Oh nice, i'll check tomorrow or on Friday, thanks for this suggestion. Could
help a lot with third parties repo using weak timestamp also.
On June 20, 2018 7:37:19 PM GMT+02:00, Don Armstrong wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Jun 2018, Adam Cecile wrote:
>> On 06/19/2018 10:48 PM, Don Armstrong
Again, this is aim to disable Release timestamp validation, not related to gpg
:/
On June 20, 2018 7:04:33 PM GMT+02:00, Curt wrote:
>On 2018-06-20, wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 02:27:24PM +0200, Adam Cecile wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I stil
Exactly, thank you.
Actually I've been contributing to Debian a lot some time ago and I don't think
I've been rude or something, so please show some respect.
On June 20, 2018 5:57:45 PM GMT+02:00, "Roberto C. Sánchez"
wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:16:46AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> On
On 06/20/2018 02:17 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 08:47:39AM +0200, Adam Cecile wrote:
---> Running in 2300490ebb96
You didn't show the command that you typed. That makes it harder to
give solutions.
W: GPG error: http://archive.debian.org squeeze Release: The f
On 06/20/2018 10:08 AM, john doe wrote:
On 6/20/2018 9:55 AM, Adam Cecile wrote:
On 06/20/2018 09:43 AM, john doe wrote:
On 6/20/2018 8:47 AM, Adam Cecile wrote:
On 06/20/2018 08:39 AM, john doe wrote:
On 6/19/2018 10:55 PM, Adam Cecile wrote:
On 06/19/2018 10:48 PM, Don Armstrong wrote
On 06/20/2018 08:39 AM, john doe wrote:
On 6/19/2018 10:55 PM, Adam Cecile wrote:
On 06/19/2018 10:48 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018, Adam Cecile wrote:
That's a pity, don't you think so ? I think Debian should renew the
archive key, so we can still verify packages
On 06/20/2018 09:43 AM, john doe wrote:
On 6/20/2018 8:47 AM, Adam Cecile wrote:
On 06/20/2018 08:39 AM, john doe wrote:
On 6/19/2018 10:55 PM, Adam Cecile wrote:
On 06/19/2018 10:48 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018, Adam Cecile wrote:
That's a pity, don't you think so
On 06/19/2018 10:48 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018, Adam Cecile wrote:
That's a pity, don't you think so ? I think Debian should renew the
archive key, so we can still verify packages signatures.
You can still verify them. Key expiration doesn't make existing
sig
That's a pity, don't you think so ? I think Debian should renew the archive
key, so we can still verify packages signatures.
On June 19, 2018 8:33:21 PM GMT+02:00, john doe wrote:
>On 6/19/2018 9:22 AM, Adam Cecile wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> GPG key that s
Hello,
GPG key that signed the Squeeze repo is now expired. How should I handle
this properly ? Despite the key is expired, it use to be valid and I
don't like much the idea of going for [trusted=yes] for each impacted
sources.list entry.
Thanks in advance,
Adam.
On 02/06/2018 02:16 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
On 2018-02-06 at 07:52, Adam Cecile wrote:
On 02/06/2018 01:46 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
Pin: version 1.3.*, release o=packages.le-vert.net
Hello,
Thanks for the answer, sadly it's not working:
mesos:
Installed: 1.3.1-1+Debian-stretc
On 02/06/2018 01:46 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
Pin: version 1.3.*, release o=packages.le-vert.net
Hello,
Thanks for the answer, sadly it's not working:
mesos:
Installed: 1.3.1-1+Debian-stretch-9.1
Candidate: 1.4.1-1+Debian-stretch-9.1
Hello,
I'd like to do something like this:
Package: mesos
Pin: version 1.3.*
Pin: release o=packages.le-vert.net
Pin-Priority: 1000
But sadly the last "Pin:" line overrides the previous one.
My problem here is that I'd like the version
"1.3.1-1+Debian-stretch-9.1" to be the candidate one. De
Hello,
I'm not sure why you are using an older driver but here what's available
in Debian stretch at the moment: 375.82-1~deb9u1
I don't have 1080Ti myself but this driver can handle the regular 1080
for sure and I bet it does handle the Ti as well.
If you want to give a try with a Stretch vi
*]
64bit x86 CPUs also support running old 32bit programs.
From what I've read it appears to be that the vast majority of chips
currently sold do have 32bit ARM compatibility - except for one, the
Cavium Thunder X. And if you look at your /proc/cpuinfo output:
Am 2017-08-29 08:49, schrieb Adam Cec
On 08/29/2017 05:19 PM, Christian Seiler wrote:
Hi,
Am 29. August 2017 17:04:29 MESZ schrieb Adam Cecile :
I was not aware of this optional 32 bit compatibility. That kinda
sucks.
Yeah, especially since you had the misfortune of getting the one chip that is
sold that doesn't suppo
On 08/29/2017 10:50 AM, Reco wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:49:40AM +0200, Adam Cecile wrote:
I'm actually running arm64, not amd64 ;-)
My eyes are failing me then ☺.
Can you provide your /proc/cpuinfo then please?
Sure:
processor: 0
BogoMIPS: 200.00
Features
On 08/29/2017 08:25 AM, Reco wrote:
Hi.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 23:33:50 +0200
Hitec Adam Cecile wrote:
Hi,
I'm actually running arm64, not amd64 ;-)
My eyes are failing me then ☺.
Can you provide your /proc/cpuinfo then please?
Reco
Sure:
processor: 0
BogoMIPS: 2
Hi,
I'm actually running arm64, not amd64 ;-)
Le 28 août 2017 23:25:56 GMT+02:00, Reco a écrit :
> Hi.
>
>On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 22:50:17 +0200
>Adam Cécile wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> I'm trying to set up armhf on arm64 stretch but it does not work:
>>
>>
>> file /tmp/bash/bin/bash
>>
Hello,
Since I upgraded to Stretch I get the following warning when running apt
update:
W: Failed to fetch
http://archive.cloudera.com/cdh5/debian/jessie/amd64/cdh/dists/jessie-cdh5/InRelease
The following signatures were invalid:
F36A89E33CC1BD0F71079007327574EE02A818DD
The sources.list en
20 matches
Mail list logo
