Re: and conflict needs to be resolved for backports?

On 06/02/17 11:16, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Thu, 2017-06-01 at 10:37 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: >> >> Workaround is to avoid the backports package, but I wonder if it would >> be possible to fix this? How comes that the fix for #822396 doesn't >> work for Jessie? > > I think it depends on change

Bug#863843: bugs.debian.org: Encrypted partition not accessible after resume

On Thu 01-Jun-2017 at 23:58:43 +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Thu, 2017-06-01 at 23:36 +0200, garj...@garjola.net wrote: >> On Thu 01-Jun-2017 at 00:15:29 +0200, Ben Hutchings > .uk> wrote:  >> > Control: tag -1 moreinfo >> > >> > On Wed, 31 May 2017 21:34:59 +0200 Garjola Dindi >> > wrote:

Bug#862357: 1000+ nfs threads after 5 days

This is getting ridiculous $ ps -ef | grep "NFSv4 callback" | wc 12311087998 $ uptime 10:44:26 up 5 days, 18:28, 1 user, load average: 0.11, 0.06, 0.07

Re: and conflict needs to be resolved for backports?

On Thu, 2017-06-01 at 10:37 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: > Hi folks, > > wrt #822396: > > Using the 4.9.25 backports linux-libc-dev for Jessie I still get > the conflict between linux/if.h and net/if.h, e.g. on building > strongswan 5.5.3 (see below). > > Workaround is to avoid the backports pack