On 2023-03-27 15:17:45 +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
> Dan Ritter (12023-03-27):
> > changing 33 to 30 will get you black. ANSI color escapes are on
> > the web in many places.
>
> Also, decent terminal emulators let users tweak the colors, and making
> sure all main colors are readable on the defa
On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 davidson wrote:
Replying to myself.
According to [console_codes(4), under section ECMA-48 Set Graphics
Rendition], [this value] sets "blink off"
# apt -o "APT::Color::Highlight=^[[25m" search nethack
For me, this produces text in the default style (no highlights, no
colors
On 3/28/23 01:02, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 02:02:43PM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
On 3/27/23 11:31, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 10:00:48AM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
[...]
Would it be practical to put a filter in the path cups put things headed to
a
On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 gene heskett wrote:
On 3/27/23 09:18, Nicolas George wrote:
Dan Ritter (12023-03-27):
changing 33 to 30 will get you black. ANSI color escapes are on
the web in many places.
Also, decent terminal emulators let users tweak the colors, and making
sure all main colors are rea
On 2023-03-28 10:56, davidson wrote:
On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 Jesper Dybdal wrote:
On 2023-03-27 10:59, davidson wrote:
It baffles me that the number of packages suggested for autoremoval is
different, between guile-2.2-libs and w3m.
Me too.
The two packages depend on different collections of sup
Jesper Dybdal writes:
> On 2023-03-26 23:12, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 5:16 AM Jesper Dybdal
>> wrote:
>>> Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
>> For completeness, here is the Debian procedure for a release upgrade:
>> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUpgrade .
> Thank
On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 Jesper Dybdal wrote:
On 2023-03-27 10:59, davidson wrote:
It baffles me that the number of packages suggested for autoremoval is
different, between guile-2.2-libs and w3m.
Me too.
The two packages depend on different collections of supporting
packages.
And so, depending o
On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 08:52:10AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
Greg Wooledge wrote:
3) apt uses a horrible yellow color that is nigh-unreadable on a white
background. (This is not configurable.)
I use exclusively apt-hyphenated commands (apt-{get,cach
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 02:02:43PM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
> On 3/27/23 11:31, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 10:00:48AM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Would it be practical to put a filter in the path cups put things headed
> > > to
> > > a printer th
On 3/27/23 11:31, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 10:00:48AM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
[...]
Would it be practical to put a filter in the path cups put things headed to
a printer thru, to change just that esc sequence to make those boxes and
their text content into something m
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 10:00:48AM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
[...]
> Would it be practical to put a filter in the path cups put things headed to
> a printer thru, to change just that esc sequence to make those boxes and
> their text content into something more readable.
If they are actually PNG
On Mon 27 Mar 2023 at 07:49:13 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 01:20:32PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2023-03-27 00:21:18 +0200, Jesper Dybdal wrote:
> > > On 2023-03-26 23:12, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 5:16 AM Jesper Dybdal
> > > > wro
On 2023-03-27 10:59, davidson wrote:
apt list says:
guile-2.2-libs/stable 2.2.7+1-6 amd64 [upgradable from:
2.2.4+1-2+deb10u1]
guile-2.2-libs/now 2.2.4+1-2+deb10u1 amd64 [installed,upgradable
to: 2.2.7+1-6]
w3m/stable 0.5.3+git20210102-6 amd64 [upgradable from: 0.5.3-37]
w3m/now 0.5.3-37
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 08:52:10AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > 3) apt uses a horrible yellow color that is nigh-unreadable on a white
> >background. (This is not configurable.)
>
> It appears that it is, just badly documented.
>
> In /etc/apt/apt.conf, you can specif
On 3/27/23 09:18, Nicolas George wrote:
Dan Ritter (12023-03-27):
changing 33 to 30 will get you black. ANSI color escapes are on
the web in many places.
Also, decent terminal emulators let users tweak the colors, and making
sure all main colors are readable on the default background would
pro
Dan Ritter (12023-03-27):
> changing 33 to 30 will get you black. ANSI color escapes are on
> the web in many places.
Also, decent terminal emulators let users tweak the colors, and making
sure all main colors are readable on the default background would
probably be a good use of that ability.
Re
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >From an end user's point of view, the three main differences between
> "apt-get" and "apt" are:
>
> 3) apt uses a horrible yellow color that is nigh-unreadable on a white
>background. (This is not configurable.)
It appears that it is, just badly documented.
In /etc/
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 02:17:11PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> FYI, I prefer to do the upgrades of my Debian/unstable machines with
> aptitude
aptitude is VERY different from apt/apt-get. It uses an entirely
different pacakge conflict resolution.
Using aptitude for release upgrades (in place
On 2023-03-27 07:49:13 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> 2) "apt-get upgrade" does not install new packages unless you supply the
>--with-new-pkgs option. "apt upgrade" acts as if you had supplied it.
>(This is configurable.)
FYI, I prefer to do the upgrades of my Debian/unstable machines wit
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 01:20:32PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2023-03-27 00:21:18 +0200, Jesper Dybdal wrote:
> > On 2023-03-26 23:12, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 5:16 AM Jesper Dybdal
> > > wrote:
> > > > Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
> > > For complet
On 2023-03-27 00:21:18 +0200, Jesper Dybdal wrote:
> On 2023-03-26 23:12, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 5:16 AM Jesper Dybdal
> > wrote:
> > > Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
> > For completeness, here is the Debian procedure for a release upgrade:
> > https://wiki.d
On 2023-03-27 10:59, davidson wrote:
By the way, does your sources.list really have no line for security
updates? Nothing like this one?
deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security bullseye-security
main non-free
Yes, it does: https://www.dybdal.dk/bullseye/sources.list
I currently do
On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 Jesper Dybdal wrote:
Thanks a lot for the responses.
It is a confusing mystery!
I'm still in doubt as to what to do.
I notice that according to your posted output from the commands,
apt-get -Vs remove {w3m,guile-2.2-libs}
that both packages now appear to be up-to-dat
On 2023-03-26 20:15, David Wright wrote:
On Sun 26 Mar 2023 at 11:16:21 (+0200), Jesper Dybdal wrote:
Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
This morning, I got a mail from unattended-upgrades, which said:
Packages with upgradable origin but kept back:
Debian stable:
guile-2.2-libs
On 2023-03-26 23:12, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 5:16 AM Jesper Dybdal wrote:
Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
For completeness, here is the Debian procedure for a release upgrade:
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUpgrade .
Thanks. Interesting that the Wiki recommen
On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 5:16 AM Jesper Dybdal wrote:
>
> Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
For completeness, here is the Debian procedure for a release upgrade:
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUpgrade .
Jeff
On Sun 26 Mar 2023 at 11:16:21 (+0200), Jesper Dybdal wrote:
> Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
>
> This morning, I got a mail from unattended-upgrades, which said:
>
> > Packages with upgradable origin but kept back:
> > Debian stable:
> >guile-2.2-libs w3m
>
> and
> > Package gu
On 2023-03-26 17:37, Cindy Sue Causey wrote:
On 3/26/23, Jesper Dybdal wrote:
Packages with upgradable origin but kept back:
Debian stable:
guile-2.2-libs w3m
DISCLAIMER: The subject line indicates a distribution upgrade, but it
looks like your sources.list is only Bullseye. My respo
On 3/26/23, Jesper Dybdal wrote:
> Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
>
> This morning, I got a mail from unattended-upgrades, which said:
>
>> Packages with upgradable origin but kept back:
>> Debian stable:
>>guile-2.2-libs w3m
>
> and
>> Package guile-2.2-libs is kept back because
Thanks a lot for the responses. I'm still in doubt as to what to do.
One thing I forgot to mention yesterday, but which I now think may be
correlated with this problem, is that yesterday's upgrade mysteriously
removed roundcube. I have no idea why, and I want it back, but that is
not particu
On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 Jesper Dybdal wrote:
Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
Release notes for Debian 11 (bullseye)
Upgrades from Debian 10 (buster) :: section 4.8 Obsolete Packages
https://www.debian.org/releases/bullseye/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#obsolete
This mo
On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 5:16 AM Jesper Dybdal wrote:
>
> Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
>
> This morning, I got a mail from unattended-upgrades, which said:
>
> > Packages with upgradable origin but kept back:
> > Debian stable:
> >guile-2.2-libs w3m
>
> and
> > Package guile-2.2-
Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
This morning, I got a mail from unattended-upgrades, which said:
Packages with upgradable origin but kept back:
Debian stable:
guile-2.2-libs w3m
and
Package guile-2.2-libs is kept back because a related package is kept back or
due to local apt
33 matches
Mail list logo
