orce GTX 750. When running
> Bookworm kernel 6.1.0-31-amd64 all monitor work as expected. After
> switching to Sid kernel 6.12.16-amd64 HDMI-2 status is disconnected and
> one of the monitors is blank.
I have a GK107 with a different but likely related problem, and with identical
timing:
On 4/3/24 21:39, Greg wrote:
Hi there,
I have two HP Z30i connected to Nvidia GeForce GTX 670. After last
upgrade I'm able to use only one monitor.
When running linux-image-6.7.9:
# dmesg | grep nouveau | cut -b 16-
nouveau :01:00.0: vgaarb: deactivate vga console
nouveau :01
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 14:51:17 +
Joe wrote:
>
> > On 2/6/25 8:20 AM, Charles Curley wrote:
> > >
> > > And for those who are wondering, this is going on in trixie.
[...]
> The quick fix in sources.list for debian is to add signed-by into
> existing lines after deb or deb-src:
>
> deb \
> [
On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 08:53:49AM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 10:42:27 -0500
Michael Stone wrote:
>...except that, per the rest of the discussion in that bug, it almost
>certainly won't be able to predict which signer to apply for each
>sources.list entry. That you'll prob
Also, there is https://wiki.debian.org/SourcesList .
Regards,
Jörg.
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 08:27:54AM -0500, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Charles Curley wrote:
> > Another option would be to retain all comments, and let the user
> > manually convert commented out entries. Simple, easy to do, and only a
> > little obnoxious for the user.
> >
> > And for those who are
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 08:53:49 -0700
Charles Curley wrote:
> However, it is not in the man page for apt or apt-get.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1094784
--
Does anybody read signatures any more?
https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:30:02 +
Joe wrote:
> Why in the world bother making your own scripts when you can just do
>
> # apt modernize-sources
> The following files need modernizing:
> - /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome-beta.list
> - /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-earth-pro.list
> -
Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 01:51:49AM -0500, songbird wrote:
>> when doing the upgrade you do have the option of doing
>> a test run to see what changes are made or not making the
>> changes at that time.
>>
>> when goi
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 10:42:27 -0500
Michael Stone wrote:
> >...except that, per the rest of the discussion in that bug, it almost
> >certainly won't be able to predict which signer to apply for each
> >sources.list entry. That you'll probably have to add on your own.
>
> It even tells you that!
On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 10:22:17AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
I haven't seen this hit yet (though I probably will next time I
dist-upgrade against testing), but a comment in bug #1094263 leads me to
suspect that there is now supposed to be an 'apt modernize-sources'
sub-command, w
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 08:09:37 -0700
Charles Curley wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 14:51:17 +
> Joe wrote:
>
> > The long-term fix is a file standard.sources root:root 644 in
> > /etc/sources.list.d containing:
>
> Is there anything that tells one how to make this conversion? Better
> yet, a s
gt; yet, a script or two to do it for us? There will be a lot of people
> scrambling to convert at the last minute.
I haven't seen this hit yet (though I probably will next time I
dist-upgrade against testing), but a comment in bug #1094263 leads me to
suspect that there is now supposed t
On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 08:09:37AM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
Is there anything that tells one how to make this conversion? Better
yet, a script or two to do it for us? There will be a lot of people
scrambling to convert at the last minute.
Yes, current version prompts on what to do.
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 14:51:17 +
Joe wrote:
> The long-term fix is a file standard.sources root:root 644 in
> /etc/sources.list.d containing:
Is there anything that tells one how to make this conversion? Better
yet, a script or two to do it for us? There will be a lot of people
scrambling to co
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 08:54:28 -0500
Frank McCormick wrote:
> On 2/6/25 8:20 AM, Charles Curley wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 07:53:07 +
> > Andy Smith wrote:
> >
> >> Having said that, I am not sure how the complaint could be
> >> addressed since from what I understand you are basically ask
On Feb 06, 2025, Frank McCormick wrote:
>
>
> On 2/6/25 8:20 AM, Charles Curley wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 07:53:07 +
> > Andy Smith wrote:
> >
> > > Having said that, I am not sure how the complaint could be addressed
> > > since from what I understand you are basically asking for other
On 2/6/25 8:20 AM, Charles Curley wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 07:53:07 +
Andy Smith wrote:
Having said that, I am not sure how the complaint could be addressed
since from what I understand you are basically asking for otherwise
valid but commented-out sources.list lines to be converted in
Charles Curley wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 07:53:07 +
> Andy Smith wrote:
>
> > Having said that, I am not sure how the complaint could be addressed
> > since from what I understand you are basically asking for otherwise
> > valid but commented-out sources.list lines to be converted into
> >
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 07:53:07 +
Andy Smith wrote:
> Having said that, I am not sure how the complaint could be addressed
> since from what I understand you are basically asking for otherwise
> valid but commented-out sources.list lines to be converted into
> inactive deb822 files, which seems l
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 01:51:49AM -0500, songbird wrote:
> when doing the upgrade you do have the option of doing
> a test run to see what changes are made or not making the
> changes at that time.
>
> when going through this process the comments in
> sources.list
when doing the upgrade you do have the option of doing
a test run to see what changes are made or not making the
changes at that time.
when going through this process the comments in
sources.list were discarded.
i don't know about other people or what they put in
sources.list,
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Wed Jan 29, 2025 at 10:52 AM GMT, songbird wrote:
>> Setting up openjdk-17-jre-headless:amd64 (17.0.14+7-1) ...
>> update-binfmts: warning: current package is openjdk-21, but binary format
>> already installed by openjdk-9
>
> What do you have in /usr/share/binfmts ?
On Wed Jan 29, 2025 at 10:52 AM GMT, songbird wrote:
Setting up openjdk-17-jre-headless:amd64 (17.0.14+7-1) ...
update-binfmts: warning: current package is openjdk-21, but binary format
already installed by openjdk-9
What do you have in /usr/share/binfmts ?
--
Please do not CC me for listmail
Cindy Sue Causey wrote:
...
> In my case these days, I have two things I would do to take a poke at
> this in hopes something obvious presents itself:
>
> $ apt-cache policy openjdk-9
>
> I might even try the much busier "apt-cache policy openjdk-*" to see if
> anything else is lingering. My setup
On 29/01/2025 17:52, songbird wrote:
update-binfmts: warning: current package is openjdk-21, but binary format
already installed by openjdk-9
Likely it is related to running of .jar files without explicit java
command. In a similar way wine may install a handler for .exe files in
addition to
's rationale on auto vs
manual gets iffy there (for me) because an "apt-get install" of the
kernel is marked as auto.
Litmus test was to run "apt-mark showmanual gimp" which shows as a
manual install when gimp's manually installed the same way as my first
kernels' &
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 05:52:34 -0500
songbird wrote:
Hello songbird,
>warning: current package is openjdk-21, but binary format already
>installed by openjdk-9
I've seen similar messages. Certainly about openjdk, maybe others, I
can't recall. As everything seems to be working as expected, I don
during this morning's update run:
Setting up openjdk-17-jre-headless:amd64 (17.0.14+7-1) ...
update-binfmts: warning: current package is openjdk-21, but binary format
already installed by openjdk-9
? what does this mean to you?
songbird
On 1/23/25 00:14, didier gaumet wrote:
Le 22/01/2025 à 23:41, Marco Möller a écrit :
On 1/22/25 23:23, didier gaumet wrote:
Debian provides realtime kernels in its repositories. For an AMD64 PC
and Debian 12 Bookworm (without backports), the last LTS realtime
kernel package is:
linux-image-6.
Le 22/01/2025 à 23:41, Marco Möller a écrit :
On 1/22/25 23:23, didier gaumet wrote:
Debian provides realtime kernels in its repositories. For an AMD64 PC
and Debian 12 Bookworm (without backports), the last LTS realtime
kernel package is:
linux-image-6.1.0-29-rt-amd64
Do I understand correc
On 1/22/25 23:12, Michael Stone wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 11:07:57PM +0100, Marco Möller wrote:
You mean, linux-image-amd64 in bookworm-backports, which currently
draws in linux-image-6.12.9+bpo-amd64 (= 6.12.9-1~bpo12+1), can be
expected to NOT draw in some 6.13 like 6.13~rc7+1~exp1 curr
On 1/22/25 23:23, didier gaumet wrote:
Debian provides
realtime kernels in its repositories. For an AMD64 PC and Debian 12
Bookworm (without backports), the last LTS realtime kernel package is:
linux-image-6.1.0-29-rt-amd64
Do I understand correctly, that the rt-kernels like the one you
ment
Le 22/01/2025 à 23:23, didier gaumet a écrit :
[...)
DAW usage and I don not think he was not using backports)
[...)
I did not take time to read myself before posting, sorry:
"I do not think he was using backports"
is more correct ;-)
Le 22/01/2025 à 21:48, Marco Möller a écrit :
On 1/22/25 01:12, Greg Wooledge wrote:
It's not yet clear to me whether you're trying to use a backported
kernel because
you *need* it, or because it has a higher number and you think higher
numbers are better.
I would like to optimize my laptop f
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 11:07:57PM +0100, Marco Möller wrote:
You mean, linux-image-amd64 in bookworm-backports, which currently
draws in linux-image-6.12.9+bpo-amd64 (= 6.12.9-1~bpo12+1), can be
expected to NOT draw in some 6.13 like 6.13~rc7+1~exp1 currently
already having appeared in the ex
On 1/22/25 22:32, Michael Stone wrote:
I think the problem here is a misunderstanding of how backports work:
they're not "the latest kernel", they're "the latest kernel from debian
testing". You're not going to see a kernel in backports that's not going
to be in trixie until after the trixie re
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 09:48:24PM +0100, Marco Möller wrote:
Well, I thought that some easy receipt would pop up as an answer to my
question on how to achieve such automatic upgrades. As this did not
happen I conclude that the wished procedure is not so common and not
readily worked out by now
ically receive all future 6.12
backport versions the same as Trixie, when stable, would also care for it.
I would have as up-to-date as possible kernel 6.12 in my Bookworm for my
audio optimizations, and I would stay in a good position to later on
upgrade to Trixie.
If Debian insiders wo
>
> I want to install the currently highest version of kernel 6.12 from
> bookworm-backports to my Bookworm. Upon some "apt update && apt upgrade" I
> want this kernel to become upgraded whenever in backports becomes available
> a higher version of kernel 6.12, like having
On 22/01/2025 03:17, Marco Möller wrote:
Could you please share with me, or point me to, a howto or receipt for
applying all upgrades to future kernel 6.12.x versions to appear in
Bookworm Backports when doing "apt update && apt upgrade", but to not
leave the 6.12 (upstream L
re created by hand, whenever
someone feels like doing so. When you install one, you are cherry-picking
it from the available set, manually.
The backported kernel that you install will not necessarily receive any
security updates, or bug fixes, or anything.
> Upon some "apt update &&
some "apt update && apt upgrade"
I want this kernel to become upgraded whenever in backports becomes
available a higher version of kernel 6.12, like having 6.12.9 and
getting 6.12.10. But I do not want this upgrade to step up to the 6.13
versions.
For comfortably running
Marco,
I apologise, but I do not understand what it is you want to achieve or what it
is that you are asking.
Can you please give more explanation?
You said: "not leave the 6.12 (upstream LTS) branch and not upgrade to some
higher kernel version like 6.13 when they would also become avai
t;apt update && apt upgrade", but to not leave the 6.12
(upstream LTS) branch and not upgrade to some higher kernel version like
6.13 when they would also become available in backports?
Thanks a lot in advance! Talby.
Hi
It is very likely that Debian will stick with 6.12 thougho
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 09:17:52PM +0100, Marco Möller wrote:
> Hello community!
> Could you please share with me, or point me to, a howto or receipt for
> applying all upgrades to future kernel 6.12.x versions to appear in Bookworm
> Backports when doing "apt update &&
Hello community!
Could you please share with me, or point me to, a howto or receipt for
applying all upgrades to future kernel 6.12.x versions to appear in
Bookworm Backports when doing "apt update && apt upgrade", but to not
leave the 6.12 (upstream LTS) branch and not upgr
On Thu, 2024-12-26 at 13:52 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Thomas Anderson writes:
> > Almost all the applications I use are non-debian (postfix, dovecot,
> > apache, mysql, etc..)
>
> Why? All of those are in Debian. If you were using the Debian packages
> upgrading would be easy.
To nitpick, I do
(bookworm)"
suggests
apt list '?narrow(?installed, ?not(?origin(Debian)))'
to be sure. In addition you may review for 3rd party repositories output of
apt policy
You may try to replicate your setup in a VM and to upgrade it at first.
Thomas Anderson writes:
> Almost all the applications I use are non-debian (postfix, dovecot,
> apache, mysql, etc..)
Why? All of those are in Debian. If you were using the Debian packages
upgrading would be easy.
--
John Hasler
j...@sugarbit.com
Elmwood, WI USA
erson wrote:
I have been delayed with upgrading my debian distro, and want to upgrade to
12. According to the documentation, I should remove all non-debian
applications first, before upgrading. Almost all the applications I use are
non-debian (postfix, dovecot, apache, mysql, etc..), so it almost
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 26, 2024 at 07:39:23PM +0100, Thomas Anderson wrote:
> I have been delayed with upgrading my debian distro, and want to upgrade to
> 12. According to the documentation, I should remove all non-debian
> applications first, before upgrading. Almost all the applications
Hello Debian-users,
I have been delayed with upgrading my debian distro, and want to upgrade
to 12. According to the documentation, I should remove all non-debian
applications first, before upgrading. Almost all the applications I use
are non-debian (postfix, dovecot, apache, mysql, etc
.
Confident in my skills? Yeah, I'd say so. Though there's a whole
lot of stuff I'd rather not have to bother with to get things functional ...
I'd much rather let the software set all of this up.
.... I need to upgrade, anyhow. Having gone through the whole upgrade of
Debian on
nfident in my skills? Yeah, I'd say so. Though there's a whole
> > lot of stuff I'd rather not have to bother with to get things functional ...
> > I'd much rather let the software set all of this up.
> >
> > I need to upgrade, anyhow. Having g
bother with to get things functional ...
I'd much rather let the software set all of this up.
.... I need to upgrade, anyhow. Having gone through the whole upgrade of
Debian once on this box, I'd rather not go through that again multiple times,
so I'm going to just install 12.so
would say then 'replacing') of such cases?
User can be alerted more easily during apt upgrade that some packages with a
same version could be replaced by the Debian archive ones.
apt list --replaceable
apt upgrade --no-replaceable
:-)
Note that it could be replacement from configured alt
On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 12:04:42PM +, Tim Woodall wrote:
> That's what I do too.
>
> +~tjw12r1
> if I've patched the current version.
> ~tjw12r1 if I've backported a higher version.
>
> I scan for newer versions in debian and auto-rebase my changes (unless
> the rebase fails) so I'm rarely mo
packages for testing
at the same version as in the archive, I am surprised that apt upgrade
will reinstall any of those installed by the one from the archive. I
did not remember such a "feature" in the past, unless my memory plays
tricks on me:-).
I think you should change the package version
Patrice Duroux writes:
> But could it be the a nice feature for apt to have a list apart on the
> upgrading
> (I would say then 'replacing') of such cases?
> User can be alerted more easily during apt upgrade that some packages with a
> same version could be replaced b
ent<br/>Video Demonstration
(*click the video above to see the conce
On Mon 18 Nov 2024 at 14:10:00 (+0100), Klaus Singvogel wrote:
>
> Yesterday I upgraded my Debian Bookworm on my Thinkpad T14 Gen4 laptop.
>
> After rebooting I lost my wifi.
>
> dmesg reported that the iwlwifi module failed with ucode (-2).
> I finally fixed it by installing the iwlwifi-firmwar
On 2024-11-18, Klaus Singvogel wrote:
> I finally fixed it by installing the iwlwifi-firmware package from
> bookworm-backports:
> apt install -t bookworm-backports iwlwifi-firmware
You mean
apt install -t bookworm-backports firmware-iwlwifi
Hello,
Yesterday I upgraded my Debian Bookworm on my Thinkpad T14 Gen4 laptop.
After rebooting I lost my wifi.
dmesg reported that the iwlwifi module failed with ucode (-2).
I finally fixed it by installing the iwlwifi-firmware package from
bookworm-backports:
apt install -t bookworm-ba
e feature for apt to have a list apart on the
> upgrading
> (I would say then 'replacing') of such cases?
> User can be alerted more easily during apt upgrade that some packages with a
> same version could be replaced by the Debian archive ones.
> apt list --replaceable
>
27;) of such cases?
User can be alerted more easily during apt upgrade that some packages with a
same version could be replaced by the Debian archive ones.
apt list --replaceable
apt upgrade --no-replaceable
:-)
Note that it could be replacement from configured alternative source archives.
Regards,
Patrice
r testing
> > > at the same version as in the archive, I am surprised that apt upgrade
> > > will reinstall any of those installed by the one from the archive. I
> > > did not remember such a "feature" in the past, unless my memory plays
> > > tricks on me
On Sat 16 Nov 2024 at 15:54:17 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 03:11:37PM +0100, Patrice Duroux wrote:
> >
> > On Sid, building and installing locally modified packages for testing
> > at the same version as in the archive, I am surprised that
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 03:11:37PM +0100, Patrice Duroux wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sid, building and installing locally modified packages for testing
> at the same version as in the archive, I am surprised that apt upgrade
> will reinstall any of those installed by the one from the archi
Hi,
On Sid, building and installing locally modified packages for testing
at the same version as in the archive, I am surprised that apt upgrade
will reinstall any of those installed by the one from the archive. I
did not remember such a "feature" in the past, unless my memory plays
tr
On 31.10.2024 08:50, William Torrez Corea wrote:
My system was Windows, I am using Debian 6.1.112-1 (2024-09-30) x86_64
GNU/Linux but my BIOS is out-of-date; i have the BIOS A07 of the
following date:
*11/14/2013
*
The last BIOS in this system (Dell Inspiron 14R 5437) was:
1. Version: A12,
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 09:36:05AM CET, Sven Hoexter said:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 09:50:54PM -0600, William Torrez Corea wrote:
> > My system was Windows, I am using Debian 6.1.112-1 (2024-09-30) x86_64
> > GNU/Linux but my BIOS is out-of-date; i have the BIOS A07 of the following
> > date:
> >
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 09:50:54PM -0600, William Torrez Corea wrote:
> My system was Windows, I am using Debian 6.1.112-1 (2024-09-30) x86_64
> GNU/Linux but my BIOS is out-of-date; i have the BIOS A07 of the following
> date:
>
>
> *11/14/2013 *
>
> The last BIOS in this system (Dell Inspiron
Le 31/10/2024 à 04:50, William Torrez Corea a écrit :
Dell Inspiron 14R 5437
Hello,
Dell website offers instructions to flash the BIOS without Windows: one
has to make a bootable DOS USBkey:
https://www.dell.com/support/home/en-us/product-support/product/inspiron-14r-5437/drivers
FreeDOS US
Don't, if the one you have does everything you need it to do.
--
John Hasler
j...@sugarbit.com
Elmwood, WI USA
My system was Windows, I am using Debian 6.1.112-1 (2024-09-30) x86_64
GNU/Linux but my BIOS is out-of-date; i have the BIOS A07 of the following
date:
*11/14/2013 *
The last BIOS in this system (Dell Inspiron 14R 5437) was:
1. Version: A12, A12
2. Release date: 27 Sep 201
3. Importanc
On 28/10/2024 22:33, Michael Kjörling wrote:
$ sudo grep -rvh '^#' /etc/apt/sources.list* | grep -v '^$'
$ apt policy
gives apt point of view, including pinning, and so it is more reliable.
I admit it is more verbose.
My impression is that variant of command with no package (to get
overvie
Michael Kjörling wrote:
> On 28 Oct 2024 14:36 +, from c...@isbd.net (Chris Green):
> > I recently did an 'apt update' and 'apt upgrade' on my bookworm system.
> >
> > In the 'apt upgrade' output there is the following:-
> >
> >
On 28 Oct 2024 14:36 +, from c...@isbd.net (Chris Green):
> I recently did an 'apt update' and 'apt upgrade' on my bookworm system.
>
> In the 'apt upgrade' output there is the following:-
>
> Setting up python (3.12.7-1) ...
Please do
Hello Chris,
Am Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 02:36:55PM + schrieb Chris Green:
> I recently did an 'apt update' and 'apt upgrade' on my bookworm system.
>
> In the 'apt upgrade' output there is the following:-
>
> Setting up python (3.12.7-1) ...
>
I recently did an 'apt update' and 'apt upgrade' on my bookworm system.
In the 'apt upgrade' output there is the following:-
Setting up python (3.12.7-1) ...
NOTE: The system python package has been updated to 3.12.
NOTE: Run 'pkg upgrade' to
OK, It will be some simple thing. I have the original install backed up
somewhere so will compare the configurations.
I found out what "source" does.
Thanks to Karl also for the Mutt, msmtp tips.
cheers
mick
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 13:08, Michel Verdier wrote:
> On 2024-10-24, aces and eights wro
On 2024-10-24, aces and eights wrote:
> ~$ systemctl status apache2.service
[...]
Your config is ok.
>> > $ apache2 -V
I miss this point: you should use apachectl -V or apache2ctl -V if you
want to look at your running apache with all default values set
On 2024-10-23, aces and eights wrote:
> $ apache2 -V
> [Wed Oct 23 08:57:39.760030 2024] [core:warn] [pid 4112:tid 4112] AH00111:
> Config variable ${APACHE_RUN_DIR} is not defined
> apache2: Syntax error on line 80 of /etc/apache2/apache2.conf:
> DefaultRuntimeDir must be a valid directory, absol
On Thu 24 Oct 2024 at 08:35:32 (-0400), aces and eights wrote:
> I would like to get roundcube back working as Mutt although being ever so
> quick seems to have quite a lot of daunting options and not brave enough
> to try to send with.
It's not that bad. For this message, I pressed 'r' for rep
Actually the english version of "man apt-get" in the case of "upgrade"
writes the following:
upgrade
upgrade is used to install the newest versions of all
packages currently installed on the system from the sources enumerated
in /etc/apt/sources.list
s". However, passing a package name to
> "apt-get upgrade" results in the argument being ignored and all packages
> upgraded.
>
> Is there some reason that this is the case? Is it a bug that has
> always existed and never fixed?
I can't provoke this bug, so w
Hello,
I've run into this a few times over the years and it can be a headache to
resolve.
Passing a package name to "apt-get update" results in the response "E: The
update command takes no arguments". However, passing a package name to
"apt-get upgrade" result
;. However, passing a package name to
> "apt-get upgrade" results in the argument being ignored and all packages
> upgraded.
> Is there some reason that this is the case? Is it a bug that has
> always existed and never fixed?
It's not like dnf or zypper or urpmi. If you w
Hello Daniel,
# man apt-get
(german translation) doesn't tell anything else. apt-get upgrade
upgrades ALL installed packages.
Kind regards
Frank
Daniel Roberts:
Hello,
I've run into this a few times over the years and it can be a headache
to resolve.
Passing a package name t
I would like to get roundcube back working as Mutt although being ever so
quick seems to have quite a lot of daunting options and not brave enough to
try to send with.
~$ systemctl status apache2.service
● apache2.service - The Apache HTTP Server
Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/apache2.se
this email may go anywhere.
After putting it off for ages I upgraded the PC that does Dovecot,
Roundcube and some other things from Buster to Bookworm.
There seems to be an error with apache2.
The apache2 index file I made as a page of links to things on the server.
Likely you are not supposed to d
Arbol One wrote:
> I'd like to upgrade from JDK-17 to JDK-21.
> Since I am new to, well, Linux in general, I'd like to know from anyone
> who'd done this upgrade if this would be OK under Debian 12 (No
> free-firmwarepackages please).
> Any advice would be much ap
I'd like to upgrade from JDK-17 to JDK-21.
Since I am new to, well, Linux in general, I'd like to know from anyone
who'd done this upgrade if this would be OK under Debian 12 (No
free-firmwarepackages please).
Any advice would be much appreciated.
--
*/ArbolOne ™/*
Usi
See also
Debian Reference
Chapter 2. Debian package management
2.2.1. apt vs. apt-get / apt-cache vs. aptitude
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html#_literal_apt_literal_vs_literal_apt_get_literal_literal_apt_cache_literal_vs_literal_aptitude_literal
Regards,
J
On Tue 27 Aug 2024 at 20:32:04 (+0100), Joe wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 21:03:02 +0200 Hans wrote:
> > First, we have the oldest, whcih is apt-get.
> > apt-get update, apt-get upgrade or apt-get full-upgrade does a good
> > job.
> > So, my question is: Which one is
pt-get.
> apt-get update, apt-get upgrade or apt-get full-upgrade does a good job.
>
> However, we also have aptitude, but
> aptitude update, aptitude upgrade and aptitude full-upgrade are doing also a
> good job, but not the same as apt-get does. Also it looks, aptitude update
&g
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 04:25:20AM +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 28/8/24 03:03, Hans wrote:
> > So, my question is: Which one is recommended, when updating and upgrading is
> > used in a script, so that it causes as little as possible pain?
[…]
> apt update &&
On 28/8/24 03:03, Hans wrote:
Dear list,
over the many years we got different tools for upgrading debian in the
commandline. These tools behave differently and also we get different results,
when eecuting.
First, we have the oldest, whcih is apt-get.
apt-get update, apt-get upgrade or apt-get
ses/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#minimal-upgrade
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#upgrading-full
`apt` is named as the primary tool and the example command lines use
it; `apt-get` is mentioned in a couple of corresponding no
1 - 100 of 6706 matches
Mail list logo
