* rhkra...@gmail.com [2018-12-25 09:21 -0500]:
[...]
> But now I'm at this point:
>
> root@s31:~# apt-get upgrade
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> Calculating upgrade... Done
> The following packages have been kept back:
> firmwa
On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 09:21:39 -0500
rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> [snip]
>
> But now I'm at this point:
>
> root@s31:~# apt-get upgrade
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> Calculating upgrade... Done
> The following packages have been kep
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 09:21:39AM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks for the reply, it helped a lot -- I seem to have one problem remaining
> (below).
[...]
> df told me that /var was at 100%, and /boot was at 98%.
"apt-get autoclean" or its more drastic sibling "apt-get clean" might be
Thanks for the reply, it helped a lot -- I seem to have one problem remaining
(below).
On Monday, December 24, 2018 06:22:58 PM Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
> You need to
> # apt install firmware-realtek
Ok, I did the apt-get install firmware-realtek and that got rid of the
complaints about the 816
Thanks very much -- that helped a lot -- there is one outstanding problem,
but, for various reasons, I don't have time for a full reply atm -- I'll try
to reply more fully tomorrow or the day after.
On Monday, December 24, 2018 06:22:58 PM Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
> * rh kramer [2018-12-24 18:
* rh kramer [2018-12-24 18:10 -0500]:
> On my Jessie system, for something like the last 2 to 3 months, I've been
> getting an error like the following whenever I do an apt-get update /
> apt-get upgrade cycle.
[...]
> Ok, it looks like I have the r8169 as I see this:
>
> r8169
> From: a...@cityscape.co.uk
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 18:21:15 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
>> Fungi4All composed on 2017-07-19 17:39 (UTC-0400):
>> > > 27 upgraded, 3 newly installed, 0 to remove and 2 not upgraded.
>> > Need to get 68.5 MB of archives.> After this o
On Fri 21 Jul 2017 at 00:43:08 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
> Joe Pfeiffer composed on 2017-07-20 15:38 (UTC-0600):
>
> > David Wright wrote:
>
> >> On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 14:57:50 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
>
> >>> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?
>
> >> I did. Where d
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:48:17 +0200 Dejan Jocic
wrote:
> On 20-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:48:17 +0200 Dejan Jocic
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > If you have minimal install, why do you suspect that something is
> > > wrong, rather to suppose that all is fine and that si
On 20-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:48:17 +0200 Dejan Jocic
> wrote:
>
> >
> > If you have minimal install, why do you suspect that something is
> > wrong, rather to suppose that all is fine and that simply there was
> > no security updates for your install? It is stable
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:55:15 + (UTC) david...@freevolt.org wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>
> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install
> > apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I
> > find this unusual.
>
> And so, un
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:48:17 +0200 Dejan Jocic
wrote:
> On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:47:27 -0700 Jimmy Johnson
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 07/19/2017 01:35 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:14:28 +0200 Dejan Jocic
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> >
Joe Pfeiffer composed on 2017-07-20 15:38 (UTC-0600):
> David Wright wrote:
>> On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 14:57:50 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
>>> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?
>> I did. Where does it say that?
> The closest thing to that statement I've encountered is i
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:41:33 -0700 Jimmy Johnson
wrote:
> On 07/19/2017 07:05 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:47:27 -0700 Jimmy Johnson
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/19/2017 01:35 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:14:28 +0200 Dejan Jocic
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
David Wright writes:
> On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 14:57:50 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
>> Patrick Bartek composed on 2017-07-19 10:29 (UTC-0700):
>>
>> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install apps,
>> > etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I find
>>
David Wright composed on 2017-07-19 23:33 (UTC-0500):
> On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 14:57:50 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
>> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?
> I did. Where does it say that?
It was a long time ago that I first encountered it, and don't remember where it
was. I
On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:47:27 -0700 Jimmy Johnson
> wrote:
>
> > On 07/19/2017 01:35 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:14:28 +0200 Dejan Jocic
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > >>> Getting no results from ap
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Patrick Bartek wrote:
Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install apps,
etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I find
this unusual.
And so, understandably, you feel prompted to seek confirmation that
there have, in fact, been no u
On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 14:57:50 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
> Patrick Bartek composed on 2017-07-19 10:29 (UTC-0700):
>
> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install apps,
> > etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I find
> > this unusual. Did a mail li
On 07/19/2017 07:05 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:47:27 -0700 Jimmy Johnson
wrote:
On 07/19/2017 01:35 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:14:28 +0200 Dejan Jocic
wrote:
On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:13:06 -0400 Fungi4All
wrote:
> From: nemomm...@gmail.com
>
> > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:32:04 -0400 Dan Ritter
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:29:02AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> >> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install
> >> > app
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:47:27 -0700 Jimmy Johnson
wrote:
> On 07/19/2017 01:35 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:14:28 +0200 Dejan Jocic
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> >>> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install
> >>> apps,
On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 18:21:15 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> Fungi4All composed on 2017-07-19 17:39 (UTC-0400):
>
> >> Brian composed:
> >> One picture is worth a thousand words:
> ...
> > Here is a picture from my backup machine
> > $ sudo apt upgrade
> ...
> > 27 upgraded, 3 newly installed, 0 t
Fungi4All composed on 2017-07-19 17:39 (UTC-0400):
>> Brian composed:
>> One picture is worth a thousand words:
...
> Here is a picture from my backup machine
> $ sudo apt upgrade
...
> 27 upgraded, 3 newly installed, 0 to remove and 2 not upgraded.
> Need to get 68.5 MB of archives.> After this
> From: a...@cityscape.co.uk
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> One picture is worth a thousand words:
Here is a picture from my backup machine
$ sudo apt upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
The following NE
> From: a...@cityscape.co.uk
> On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 16:20:21 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> One picture is worth a thousand words:
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n]
n
> Which should be trusted more. apt-get or apt?
I've always liked apt. It is four keystrokes shorter
From: nemomm...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:32:04 -0400 Dan Ritter
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:29:02AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install
>> > apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I
>> >
On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 16:20:21 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> Brian composed on 2017-07-19 20:54 (UTC+0100):
>
> > On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 15:49:47 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
>
> >> Fungi4All composed on 2017-07-19 15:18 (UTC-0400):
>
> >> > But will there be different results with apt upgrade than w
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:57:50 -0400 Felix Miata
wrote:
> Patrick Bartek composed on 2017-07-19 10:29 (UTC-0700):
>
> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install
> > apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I
> > find this unusual. Did a mail list
On 07/19/2017 01:35 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:14:28 +0200 Dejan Jocic
wrote:
On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install
apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I
find this unusual. Did
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:32:04 -0400 Dan Ritter
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:29:02AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install
> > apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I
> > find this unusual. Did a mail l
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:14:28 +0200 Dejan Jocic
wrote:
> On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install
> > apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I
> > find this unusual. Did a mail list archive search for this,
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:54:28 +0100
Brian wrote:
Hello Brian,
>Those sort of statements are begging for an example of the diferences
>with an upgrade or package installation. Will we see it?
I seem to recall there have been several examples over the past year or
so on this very list. A search
Brian composed on 2017-07-19 20:54 (UTC+0100):
> On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 15:49:47 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
>> Fungi4All composed on 2017-07-19 15:18 (UTC-0400):
>> > But will there be different results with apt upgrade than with apt-get?
>> Will:I have no idea.
>> Can: Yes.
>> Apt and
> From: mrma...@earthlink.net
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Fungi4All composed on 2017-07-19 15:18 (UTC-0400):
>>> mrma...@earthlink.net composed:
> ...
>>> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?
>> But will there be different results with apt upgrade than with apt-get?
>
On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 15:49:47 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> Fungi4All composed on 2017-07-19 15:18 (UTC-0400):
>
> >> mrma...@earthlink.net composed:
> ...
> >> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?
>
> > But will there be different results with apt upgrade than with apt-get?
Fungi4All composed on 2017-07-19 15:18 (UTC-0400):
>> mrma...@earthlink.net composed:
...
>> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?
> But will there be different results with apt upgrade than with apt-get?
Will: I have no idea.
Can:Yes.
Apt and apt-get are not identica
On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 15:18:20 -0400, Fungi4All wrote:
> > From: mrma...@earthlink.net
> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> > Patrick Bartek composed on 2017-07-19 10:29 (UTC-0700):
> >> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install apps,
> >> etc., but get no security or str
> From: mrma...@earthlink.net
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Patrick Bartek composed on 2017-07-19 10:29 (UTC-0700):
>> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install apps,
>> etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I find
>> this unusual. Did a mail list
On 19-07-17, Felix Miata wrote:
> Patrick Bartek composed on 2017-07-19 10:29 (UTC-0700):
>
> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install apps,
> > etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I find
> > this unusual. Did a mail list archive search for this,
Patrick Bartek composed on 2017-07-19 10:29 (UTC-0700):
> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install apps,
> etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I find
> this unusual. Did a mail list archive search for this, but didn't find
> anything specific. Or d
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:29:02AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install apps,
> etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I find
> this unusual. Did a mail list archive search for this, but didn't find
> anything specifi
On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install apps,
> etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I find
> this unusual. Did a mail list archive search for this, but didn't find
> anything specific. Or did I miss the solution
On 2017-06-26, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 09:01:30AM +, Curt wrote:
>> Because of the pedagogical interest of the thing, for those who come
>> after us, for posterity's sake, I wanted the OP to give us a complete
>> description of what occurred, rather than a misleading one
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 09:01:30AM +, Curt wrote:
> Because of the pedagogical interest of the thing, for those who come
> after us, for posterity's sake, I wanted the OP to give us a complete
> description of what occurred, rather than a misleading one (for we are
> left wondering why FF was h
On 2017-06-25, David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 22 Jun 2017 at 19:44:27 (+), Curt wrote:
>> On 2017-06-22, Mike McClain wrote:
>> >
>> > Rather than telling me why FF was held back it just went ahead and
>> > installed it.
>> >
>>
>> Is that the complete description of what you observed? You're
On Thu 22 Jun 2017 at 19:44:27 (+), Curt wrote:
> On 2017-06-22, Mike McClain wrote:
> >
> > Rather than telling me why FF was held back it just went ahead and
> > installed it.
> >
>
> Is that the complete description of what you observed? You're not
> leaving anything out, are you?
>
> --
On 2017-06-22, Mike McClain wrote:
>
> Rather than telling me why FF was held back it just went ahead and
> installed it.
>
Is that the complete description of what you observed? You're not
leaving anything out, are you?
--
"It might be a vision--of a shell, of a wheelbarrow, of a fairy kingdo
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 07:40:59PM -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
> On 06/21/2017 04:56 PM, Mike McClain wrote:
> >Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade iceweasel?
> >
> Have you tried typing "apt-get install firefox-esr"? It should tell
> you why it's held back.
Duh, I'm an id
On 2017-06-21, Carl Fink wrote:
> On 06/21/2017 04:56 PM, Mike McClain wrote:
>> When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
>> The following packages have been kept back:
>>firefox-esr
>> and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
>> Can someone point me at where to look to
Mike McClain wrote:
> When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
> The following packages have been kept back:
> firefox-esr
> and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
> Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade
> iceweasel? Thanks,
> Mike
> --
> As An
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Mike McClain wrote:
When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
The following packages have been kept back:
firefox-esr
and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade
iceweasel?
% man apt-get
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:56:45 -0700 Mike McClain
wrote:
> When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
> The following packages have been kept back:
> firefox-esr
> and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
> Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade
> ic
On 06/21/2017 04:56 PM, Mike McClain wrote:
When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
The following packages have been kept back:
firefox-esr
and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade iceweasel?
Have you tri
Ok, I figured it out: lines containing md5sums of index files must start
with a blank character.
Stefano
Yes that totally makes sense, I was actually reading the man page but I did not
understand what was the big difference in my case with the OpenJDK packages. I
only saw that it had to install an additional and new package, maybe that made
it classify more for a dist-upgrade. Because else it was
Hi,
as the manpage of apt-get tells:
[...]
upgrade
upgrade is used to install the newest versions of all packages
currently installed on the system from the sources enumerated in
/etc/apt/sources.list. Packages currently installed with new
versions available are retrieved an
Hi Patrick
dist-upgrade did it. Now as a general rule is it safe to use a dist-upgrade in
a production environment? I suppose there is a good reason for having upgrade
and dist-upgrade.
Regards
ML
On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:39 AM, Patrick Weiden
wrote:
Hi,
have you tried an "apt-get
Hi,
have you tried an "apt-get dist-upgrade"?
Some packages won't be upgraded by the "apt-get upgrade" operation. Please
try the first and tell us the results. Thanks!
Cheers,
Patrick
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:26 AM, ML mail wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering why an "apt-get upgrade"on my Debi
Bonno Bloksma wrote:
[...]
> But that is funy because the checkrestart command that I issued right after
> found several services that needed restarting. But maybe they did not need a
> restart just for hartbleed?
Correct. The checking of services was done as an exception due to the severity
of t
Hi Rafael,
>> How is it possible that one system will not see the update until last
>> night when I have been running the update cycle each night and all my
>> systems use the same uplink?
>
> >From the log:
>
>> Preparing to replace libssl1.0.0:amd64 1.0.1e-2+deb7u6 (using
>> .../libssl1.0.0_1.
Hi,
Bonno Bloksma wrote:
[...]
> How is it possible that one system will not see the update until last night
> when I have been running the update cycle each night and all my systems use
> the same uplink?
>From the log:
> Preparing to replace libssl1.0.0:amd64 1.0.1e-2+deb7u6 (using
> .../libs
Pol Hallen wrote:
> I can't everytime do updates from main repository because many packages
> of this server are patched.
How did you patch those? Did you rebuild the package with a local
version string and your changes? Or did you simply wack the files on
the disk?
In any case you should defin
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:14:38 +0200
berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
> Le 14.10.2013 22:11, Pol Hallen a écrit :
> > I can't everytime do updates from main repository because many
> > packages
> > of this server are patched.
>
> Using pinning for all of your packages is a solution, but I woul
Le 14.10.2013 22:11, Pol Hallen a écrit :
I can't everytime do updates from main repository because many
packages
of this server are patched.
Using pinning for all of your packages is a solution, but I would not
call it the easiest one.
Why not simply freezing them in aptitude/apt-*/dpkg?
F
When you patch a package locally, I'd recommend updating the package version at
the same time by eg adding or incrementing an epoch (in 1:2.3-4, the epoch is
the 1)
This will mean your local package version will be higher than any package
update to the stable repositories.
Note however it woul
On 10/14/2013 10:11 PM, Pol Hallen wrote:
>> I think the best way to do this is using a normal Debian stable. There
>> are only few updates to stable which add features which means that
>> update is a security update.
>
> Huh?
>
> I use debian 7 stable, but now the upgrade show me 4 security upda
> Debian point-release was issued over the weekend:
Understood!
Thanks Steve :-)
Pol
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/525c51c0.4050...@fuckaround.o
> I think the best way to do this is using a normal Debian stable. There
> are only few updates to stable which add features which means that
>update is a security update.
Huh?
I use debian 7 stable, but now the upgrade show me 4 security updates
and MANY MANY updates from debian mirros (not from
On 10/14/2013 09:43 PM, Pol Hallen wrote:
> Howdy :-)
>
> I've a production server particularly patched. I prefer install only
> security packages but keep others packages to same version.
>
> Should I've some problems if keep only:
>
> deb http://security.debian.org/ stable/updates main contrib
On Wednesday 28 August 2013 19:29:23 Sharon Kimble wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:17:15 -0500
>
> Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> > Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> > > Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> > >> David Goodenough wrote:
[snip]
> > > see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=721130
> >
> > Hugo
>
>
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 22:28:22 +1200
Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 02:34:42PM -0500, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> > Sharon Kimble wrote:
> > >Hugo.
> > >Please adjust you're posting style as it is impossible to read what
> > >you're saying as its indistinguishable from the rest of th
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 02:34:42PM -0500, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> Sharon Kimble wrote:
> >Hugo.
> >Please adjust you're posting style as it is impossible to read what
> >you're saying as its indistinguishable from the rest of the
> >conversation. It just appears that you're signing the email witho
Sharon Kimble wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:17:15 -0500
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
David Goodenough wrote:
I have a sacrificial machine that I keep upto date with sid every
morning. Yesterday and today I get an error:-
Calculating upgrade... Fail
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:17:15 -0500
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> > Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> >> David Goodenough wrote:
> >>> I have a sacrificial machine that I keep upto date with sid every
> >>> >>> morning. Yesterday and today I get an error:-
> >>>
> >>> Calculating upgra
On Wednesday 28 Aug 2013, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> > Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> >> David Goodenough wrote:
> >>> I have a sacrificial machine that I keep upto date with sid every
> >>> morning. Yesterday and today I get an error:-
> >>>
> >>> Calculating upgrade... Failed
>
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
David Goodenough wrote:
I have a sacrificial machine that I keep upto date with sid every
morning. Yesterday and today I get an error:-
Calculating upgrade... Failed
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
libenchant1c2a : Depends: aspel
David Goodenough wrote:
On Wednesday 28 Aug 2013, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
David Goodenough wrote:
I have a sacrificial machine that I keep upto date with sid every
morning. Yesterday and today I get an error:-
Calculating upgrade... Failed
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
libe
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
David Goodenough wrote:
I have a sacrificial machine that I keep upto date with sid every
morning. Yesterday and today I get an error:-
Calculating upgrade... Failed
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
libenchant1c2a : Depends: aspell-en but it is not going
On Wednesday 28 Aug 2013, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> David Goodenough wrote:
> > I have a sacrificial machine that I keep upto date with sid every
> > morning. Yesterday and today I get an error:-
> >
> > Calculating upgrade... Failed
> >
> > The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> > li
David Goodenough wrote:
I have a sacrificial machine that I keep upto date with sid every
morning. Yesterday and today I get an error:-
Calculating upgrade... Failed
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
libenchant1c2a : Depends: aspell-en but it is not going to be installed or
On 02/19/2011 05:45 PM, Stephen Powell wrote:
so I should do a dist-upgrade. But I already did that to get to squeeze.
> I thought I read the release notes& followed along all the way to the
> end. Of course it was midnight when I finished:)
You replied off-list. I assume that was acci
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 15:39:36 -0500 (EST), Paul Cartwright wrote:
> Stephen Powell wrote:
>>
>> That's because you're doing an "upgrade" instead of a "dist-upgrade".
>> With an upgrade, apt is allowed to upgrade packages, but it is not
>> allowed to delete packages or install new ones. Those packag
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:29:39 -0500, Paul Cartwright wrote:
>>> > virtualbox has been purged from my system, but that file: # ls -l
>>> > /var/lib/dpkg/available
>>> > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 25094284 Feb 19 08:00
>>> > /var/lib/dpkg/available
>>> >
>>> > is rather large...
>>>
>> Try r
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:29:39 -0500 (EST), Paul Cartwright wrote:
> that did it!! no more error!!!
> the only other question I have is, why are all these packages being held
> back??
> # apt-get upgrade
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
>
> virtualbox has been purged from my system, but that file: # ls -l
> /var/lib/dpkg/available
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 25094284 Feb 19 08:00 /var/lib/dpkg/available
>
> is rather large...
Try running "dpkg --clear-avail".
that did it!! no more error!!!
the only other question
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:05:56 -0500, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> ever since my upgrade to squeeze I am getting errors like this ( more of
> them):
>
> warning, in file '/var/lib/dpkg/available' near line 514018 package
> 'virtualbox-2.2':
> error in Version string '2.2.4-47978_Debian_lenny': invali
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:57, Keshwarsingh Nadan wrote:
> "Lets assume you want to install iceweasel version whatever from
> experimental or backports"
>
> If we wanted to install a testing version of a program (for example), we
> would have to override the choices we make when we use apt-get, e.
Hi,
"Lets assume you want to install iceweasel version whatever from
experimental or backports"
apt-cache policy iceweasel
If we wanted to install a testing version of a program (for example), we
would have to override the choices we make when we use apt-get, e.g. apt-get
install [packagename]
Hi debian-user :)
> What is David Kalnischkies telling me here?
"He" tries to tell you that apt-get will try a minimal release override
for you according to the dependencies in the request.
Lets assume you want to install iceweasel version whatever from experimental
or backports. This includes n
On 2011-02-13 05:08 +0100, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> In <8roudpfga...@mid.individual.net>, Charles Kroeger wrote:
>>apt (0.8.11) unstable; urgency=low
>>
>> * apt-get install pkg/experimental will now not only switch the
>>candidate of package pkg to the version from the release
>>e
In <8roudpfga...@mid.individual.net>, Charles Kroeger wrote:
>apt (0.8.11) unstable; urgency=low
>
> * apt-get install pkg/experimental will now not only switch the
>candidate of package pkg to the version from the release
>experimental but also of all dependencies of pkg if the current
>
Recently I've got a problem on a server... after editing menu.lst the
machine boots, but running an apt-get upgrade that got a new kernel image, i
lost all my edition... '/' was at /dev/sda2, but the upgrade changed it to
/dev/sda1, which is the swap partition. Upgrading to grub2 correct this
issue
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:27:12 -0500, Leonardo Ruoso wrote:
> I've tried a lot of grub-pc, grub-install, grub-probe and finally upgraded
> to 2.0.36... After all it worked Thanks
I'm glad you finally got it working! I have nothing personal against any
grub2 developers who may listening, but I'm
>On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Leonardo Ruoso
>wrote:
> >I've tried a lot of grub-pc, grub-install, grub-probe and finally upgraded
> to 2.0.36... After all it worked Thanks
>
It's a lot more work and headache than editing menu.lst, ain't it? :(
I've tried a lot of grub-pc, grub-install, grub-probe and finally upgraded
to 2.0.36... After all it worked Thanks
Atenciosamente,
Leonardo Ruoso (CE1921JP)
leona...@oktiva.com.br - (85) 8787-0312
Marketing, Comunicação Social e Tecnologia
Sent from Fortaleza, CE, Brasil
2010/1/26 Gerald
Hi guys,
i would try
apt-get -f install
maybe there is something broken on the way...
See ya,
Geraldo
Sapere Aude => Non dvcor, dvco
São Paulo, Brasil, -3gmt
site: http://exdev.sf.net/
msn: geraldo_b...@hotmail.com
skype: geraldo-netto
icq: 145-061-456
2010/1/26 Thierry Chatelet :
> On Tues
On Tuesday 26 January 2010 17:13:27 Leonardo Ruoso wrote:
> leona...@yuri:~$ df -h
> Sist. Arq.Tam Usad Disp Uso% Montado em
> /dev/sda1 144G 72G 66G 53% /
> tmpfs 505M 0 505M 0% /lib/init/rw
> udev 10M 216K 9,8M 3% /dev
>
leona...@yuri:~$ df -h
Sist. Arq.Tam Usad Disp Uso% Montado em
/dev/sda1 144G 72G 66G 53% /
tmpfs 505M 0 505M 0% /lib/init/rw
udev 10M 216K 9,8M 3% /dev
tmpfs 505M 156K 505M 1% /dev/shm
10.0.0.155:/home
leona...@yuri:~$ df -h
Sist. Arq.Tam Usad Disp Uso% Montado em
/dev/sda1 144G 72G 66G 53% /
tmpfs 505M 0 505M 0% /lib/init/rw
udev 10M 216K 9,8M 3% /dev
tmpfs 505M 156K 505M 1% /dev/shm
10.0.0.155:/home
1 - 100 of 370 matches
Mail list logo
