I use KDE and Gnome (or GKT) based programs (under cinnamon).
If I install both 'yelp' and 'khelpcenter' (under sid) and call
the "Help" (or F1),
always the khelpcenter is used both for Gnome or GTK programs and
for KDE programs.
That's not nice, because the kdehelpcenter shows "Documentati
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
>
> I was a little surprised to find that I needed to quote my variable
> definitions in /etc/default, at least for nfs-kernel-server.
> RPCMOUNTDOPTS="--manage-gids --no-nfs-version 4"
> works, but
> RPCMOUNTDOPTS=--manage-gids --no-nfs-version 4
Hi
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 02:51:17PM -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> I was a little surprised to find that I needed to quote my variable
> definitions in /etc/default, at least for nfs-kernel-server.
> RPCMOUNTDOPTS="--manage-gids --no-nfs-version 4"
> works, but
> RPCMOUNTDOPTS=--manage-gids --no-nf
I was a little surprised to find that I needed to quote my variable
definitions in /etc/default, at least for nfs-kernel-server.
RPCMOUNTDOPTS="--manage-gids --no-nfs-version 4"
works, but
RPCMOUNTDOPTS=--manage-gids --no-nfs-version 4
produces
# /etc/init.d/nfs-kernel-server restart
/etc/default/n
On Mi, 06 apr 11, 15:58:05, Aaron Toponce wrote:
>
> 'apt-get upgrade' is synonymous with 'aptitude full-upgrade'.
No, it's not. In fact, 'aptitude safe-upgrade' will install new
packages, while 'apt-get upgrade' will not ;)
> Either way, not to be a dick and suggest you RTFM, but you really
On Thursday 07 April 2011 16:38:42 David Jardine wrote:
> Nobody's challenged this yet, so perhaps I'm mistaken in thinking that
> aptitude's safe-upgrade and full-upgrade are equivalent to apt-get's
> upgrade and dist-upgrade respectively. But I still think so. :)
And they say that they are much
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 11:44:30PM +0100, Lisi wrote:
> I know very little about apt-get, but according to Aaron, who
> clearly does know about it, apt-get upgrade is equivalent to aptitude
> full-upgrade.
Nobody's challenged this yet, so perhaps I'm mistaken in thinking that
aptitude's s
t knows that
new versions of packages are available.
Anyway, thanks for the explanation. I thought it would be a straight
forward answer but safe-upgrade, full-upgrade, dist-upgrade and upgrade
and one being the same as the other etc.. is just not working for me. I
shouldn't have inquired. [la
On Tuesday 05 April 2011 23:35:08 Charlie wrote:
> Trying to satisfy a curiosity.
>
> I upgrade my Debian Wheezy system with aptitude and it upgrades all but
> one application file.
>
> Redo: "aptitude update" and it shows that file hangs around for
> several days
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 15:58:05 -0600
Aaron Toponce wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 08:35:08AM +1000, Charlie wrote:
> > I upgrade my Debian Wheezy system with aptitude and it upgrades all
> > but one application file.
> >
> > Redo: "aptitude update" and it shows that file hangs around for
> > sever
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 08:35:08AM +1000, Charlie wrote:
> I upgrade my Debian Wheezy system with aptitude and it upgrades all but
> one application file.
>
> Redo: "aptitude update" and it shows that file hangs around for
> several days and doesn't get upgraded when I do aptitude
> "safe-upgrade"
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 14:50:43 + (UTC)
Camaleón wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 08:35:08 +1000, Charlie wrote:
>
> > Trying to satisfy a curiosity.
> >
> > I upgrade my Debian Wheezy system with aptitude and it upgrades all
> > but one application file.
> >
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 08:35:08 +1000, Charlie wrote:
> Trying to satisfy a curiosity.
>
> I upgrade my Debian Wheezy system with aptitude and it upgrades all but
> one application file.
>
> Redo: "aptitude update" and it shows that file hangs around for several
>
Trying to satisfy a curiosity.
I upgrade my Debian Wheezy system with aptitude and it upgrades all but
one application file.
Redo: "aptitude update" and it shows that file hangs around for
several days and doesn't get upgraded when I do aptitude
"safe-upgrade" after &q
On 9/21/2010 7:27 AM, Curt Howland wrote:
> On Monday 20 September 2010, Arthur Machlas was heard to say:
>> My guess is you need to build the header at least, and perhaps the
>> source. It depends on how you're building the modules I suppose. In
>> any case, you'll have to run either
>> fakeroot m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 20 September 2010, Arthur Machlas was heard to say:
> My guess is you need to build the header at least, and perhaps the
> source. It depends on how you're building the modules I suppose. In
> any case, you'll have to run either
> fakeroot ma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 20 September 2010, Arthur Machlas was heard to say:
> And install the debs. Alternatively, build both just to be safe
> fakeroot make-kpkg --append-to-version -curt1.0 kernel_headers
> kernel_image
Very interesting. Any idea why "building th
Le 20/09/2010 19:25, Curt Howland wrote:
> Hi. Up to date Squeeze, compiling the latest 2.6.36-rc4 kernel.
>
> Last time the problem was compiling the kernel at all, which is
> working just fine now thank you Debian-User.
>
> fakeroot make-kpkg --append-to-version -curt1.0 --initrd kernel_image
>
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:50:12 -0400 (EDT), Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 01:25:45PM -0400, Curt Howland wrote:
>> ==
>> Makefile:170: *** Error: /usr/src/linux (version 2.6.36-rc4) does not
>> match the current kernel (version 2.6.36-rc4-curt1.0). Stop.
>> ==
>>
>>
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:25:45 -0400 (EDT), Curt Howland wrote:
>
> Hi. Up to date Squeeze, compiling the latest 2.6.36-rc4 kernel.
>
> Last time the problem was compiling the kernel at all, which is
> working just fine now thank you Debian-User.
>
> fakeroot make-kpkg --append-to-version -curt1.0
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 01:25:45PM -0400, Curt Howland wrote:
> Last time the problem was compiling the kernel at all, which is
> working just fine now thank you Debian-User.
>
> fakeroot make-kpkg --append-to-version -curt1.0 --initrd kernel_image
>
> creates the .deb file just fine, it installs
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Curt Howland wrote:
> Hi. Up to date Squeeze, compiling the latest 2.6.36-rc4 kernel.
>
> Last time the problem was compiling the kernel at all, which is
> working just fine now thank you Debian-User.
>
> fakeroot make-kpkg --append-to-version -curt1.0 --initrd ke
Hi. Up to date Squeeze, compiling the latest 2.6.36-rc4 kernel.
Last time the problem was compiling the kernel at all, which is
working just fine now thank you Debian-User.
fakeroot make-kpkg --append-to-version -curt1.0 --initrd kernel_image
creates the .deb file just fine, it installs fine, bu
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:47:21PM +0430, Nima Azarbayjany wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The page at http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/ shows 717 open
> bugs against the next release while the page at the following link:
>
> http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php?bydist=squeeze&sortby=packages&ignmer
Hi all,
The page at http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/ shows 717 open bugs
against the next release while the page at the following link:
http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php?bydist=squeeze&sortby=packages&ignmerged=on&ignbritney=on&pseudopackages=on&new=7&refresh=1800
lists only 344 b
Op Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:21:13 +0800 Umarzuki Mochlis wrote:
> --> Warning: Could not modify /etc/ppp/pap-secrets: Permission denied
> --> --> PAP (Password Authentication Protocol) may be flaky.
> --> Warning: Could not modify /etc/ppp/chap-secrets: Permission denied
> --> --> CHAP (Challenge Hands
2009/3/16 Adrian Levi
> 2009/3/16 Umarzuki Mochlis :
> > Frankly, I don't really know how to answer that other than giving you the
> > full dialing message
>
> What was the command you typed to get that message?
> PS I am subscrubed, you don't need to email me, just the list is fine.
>
> Adrian
>
2009/3/16 Umarzuki Mochlis :
> Frankly, I don't really know how to answer that other than giving you the
> full dialing message
What was the command you typed to get that message?
PS I am subscrubed, you don't need to email me, just the list is fine.
Adrian
--
24x7x365 != 24x7x52 Stupid or bad
2009/3/16 Adrian Levi
> [snipped]
> What sent the AT commands to the modem? You or some other program? I
> can't understand how you sending AT commands can initiate a ppp
> session.
>
Frankly, I don't really know how to answer that other than giving you the
full dialing message
--> Sending:
ATZ
2009/3/15 Umarzuki Mochlis :
> --> Sending:
> ATZ
> ATZ
> OK
> --> Sending:
> AT+CGDCONT?
> AT+CGDCONT?
> +CGDCONT:
> 1,"IP","my3g","0.0.0.0",0,0
> OK
> --> Modem
> initialized.
> --> Sending:
> ATDT*99#
> --> Waiting for
> carrier.
> ATDT*99#
> CONNECT
> --> Carrier detected. Starting PPP
> immed
--> Sending:
ATZ
ATZ
OK
--> Sending:
AT+CGDCONT?
AT+CGDCONT?
+CGDCONT:
1,"IP","my3g","0.0.0.0",0,0
OK
--> Modem
initialized.
--> Sending:
ATDT*99#
--> Waiting for
carrier.
ATDT*99#
CONNECT
--> Carrier detected. Starting PPP
immediately.
--> Starting pppd at Sun Mar 15 19:24:44
2009
-->
Moe Binkerman wrote:
A curious thing happened today with apt-get, that I have never seen
before.
I recently upgraded my system from potato to woody, using an official CD
set (7 binary, 7 source). I followed the instructions rigorously, and
am now 99% sure that all is correctly upgraded (but see
What happens if you comment out security.debian.org?
From: Peter Hugosson-Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: apt-get/cdrom curiosity
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:21:53 +0200
A curious thing happened today with apt-get, that I have never seen before.
A curious thing happened today with apt-get, that I have never seen before.
I recently upgraded my system from potato to woody, using an official CD
set (7 binary, 7 source). I followed the instructions rigorously, and am
now 99% sure that all is correctly upgraded (but see
http://lists.debian.o
> "Karsten" == Karsten M Self writes:
Karsten> Digging a bit deeper: advertisers and marketers stole the
Karsten> traditional measures of storage: kilobyte, megabyte,
Karsten> gigabyte, by imposing the interpretation of these as
Karsten> powers of ten, rather than powers of tw
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Of course, my answer _was_ helpful... you'll find that tossing "MiB
> standard" into google will get you the right answer.
Tried it, didn't get useful responses. :o/
--
Baloo
Karsten M. Self wrote:
> Digging a bit deeper: advertisers and marketers stole the traditional
> measures of storage: kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte, by imposing the
> interpretation of these as powers of ten, rather than powers of two.
True, but only the computer industry ever used kilo-, mega-,
on Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 01:41:14PM -0800, Jeffrey W. Baker ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 12:44, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Alan Shutko wrote:
> >
> > > > uhm, what are "MiB"'s?
> > >
> > > One of the more stupid sounding standards to be foisted on the
Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> A MiB is a mibibyte, and a KiB is a kibibyte.
Almost, except for spelling. It's "mebibyte", not "mibibyte". But
"kibibyte" is correct.
> MiB == 2^20 bytes, KiB == 2^10 bytes. By contrast, a MB, or
> megabyte, == 10^6 bytes and a KB, or kilobyte, == 10^3 bytes.
> This m
| > uhm, what are "MiB"'s?
and here I thought they were "Men In Black"
On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 12:44, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Alan Shutko wrote:
>
> > > uhm, what are "MiB"'s?
> >
> > One of the more stupid sounding standards to be foisted on the public.
>
> That's great. How bout a helpful answer?
A MiB is a mibibyte, and a KiB is a kibiby
Paul 'Baloo' Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Alan Shutko wrote:
>
>> > uhm, what are "MiB"'s?
>>
>> One of the more stupid sounding standards to be foisted on the public.
>
> That's great. How bout a helpful answer?
It's the IEC name for 1024x1024 bytes, also known as
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Alan Shutko wrote:
> > uhm, what are "MiB"'s?
>
> One of the more stupid sounding standards to be foisted on the public.
That's great. How bout a helpful answer?
--
Baloo
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 04:17:39PM -0800, martin f krafft wrote:
> seamus:~> /sbin/ifconfig | grep MiB
> RX bytes:614070395 (585.6 MiB) TX bytes:125545699 (119.7 MiB)
> RX bytes:34937878 (33.3 MiB) TX bytes:34937878 (33.3 MiB)
>
> uhm, what are "MiB"'s?
Looking at the source, they'r
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> uhm, what are "MiB"'s?
One of the more stupid sounding standards to be foisted on the public.
--
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors!
Good girls go to heaven, bad girls go everywhere.
seamus:~> /sbin/ifconfig | grep MiB
RX bytes:614070395 (585.6 MiB) TX bytes:125545699 (119.7 MiB)
RX bytes:34937878 (33.3 MiB) TX bytes:34937878 (33.3 MiB)
uhm, what are "MiB"'s?
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> m
> From: "Eric G . Miller"
> > Was it just an odd perception of how the letters l-i-n-u-x would
> > be pronounced?
>
> Well, this poor sap, never having heard the word pronouned, and before
> hearing the Linn-Uhks vs. Lie-nucks debates, came up with the Lie-nucks
> pronunciation based on regula
On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 12:25:30AM -0500, Daniel Barclay wrote:
>
> > From: Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > Well, native English speakers pronounce Linus as Lie-nus (as in
> > Peanuts).. but Linus Torvalds is pronounced Lee-nus, and he says Linux
> > is Lee-nux. If he doesn't know, no
On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 12:25:30AM -0500, Daniel Barclay was only
escaped alone to tell thee:
The Oracle has pondered your question deeply. Your question was:
> Since those would suggest only "LIE-nucks" and "LEE-nucks", I still
> wonder: Where did "LIH-nucks" come from?
See below.
>
> From: Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, native English speakers pronounce Linus as Lie-nus (as in
> Peanuts).. but Linus Torvalds is pronounced Lee-nus, and he says Linux
> is Lee-nux. If he doesn't know, nobody does! So I'm with him.
Since those would suggest only "LIE-nucks" and "
On 28 Feb, Mark Phillips wrote:
>
> I'm using apt-get, which seems to be downloading stuff quite nicely,
> but there is one thing which I am curious about.
>
> On the right side of the downloading status line, it says:
>
> 7h2m21s
>
> which presumably is the amount of time till it finishes
I'm using apt-get, which seems to be downloading stuff quite nicely,
but there is one thing which I am curious about.
On the right side of the downloading status line, it says:
7h2m21s
which presumably is the amount of time till it finishes downloading.
It is happily counting down the secon
creative <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is just a curiosity...
> I have debian 1.3.1.r6
>
> when is going to be a new realise? that is almost 4 months old
> I see lot of programs that need an update...
The new release (on CD) will take a while, to come out.
As far as
This is just a curiosity...
I have debian 1.3.1.r6
when is going to be a new realise? that is almost 4 months old
I see lot of programs that need an update...
Thank you
Joaquin Grech
--
---
! C r e a t i v i t y M u s tS u
54 matches
Mail list logo
