On 18/01/20 17:45, n952162 wrote:
> What protocol doesn't use acknowledgements?
>
Why would an eavesdropper want to acknowledge ANYTHING? Isn't that the
whole point?
Cheers,
Wol
>
> On 2020-01-18 14:50, Wols Lists wrote:
>> On 16/01/20 21:01, james wrote:
>>> On 1/13/20 3:24 AM, n952162 wrote:
>
What protocol doesn't use acknowledgements?
On 2020-01-18 14:50, Wols Lists wrote:
On 16/01/20 21:01, james wrote:
On 1/13/20 3:24 AM, n952162 wrote:
On 2020-01-12 16:48, james wrote:
I also install and re-install, as many of the gentoo systems get
"attacked" before I can� complete a secur
On 16/01/20 21:01, james wrote:
> On 1/13/20 3:24 AM, n952162 wrote:
>> On 2020-01-12 16:48, james wrote:
>>> I also install and re-install, as many of the gentoo systems get
>>> "attacked" before I can� complete a secure install, or the hackers
>>> just read much more than I do.
>>> I guess I'm
On 1/13/20 3:24 AM, n952162 wrote:
On 2020-01-12 16:48, james wrote:
I also install and re-install, as many of the gentoo systems get
"attacked" before I can� complete a secure install, or the hackers
just read much more than I do.
I guess I'm still popular, in very negative way.
Hmmm.� I
On 1/13/20 3:24 AM, n952162 wrote:
On 2020-01-12 16:48, james wrote:
I also install and re-install, as many of the gentoo systems get
"attacked" before I can� complete a secure install, or the hackers
just read much more than I do.
I guess I'm still popular, in very negative way.
Hmmm.� I
In what way is emerge sensitive to reduced bandwidth?
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Januar 2020 um 11:48 Uhr
> Von: "Peter Humphrey"
> An: n952162
> Betreff: Re: Fw: Re: [gentoo-user] .tmp-unverified-download-quarantine
>
> On Thursday, 16 January 2020 07:28:19 GMT y
On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 18:36:23 GMT n952...@web.de wrote:
> I guess you're referring to this:
>
> "The use of emerge-webrsync is recommended for those who are behind
> restrictive firewalls (because it uses HTTP/FTP protocols for downloading
> the snapshot) and saves network bandwidth. Reader
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 15:47:51 +, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > sent 2.71M bytes received 218.79M bytes 56.02K bytes/sec
>
> HOW long?! 56KB/s shows something going badly wrong.
This sounds like it could be a network problem. Have you used
mirrorselect?
> > total size is 208.96M speedup is
when you start having to do things which are nominally not relevant,
because you don't have anything else to lose (but time). That's called
"grasping at straws"
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. Januar 2020 um 16:47 Uhr
> Von: "Peter Humphrey"
> An: gentoo-u
On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 11:07:34 GMT n952162 wrote:
> On 2020-01-14 11:10, Peter Humphrey wrote:
--->8
> >> This is a fresh install from a minimal cd image. I'm starting out with
> >> mkfs. I've tried that 3 times, twice using a stage 3 from 2020/01/08
> >> and once using a stage 3 from 2020/
n952162 wrote:
> On 2020-01-14 11:10, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 09:37:24 GMT n952162 wrote:
>>> On 2020-01-14 09:44, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 09:04:13 +0100, n952162 wrote:
> It sounds to me like the repository is broken - having ownership
> a
On 2020-01-14 11:10, Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 09:37:24 GMT n952162 wrote:
On 2020-01-14 09:44, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 09:04:13 +0100, n952162 wrote:
It sounds to me like the repository is broken - having ownership as root
seems to be slightly more ent
On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 09:37:24 GMT n952162 wrote:
> On 2020-01-14 09:44, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 09:04:13 +0100, n952162 wrote:
> >> It sounds to me like the repository is broken - having ownership as root
> >> seems to be slightly more entropy than portage and could have
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 10:37:24 +0100, n952162 wrote:
> > Have you tried completely removing your portage tree and reinstating
> > it with webrsync?
> I've always used emerge --sync rather than webrsync because I always
> like to use the smallest hammer possible. But if you say I should use
> web
On 2020-01-14 09:44, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 09:04:13 +0100, n952162 wrote:
It sounds to me like the repository is broken - having ownership as root
seems to be slightly more entropy than portage and could have happened
as a unintended consequence of some uncarefully completed
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 09:04:13 +0100, n952162 wrote:
> It sounds to me like the repository is broken - having ownership as root
> seems to be slightly more entropy than portage and could have happened
> as a unintended consequence of some uncarefully completed operation.
If the repository was broke
On 2020-01-14 00:16, Mick wrote:
On Monday, 13 January 2020 22:40:14 GMT Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:15:31 +, Mick wrote:
According to my emerge --info output I have sandbox, usersandbox and
userpriv, all set. The owner of my portage directory and all files
therein is root:
On 2020-01-13 23:42, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 12:37:11 +0100, n952162 wrote:
The portage tree is sync'ed to the portage tree mirrors. A newer fs
snapshot won't include the tree itself, but it will include the new
default fs locations for the portage directory.
Not sure what yo
On Monday, 13 January 2020 22:40:14 GMT Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:15:31 +, Mick wrote:
> > According to my emerge --info output I have sandbox, usersandbox and
> > userpriv, all set. The owner of my portage directory and all files
> > therein is root:root. Should the owner
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 12:37:11 +0100, n952162 wrote:
> >>> The portage tree is sync'ed to the portage tree mirrors. A newer fs
> >>> snapshot won't include the tree itself, but it will include the new
> >>> default fs locations for the portage directory.
> >>
> >> Not sure what you mean ... you m
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:15:31 +, Mick wrote:
> According to my emerge --info output I have sandbox, usersandbox and
> userpriv, all set. The owner of my portage directory and all files
> therein is root:root. Should the ownership be portage:portage? What
> is the default?
As it happens, I s
On 2020-01-13 11:48, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:42:23 +0100, n952162 wrote:
The portage tree is sync'ed to the portage tree mirrors. A newer fs
snapshot won't include the tree itself, but it will include the new
default fs locations for the portage directory.
Not sure what y
On Monday, 13 January 2020 10:42:57 GMT Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:17:06 +, Mick wrote:
> > Right, I haven't changed them on this installation either and emerge
> > FEATURES include
> >
> > '... userfetch userpriv usersandbox usersync'.
> >
> > With 'userpriv' portage is me
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:42:23 +0100, n952162 wrote:
> > The portage tree is sync'ed to the portage tree mirrors. A newer fs
> > snapshot won't include the tree itself, but it will include the new
> > default fs locations for the portage directory.
>
>
> Not sure what you mean ... you mean that
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:17:06 +, Mick wrote:
> Right, I haven't changed them on this installation either and emerge
> FEATURES include
>
> '... userfetch userpriv usersandbox usersync'.
>
> With 'userpriv' portage is meant to drop privileges to the owner of the
> gentoo repo directory, but if
On 2020-01-13 11:17, Mick wrote:
I just noticed that there's a new stag3, from 2020/01/12 instead of
2020/01/08 so - since this is a fresh install - I'm just going to start
from there.
The portage tree is sync'ed to the portage tree mirrors. A newer fs snapshot
won't include the tree itself, b
On Monday, 13 January 2020 08:34:01 GMT n952162 wrote:
> On 2020-01-13 09:22, Mick wrote:
> >>> Same result. But I didn't delete "the whole portage tree". What does
> >>> that mean?
> >>>
> >>> rm -rf /var/db/repos?
> >>
> >> If you're using the new default location, I think it is
> >> /var/db/
Mick wrote:
> On Sunday, 12 January 2020 23:32:16 GMT Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 23:41:43 +0100, n952162 wrote:
I had a similar issue with the .tmp-unverified-download-quarantine
continually appearing, deleting it made no difference. In the end I
deleted the whole po
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 09:34:01 +0100, n952162 wrote:
> >> If you're using the new default location, I think it is
> >> /var/db/repos/gentoo, but someone should confirm that.
> > Yes, the new location for the portage ebuilds is:
> >
> > $ ls -la /var/db/repos/gentoo/.*
> > /var/db/repos/gentoo/.:
On 2020-01-13 09:22, Mick wrote:
Same result. But I didn't delete "the whole portage tree". What does
that mean?
rm -rf /var/db/repos?
If you're using the new default location, I think it is
/var/db/repos/gentoo, but someone should confirm that.
Yes, the new location for the portage ebuild
On 2020-01-12 16:48, james wrote:
I also install and re-install, as many of the gentoo systems get
"attacked" before I can complete a secure install, or the hackers
just read much more than I do.
I guess I'm still popular, in very negative way.
Hmmm. Is that "attacked" to be interpreted in s
On Sunday, 12 January 2020 23:32:16 GMT Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 23:41:43 +0100, n952162 wrote:
> > > I had a similar issue with the .tmp-unverified-download-quarantine
> > > continually appearing, deleting it made no difference. In the end I
> > > deleted the whole portage tree a
On 1/12/20 3:51 PM, n952162 wrote:
While installing gentoo from scratch, after doing a "emerge --sync", the
command:
eselect profile list
fails because it can't get any profiles, and I see that the 17.1 profile
is in a .tmp-unverified-download-quarantine.
1. what do I have to do to get thi
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 23:41:43 +0100, n952162 wrote:
> > I had a similar issue with the .tmp-unverified-download-quarantine
> > continually appearing, deleting it made no difference. In the end I
> > deleted the whole portage tree and resynced, then the problem
> > disappeared. This may or may not h
On 2020-01-12 23:07, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:51:28 +0100, n952162 wrote:
While installing gentoo from scratch, after doing a "emerge --sync", the
command:
eselect profile list
fails because it can't get any profiles, and I see that the 17.1 profile
is in a .tmp-unverified-
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:51:28 +0100, n952162 wrote:
> While installing gentoo from scratch, after doing a "emerge --sync", the
> command:
>
> eselect profile list
>
> fails because it can't get any profiles, and I see that the 17.1 profile
> is in a .tmp-unverified-download-quarantine.
>
> 1. w
While installing gentoo from scratch, after doing a "emerge --sync", the
command:
eselect profile list
fails because it can't get any profiles, and I see that the 17.1 profile
is in a .tmp-unverified-download-quarantine.
1. what do I have to do to get this going again?
2. how did I end up in th
37 matches
Mail list logo
