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
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.�
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.�
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 G
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.
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
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-user@lists.gentoo.org
>
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
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
>
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
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
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
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
> >>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
37 matches
Mail list logo
