package using apt-get ? If you only want to upgrade one paackage: # apt-get update # apt-get install fubar That will install the newest version of fubar and any required libraries. Yours Tony. /* * "Th

Re: apt

2001-10-15 Thread Bart-Jan Vrielink
On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Kevin wrote: > is there a way to lock a package so that apt/dpkg wont update it? > > i use a bofh'd bash, but it keeps getting overwritten by new bash > packages. i suppose i could chattr +i it but im hoping theres a more > elegant solution. If your bash version is also a dp

Re: apt

2001-10-15 Thread Bart-Jan Vrielink
On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Kevin wrote: > is there a way to lock a package so that apt/dpkg wont update it? > > i use a bofh'd bash, but it keeps getting overwritten by new bash > packages. i suppose i could chattr +i it but im hoping theres a more > elegant solution. If your bash version is also a d

Re: apt

2001-10-13 Thread Jesse Goerz
On Saturday 13 October 2001 11:49, Frank Louwers wrote: > On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 08:45:48AM -0700, Kevin wrote: > > is there a way to lock a package so that apt/dpkg wont > > update it? > > > > i use a bofh'd bash, but it keeps getting overwritten by new > > bash packages. i suppose i could chatt

Re: apt

2001-10-13 Thread Frank Louwers
On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 08:45:48AM -0700, Kevin wrote: > is there a way to lock a package so that apt/dpkg wont update it? > > i use a bofh'd bash, but it keeps getting overwritten by new bash > packages. i suppose i could chattr +i it but im hoping theres a more > elegant solution. dpkg your v

Re: apt

2001-10-13 Thread Jesse Goerz
On Saturday 13 October 2001 11:49, Frank Louwers wrote: > On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 08:45:48AM -0700, Kevin wrote: > > is there a way to lock a package so that apt/dpkg wont > > update it? > > > > i use a bofh'd bash, but it keeps getting overwritten by new > > bash packages. i suppose i could chat

Re: apt

2001-10-13 Thread Frank Louwers
On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 08:45:48AM -0700, Kevin wrote: > is there a way to lock a package so that apt/dpkg wont update it? > > i use a bofh'd bash, but it keeps getting overwritten by new bash > packages. i suppose i could chattr +i it but im hoping theres a more > elegant solution. dpkg your

Re: apt-get upgrade installs unnecessary users / Cobalt RaQ 3i

2001-02-05 Thread brian moore
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:16:02PM +0100, H.P. Stroebel wrote: > hi list, > > 1) i switched recently from redhat to debian for an internet server > installation A very good move. MUCH easier to maintain. > i deleted unnecessary users and groups like games, audio etc., but they > were reinstalle

Re: apt-get upgrade installs unnecessary users / Cobalt RaQ 3i

2001-02-05 Thread brian moore
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:16:02PM +0100, H.P. Stroebel wrote: > hi list, > > 1) i switched recently from redhat to debian for an internet server > installation A very good move. MUCH easier to maintain. > i deleted unnecessary users and groups like games, audio etc., but they > were reinstall

Re: apt-get problems with changing FTP site

2000-11-23 Thread Martin WHEELER
On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Bob Billson wrote: > Seems a lot of hams use Debian vs. other Linux distros. Don't know if it > is a fact or just perception on my part. Fact. 73 de G5FM -- Martin Wheeler -StarTEXT - Glastonbury - BA6 9PH - England [1] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ht

Re: apt-get problems with changing FTP site

2000-11-23 Thread Bob Billson
On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 02:49:24PM -, James Preece wrote: > Your a ham too (2e1avx) Seems a lot of hams use Debian vs. other Linux distros. Don't know if it is a fact or just perception on my part. > Cheers for the inform, learning apt-get at the moment, can select the > packages but what d

Re: apt-get problems with changing FTP site

2000-11-23 Thread Bob Billson
On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 08:23:28AM -0500, Peter Billson wrote: > business. I use the following lines in my sources.list: > > # Binaries > deb htt://ftp.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free ^^^ oops... should be http If you want to be able to get the Debian source to recompile the

Re: apt-get problems with changing FTP site

2000-11-23 Thread Peter Billson
> I am getting problems when trying to install various packages, it times out > when trying to pull the package from certain ftp sites. > > Is there a way to change or specify a ftp site to download from. > > and if so please can you give me a list or suggest the sites for me. You can specify a

Re: Apt-get

2000-10-03 Thread Mike Fedyk
Doug Bean wrote: > > Hi all, > I been having a bit of trouble accessing one of my servers in the sources > list for apt. > Is there anywhere where there is a list of public servers or mirror sites to > add to this file. I get the following error: > Err http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au stable/non-US Pa