Re: Anti-malware for my personal Debian workstation?

[Thomas Schmitt]

Hi,

i wrote:
> > To my theory, free virus producers
> > are just much better programmers than those of MS-Windows malware.
> >
> > "When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything
> > at all." - Futurama

l0f...@tuta.io wrote:
> Could you explain that please?

Well, Bender became the world of very tiny beings who in the end fought
a nuclear war over the question whether he is a god or not. This brought
him in contact with the deity who manages the world Bender lives in.
The quoted statement summarizes the work mode of that deity.

I assume that our malware producers adhere to the same work mode and am
thankful for all their bugs which are for free and lots of fun to hunt.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

Re: Anti-malware for my personal Debian workstation?

[Rick Thomas]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, at 5:40 PM, David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 23 Apr 2020 at 23:58:41 (+0200), l0f...@tuta.io wrote:
> 
> > > "When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything
> > > at all." - Futurama
> > >
> > Could you explain that please?
> 
> If you're like me when you go for your flu shot, you offer your arm
> and look the other way. A good nurse will surprise you when they
> unexpectedly say, "All done".

I used to manage a group of system administrators for an academic department at 
a major East-coast University.  We used to say that "The best sysadmin is the 
one whose phone number you don't know."  The intention being that a good 
sysadmin will anticipate the problems and fix them before you, the user, even 
realize the problem is a possibility.  You never have to look up their phone 
number because you don't see any problems.  Being that good is hard work!  You 
have to keep up-to-the-minute-and-beyond on every aspect of anything that might 
affect your users.  Attend technical conferences; participate actively in you 
local professional society chapters; be alert and at your best when you get a 
trouble call at three in the morning, and so on...

Does that help?

Rick

Re: Persistent sshfs mount from inside a Buster virtual machine?

[emetib]

nate, 

to your question. no.
i have a couple of different logins to my vms for some reason that's why i have 
$USER in the bottom of my first reply, so bear with me.

  what i did was to mkdir $whatever on the host machine.
and then on the vm's i made the same dir $whatever, on the vm i then put the 
config file "home-$USER-share.mount", (i just named it '...mount' so that i 
knew what it was.), into /etc/systemd/system/. .
  i then did an sshfs from vm into host from the $USER with the rsa key.  i 
then changed to root and ran an sshfs with the $USER@hostname, it will connect 
if you have your rsa keys set up right. (why i had to do this as root???)
  i then did a reboot on the vm to see if it would startup correctly and mount 
what i wanted it to.
  
  make sure that you change the perms on the file that you are putting into 
/etc/systemd/system/ "644". you might just have to have it 444, read-only, 
depends on the system, just checked mine and they have different perms 
depending on distro.
  pull up and tail journalctl -xe and take a look to see if it's starting 
properly.  if you do a 'systemctl status filename' (what you named the config 
file that you put into /etc/systemd/system/) and it will tell you if it's 
running or not.  if it's not running, do a 'systemctl start filename' and look 
at the journalctl to see what it's saying.
  you can also tail your host's /var/log/auth.log and watch that to see if 
you're logging in or if you are getting ejected on the host.

  biggest things that i learned from messing around with this is-
make sure the $USER is correct in the config file
make sure that the perms are correct. (i would start with 444)
make sure that you have the config file pointing to the proper id_rsa file
run sshfs as both the $USER and then root- sshfs $USER@hostname

i hope that that helped some.
em

Re: Anti-malware for my personal Debian workstation?

[Kenneth Parker]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 8:42 PM David Wright  wrote:

> On Thu 23 Apr 2020 at 23:58:41 (+0200), l0f...@tuta.io wrote:
>
> > > "When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything
> > > at all." - Futurama
> > >
> > Could you explain that please?
>
> If you're like me when you go for your flu shot, you offer your arm
> and look the other way. A good nurse will surprise you when they
> unexpectedly say, "All done".
>

+1

Cheers,
> David.
>

Kenneth Parker

>

KMLCSV Converter error default instalation

[William Torrez Corea]

How i can solve this problem?

An error has occurred. See the log file
/home/lulu/.eclipse/com.choonchernlim.kmlcsv.product_2.2.0_2119858939/configuration/1587689434842.log.


*org.osgi.framework.BundleException: The bundle
"org.eclipse.equinox.common_3.6.0.v20110523 [13]" could not be resolved.
Reason: Missing Constraint: Bundle-RequiredExecutionEnvironment:
CDC-1.1/Foundation-1.1,J2SE-1.4*

-- 

With kindest regards, William.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄

Re: Persistent sshfs mount from inside a Buster virtual machine?

[Nate Bargmann]

I guess I can't make this work as a user.  Here is the status:

$ systemctl --user status home-nate-share.mount 
● home-nate-share.mount - Mount vbox-shr with sshfs
   Loaded: loaded (/home/nate/.config/systemd/user/home-nate-share.mount; 
enabled; vendor preset: enabled)
   Active: failed (Result: exit-code) since Thu 2020-04-23 19:44:41 CDT; 3min 
54s ago
Where: /home/nate/share
 What: nate@10.0.2.2:/home/nate/vbox-shr

Apr 23 19:44:41 buster systemd[414]: Mounting Mount vbox-shr with sshfs...
Apr 23 19:44:41 buster mount[1456]: mount: only root can use "--options" option
Apr 23 19:44:41 buster systemd[414]: home-nate-share.mount: Mount process 
exited, code=exited, status=1/FAILURE
Apr 23 19:44:41 buster systemd[414]: home-nate-share.mount: Failed with result 
'exit-code'.
Apr 23 19:44:41 buster systemd[414]: Failed to mount Mount vbox-shr with sshfs.

and my unit file that is in  ~/.config/systemd/user/home-nate-share.mount

[Unit]
Description=Mount vbox-shr with sshfs

[Install]
WantedBy=default.target

[Mount]
What=nate@10.0.2.2:%h/vbox-shr
Where=%h/share
Type=fuse.sshfs
Options=IdentityFile=%h/.ssh/id_merlin,reconnect,ServerAliveInterval=30,ServerAliveCountMax=5,x-systemd.automount,allow_other,follow_symlinks,_netdev

So I tried the next set of commands:

$ sudo systemctl start home-nate-share.mount 
[sudo] password for nate: 
Failed to start home-nate-share.mount: Unit home-nate-share.mount not found.

and:

$ sudo systemctl --user start home-nate-share.mount 
Failed to connect to bus: No such file or directory

I suppose the next step is to give up on running this mount as a user
command and instead install it as a system-wide unit.  Then I wonder if
the uid and gid will be set properly for user read/write.  Sigh.

- Nate

-- 

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."

Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re:

[Default User]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 18:09 David Christensen 
wrote:

> On 2020-04-22 13:52, Default User wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > A recent thread got me to thinking. So I checked my primary (only
> > installed) ssd:
> >
> > sudo smartctl --test=long /dev/sda
> >
> > which promised to run the tests, but returned to a command prompt,
> > with no further messages.
> > So after the promised test end time I did:
> >
> > sudo smartctl --all /dev/sda
> >
> > which gave this:
>
> > SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED
>
> I pay attention to this item.
>
>
> > General SMART Values:
> > Offline data collection status:  (0x02) Offline data collection activity
> > was completed without error.
>
> > Self-test execution status:  (   0) The previous self-test routine
> completed
> > without error or no self-test has ever
> > been run.
>
> I pay attention to these items.
>
>
> > SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 10
> > Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
> > ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME  FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE
> > UPDATED  WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
> >1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x0032   095   095   050Old_age
> > Always   -   0/5466601
> >5 Retired_Block_Count 0x0033   100   100   003Pre-fail
> > Always   -   0
> >9 Power_On_Hours_and_Msec 0x0032   091   091   000Old_age
> > Always   -   8197h+53m+29.020s
>
> I ignore the "old age" and "pre-fail" notations.
>
>
> > SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
> > Num  Test_DescriptionStatus  Remaining
> > LifeTime(hours)  LBA_of_first_error
> > # 1  Extended offlineCompleted without error   00%  8197
>  -
> > # 2  Short offline   Completed without error   00%  8196
>  -
> > # 3  Short offline   Completed without error   00%  7883
>  -
> > # 4  Short offline   Completed without error   00%  7883
>  -
> > # 5  Short offline   Completed without error   00%  7883
>  -
> > # 6  Extended offlineCompleted without error   00%  7003
>  -
> > # 7  Extended offlineCompleted without error   00%  7002
>  -
> > # 8  Short offline   Completed without error   00%  6999
>  -
>
> I pay attention to these items.
>
>
> > Since, I recall, that ssd drives do tend to fail quickly and without
> > notice, is it time to get a new drive and reinstall from scratch?
>
> I have seen lots of HDD failures and a few USB flash drive failures, but
> no SSD failures (yet).  The USB flash drive failures do tend towards
> all-or-nothing or all-or-very-slow, sometimes accompanied with the smell
> of roasting electronics.
>
>
> > If so, recommendations?
>
> I prefer Intel and Samsung, but any major brand should do.
>
>
> > I think I want to continue to use an ssd, because even though it can
> > fail without warning, this would be in a laptop, and I want to avoid
> > shock damage to a mechanical drive at all costs.
>
> The only HDD's I buy are large capacity 3.5" SATA enterprise HDD's for
> storage and backups.
>
>
> > I an currently running Debian Unstable, on a 5-year-old laptop (Dell
> > Inspiron 3000 series, 8Gb ram, Intel i3 processor, traditional BIOS
> > booting). It has space for only one, 2.5-inch drive.
> >
> > lsblk:
> > NAME   MAJ:MIN RM   SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
> > sda  8:00 111.8G  0 disk
> > ├─sda1   8:1028G  0 part /
> > ├─sda2   8:20 1K  0 part
> > ├─sda5   8:50   7.9G  0 part [SWAP]
> > └─sda6   8:6076G  0 part /home
> > sr0 11:01  1024M  0 rom
> >
> > The 120Gb ssd is "adequate"; root partition is 38% full, and home
> > partition is 45% full.
> > Swap partition is rarely if ever used; not sure i it is really necessary.
>
> A ~10.6 GB root is in the ballpark for a Debian graphical workstation.
>
>
> I put my bulk data on a Samba server.
>
>
> I tried running without swap -- those systems crashed.  Now I do 1-2 GB.
>
>
> > User case is conventional, nothing taxing. No video editing, gaming, etc.
> >
> > And yes, I do back up, home partition only, using rsync to an external
> > usb drive:
> >
> > sudo rsync -avvzHAXPish --delete /home/default
> > /media/default/USBHD005/Backup_of_home_directory_of_Dell_Debian_dimwit
>
> You should get two more -- keep one on-site, keep one near-site, keep
> one off-site, and rotate them periodically (weekly, bi-monthly, etc.).
>
>
> > I suppose I could [learn to] do a full system backup and restore to a
> > new drive, if I had to.
>
> I have never done an old-school dump(8)/ restore(8).  I keep my system
> images small enough to fit on "16 GB" devices.  I take and restore
> images with dd(1), which is available in the Debian installer rescue
> shell (but preferably with a USB live drive and a Perl script I wrote).
> As other readers have mentioned, Clonezilla is an option.
>
>
> > And if I do need to try to copy my current install to a new drive
> > (instead of a fresh install), 

Re: Anti-malware for my personal Debian workstation?

[David Wright]

On Thu 23 Apr 2020 at 23:58:41 (+0200), l0f...@tuta.io wrote:

> > "When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything
> > at all." - Futurama
> >
> Could you explain that please?

If you're like me when you go for your flu shot, you offer your arm
and look the other way. A good nurse will surprise you when they
unexpectedly say, "All done".

Cheers,
David.

Re: Persistent sshfs mount from inside a Buster virtual machine?

[emetib]

nate,

i did not log in as root.
just used root to call $USER@hostname

thought that i would make that clear.

take care, good luck
em

Re: Persistent sshfs mount from inside a Buster virtual machine?

[Nate Bargmann]

* On 2020 23 Apr 18:27 -0500, emetib wrote:
> hello nate.
> 
> i had a problem with setting this up in the first place and now it's
> working great for me.  i have 4 vm's, debian: stable, testing, centos
> and opensuse.  i think that suse was the worst to get it going.

Thanks so much, em.

If I read your comments correctly, you are installing these as .mount
files in the system directory, i.e. /etc/systemd but under which
directory?

- Nate

-- 

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."

Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Persistent sshfs mount from inside a Buster virtual machine?

[emetib]

hello nate.

i had a problem with setting this up in the first place and now it's working 
great for me.  i have 4 vm's, debian: stable, testing, centos and opensuse.  i 
think that suse was the worst to get it going.

here is mine from testing(bullseye/sid)
[Unit]
Description=sshfs_mount share
#Requires=network-online.target
#After=remote-fs.target

[Mount]
What=emetib@192.168.122.1:/home/emetib/programming/share/
Where=/home/chadb/share
Type=fuse.sshfs
Options=IdentityFile=/home/chadb/.ssh/id_rsa,allow_other,follow_symlinks,_netdev

and from my stable(8.11)
[Unit]
Description=sshfs_mount share
Requires=sshd.service

[Mount]
What=emetib@192.168.122.1:/home/emetib/programming/share/
Where=/home/chadb/share
Type=fuse.sshfs
Options=IdentityFile=/home/chadb/.ssh/id_rsa,allow_other,follow_symlinks,_netdev

[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target


why the testing doesn't complain about not having the [Install] i don't know.
i wrote this down so the next time it would be much much simpler.

for home-$USER-share.mount
  need -- fuse, sshfs 
  mkdir /home/$USER/share
  make sure that the $USER is correct in the mount point and where the id_rsa 
file is pointing to
  chmod 644 the file once it gets put where it's supposed to go
-- /etc/systemd/system/
  run sshfs as the $USER and sudo/root to make sure it is initialized 
-- for opensuse; you will have to enable this with --
"systemctl enable home-$USER-share.mount" as sudo/root

journalctl -xe(?) is your friend on this.  i don't know why i had to also use 
root (initalization), yet it kept messing with me if i didn't.

haven't posted for a while, so hopefully i helped
take care
em

Re: Boot so slow it never completes, while Windows boots fine

[David Christensen]

On 2020-04-23 13:35, David Christensen wrote:

On 2020-04-23 07:57, Marcin Owsiany wrote:

TL;DR: My laptop starts ~20x slower than normal. Booting Debian hangs
before the kernel starts. Windows 10 boots slow, but then works fine.
Hardware problem?


I find it very useful to have a USB 3.0 flash drive with Debian 
installed on it.  Get a good USB 3.0 flash drive, 16 GB or larger, and 
try installing Debian onto it.  Make sure the installer sees the target 
drive as /dev/sda.


Use another computer if you choose this option.


Have you tried resetting the CMOS settings to defaults?  Is there a 
motherboard jumper for resetting CMOS settings?  Be sure to write down 
or photograph the current settings before you do either of these -- 
Windows 10 may not boot for certain setting values.



David

Re:

[David Christensen]

On 2020-04-22 13:52, Default User wrote:

Hey,

A recent thread got me to thinking. So I checked my primary (only
installed) ssd:

sudo smartctl --test=long /dev/sda

which promised to run the tests, but returned to a command prompt,
with no further messages.
So after the promised test end time I did:

sudo smartctl --all /dev/sda

which gave this:



SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED


I pay attention to this item.



General SMART Values:
Offline data collection status:  (0x02) Offline data collection activity
was completed without error.



Self-test execution status:  (   0) The previous self-test routine completed
without error or no self-test has ever
been run.


I pay attention to these items.



SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 10
Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME  FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE
UPDATED  WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
   1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x0032   095   095   050Old_age
Always   -   0/5466601
   5 Retired_Block_Count 0x0033   100   100   003Pre-fail
Always   -   0
   9 Power_On_Hours_and_Msec 0x0032   091   091   000Old_age
Always   -   8197h+53m+29.020s


I ignore the "old age" and "pre-fail" notations.



SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
Num  Test_DescriptionStatus  Remaining
LifeTime(hours)  LBA_of_first_error
# 1  Extended offlineCompleted without error   00%  8197 -
# 2  Short offline   Completed without error   00%  8196 -
# 3  Short offline   Completed without error   00%  7883 -
# 4  Short offline   Completed without error   00%  7883 -
# 5  Short offline   Completed without error   00%  7883 -
# 6  Extended offlineCompleted without error   00%  7003 -
# 7  Extended offlineCompleted without error   00%  7002 -
# 8  Short offline   Completed without error   00%  6999 -


I pay attention to these items.



Since, I recall, that ssd drives do tend to fail quickly and without
notice, is it time to get a new drive and reinstall from scratch?


I have seen lots of HDD failures and a few USB flash drive failures, but 
no SSD failures (yet).  The USB flash drive failures do tend towards 
all-or-nothing or all-or-very-slow, sometimes accompanied with the smell 
of roasting electronics.




If so, recommendations?


I prefer Intel and Samsung, but any major brand should do.



I think I want to continue to use an ssd, because even though it can
fail without warning, this would be in a laptop, and I want to avoid
shock damage to a mechanical drive at all costs.


The only HDD's I buy are large capacity 3.5" SATA enterprise HDD's for 
storage and backups.




I an currently running Debian Unstable, on a 5-year-old laptop (Dell
Inspiron 3000 series, 8Gb ram, Intel i3 processor, traditional BIOS
booting). It has space for only one, 2.5-inch drive.

lsblk:
NAME   MAJ:MIN RM   SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
sda  8:00 111.8G  0 disk
├─sda1   8:1028G  0 part /
├─sda2   8:20 1K  0 part
├─sda5   8:50   7.9G  0 part [SWAP]
└─sda6   8:6076G  0 part /home
sr0 11:01  1024M  0 rom

The 120Gb ssd is "adequate"; root partition is 38% full, and home
partition is 45% full.
Swap partition is rarely if ever used; not sure i it is really necessary.


A ~10.6 GB root is in the ballpark for a Debian graphical workstation.


I put my bulk data on a Samba server.


I tried running without swap -- those systems crashed.  Now I do 1-2 GB.



User case is conventional, nothing taxing. No video editing, gaming, etc.

And yes, I do back up, home partition only, using rsync to an external
usb drive:

sudo rsync -avvzHAXPish --delete /home/default
/media/default/USBHD005/Backup_of_home_directory_of_Dell_Debian_dimwit


You should get two more -- keep one on-site, keep one near-site, keep 
one off-site, and rotate them periodically (weekly, bi-monthly, etc.).




I suppose I could [learn to] do a full system backup and restore to a
new drive, if I had to.


I have never done an old-school dump(8)/ restore(8).  I keep my system 
images small enough to fit on "16 GB" devices.  I take and restore 
images with dd(1), which is available in the Debian installer rescue 
shell (but preferably with a USB live drive and a Perl script I wrote). 
As other readers have mentioned, Clonezilla is an option.




And if I do need to try to copy my current install to a new drive
(instead of a fresh install), what is the EASIEST way to do that?


Building up a blank disk into a working system drive requires many 
tedious steps -- you have to move the partition table(s), bootloader, 
all partitions, and the contents of those partitions (e.g. swap, 
filesystems, whatever).  Things get harder if you add encryption, LVM, 
or non-standard filesystems like ZFS.  The installer takes care of

Re: Anti-malware for my personal Debian workstation?

[l0f4r0]

Hi,

11 avr. 2020 à 19:48 de scdbac...@gmx.net:

> l0f...@tuta.io wrote:
>
>> I don't really
>> think Linux is intrinsically more secure than Windows nowadays (a
>> vulnerability remains as such) but I really think Linux ecosystem is.
>>
> This might be a merciful misperception. To my theory, free virus producers
> are just much better programmers than those of MS-Windows malware.
>
> "When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything
> at all." - Futurama
>
Could you explain that please?

12 avr. 2020 à 00:01 de j...@jretrading.com:

> (Most) Linux users are horrified by the thought of surfing the Web with
> root privileges, most Windows users are not even aware that their
> computers can be run at one of two privilege levels (many more with the
> business/professional versions).
>
Yes, and if they are aware of that, they tend to think more is better.
Least privilege in security is a leading principle but for the average person 
it's just seen as useless/unfair restrictions. People may feel less powerful 
and don't understand why they don't have full permissions.

12 avr. 2020 à 08:52 de andreimpope...@gmail.com:

> On Sb, 11 apr 20, 19:06:59, > l0f...@tuta.io>  wrote:
>
>> * Most softwares are downloaded through official preconfigured
>> repositories. Users are less prone to download malware on suspicions
>> websites
>>
> There are sufficient tutorials advising to download random scripts and
> run with root privileges.
>
>> * Updates are easier as well because tracked/centralized through
>> repositories themselves for the most part. On Windows you need to
>> check Windows Update + Windows Store + each application individually
>>
> Would be the same on Debian if you chose to install additional software
> with some other package manager and debs downloaded from whatever
> website.
>
Yes, of course, you're right. That is why I used "most" 2 times ;)
Indeed, users are free to go off-piste.

>> * Open source is more common on Linux (community-based) than Windows
>> (money-based) so theoretically anyone competent enough could view the
>> source by oneself and spot a malovelent behavior (/!\ in practice this
>> is not so easy, see what happened with OpenSSL / HeartBleed)
>>
> You probably mean Linus's law[2]. Unfortunately the reverse is true as
> well: without sufficient eyeballs there will be many bugs.
>
Thanks, I didn't know about this designation.

12 avr. 2020 à 18:25 de cele...@gmail.com:

> On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 17:41:54 +0200
> <> to...@tuxteam.de> > wrote:
>
>> Trust is a complex beast. At its bottom it can't be completely
>> rational, but usually you trust a community because you somehow
>> think you understand how it works and you trust the information
>> chain linking you to that community.
>>
> Exactly. So if I trust the Sandstorm community (for example - I know
> nothing about them), then I'm not sure that there's any particularly
> great risk in installing their product via "curl | bash", and if I
> don't trust them, I shouldn't install their product via any other
> mechanism either.
>
Yes, this is the basics.
But you can encounter dangerous situations later that can easily jeopardize 
your initial trust, e.g: owner's change.
A black hat can register some expired/deleted legitimate resources (website, 
account) and start serving malware instead while current users are not aware...
Tomas has mentioned another variant with event-stream where a volonteer (but 
ultimately malevolent) person simply asked to take over the maintenance.
So I would say that trust is a perpetual exercise.
Best regards,
l0f4r0

Re: Debian is testing Discourse

[Marco Möller]

On 23.04.20 21:24, deloptes wrote:
(...)

While there are good articles on the debian wiki, there are also bad once
and if you are not familiar with linux and debian, you never know what you
are dealing with. There are also many not well maintained or outdated (and
don't ask for examples please).

If you ask me, there should be someone close to the development in specific
area, who can sign of documents to be published online. Let the community
come with suggestions in the background and you adopt the changes you think
are meaningful. If you wish  be it something like a blog, but to the front
should come only high quality.

(...)
Exactly this!
I always double check with the Arch Wiki in order to find out if a 
Debian page might still be a valid reference. Not a professional but at 
least being a well informed Debian desktop user, and already having seen 
too many of technically outdated advise in the Debian documentation, its 
simply worth it.
Admittedly, I (by now) never volunteered to report a bug in the 
documentation or even write a patch, because I am afraid to introduce 
another mistake and then becoming bashed by the real experts, or even 
worse my mistakes staying uncovered and unfortunately then doing harm to 
other people searching for help.
If there would be some expert instance for proof reading my suggestions, 
then I would like to actively participate in improving the documentation.


Best wishes!
Marco.

Re: The simpliest way to automatically rebuild few Debian packages ?

[deloptes]

Vincent Lefevre wrote:

> I was just asking, in case there would be some advantage.
> For instance, it seems to install build dependencies automatically.

I understand. It is bothering to install dependencies, I agree - but it is
one time job. I do it when setting up the build environment - it takes
ages :/

I think your solution is good enough - perhaps you should check which
dependencies are required and decide what to do, or you can script a
workaround it usually fails with a line saying what are the missing
dependencies.
But I even doubt it is possible, because there are alternatives and how
would some code know what to install?

Re: Boot so slow it never completes, while Windows boots fine

[David Christensen]

On 2020-04-23 07:57, Marcin Owsiany wrote:

TL;DR: My laptop starts ~20x slower than normal. Booting Debian hangs
before the kernel starts. Windows 10 boots slow, but then works fine.
Hardware problem?

More details:

I bought a Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5 in April 2019. It came with Windows 10, I
installed Debian buster on it (dual-boot with GRUB 2). Worked flawlessly
(with secure boot!) for ~8 months.

In January 2020 after some reboot for the first time it started slow, and
hung while booting Debian. Windows boots slow too, but once it's up it
works just fine. BIOS SETUP UI is also very slow.

Since it might not be obvious what I mean, here is a recording, with
detailed timeline in video description:
https://youtu.be/HCgO9UblqtI

After a few reboots it came back to normal. Then this effect came and went
a few times, and now it's here for good. I cannot boot Debian at all. I
tried leaving it booting overnight once and it didn't show any progress.
Windows still works OK. Updating BIOS to the most recent version did not
help.

I asked on the Polish Lenovo support forum
,
the response was that "this model does not support dual boot (sic!), they
have had no similar reports in the past, and installing Linux on it might
have caused the problem". I'm shocked.

Initially I thought this might have something to do with Windows updates,
because on the first occasion it seems to have disappeared after Windows
completed its scheduled update. But now I think it was just a red herring.

In my almost 30-year experience I have not encountered a problem which does
not go away after a cold reboot, but does go away after Windows starts :-O

My only theories now are:
- a hardware problem (but why does it go away once Windows boots?)
- a botched CPU microcode update (but I suppose there are checksums which
would prevent it from happening, so not likely).

Any thoughts?


Test you memory using BIOS/UEFI, memtest86+, or whatever.


Test your HDD/SSD using the manufacturer diagnostic.  (I prefer bootable 
editions, when available).



I find it very useful to have a USB 3.0 flash drive with Debian 
installed on it.  Get a good USB 3.0 flash drive, 16 GB or larger, and 
try installing Debian onto it.  Make sure the installer sees the target 
drive as /dev/sda.



David

Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch

[Klaus Singvogel]

You didn't respond to the Mailinglist...

Did you do an "apt-get update" etc. (as explained later) after adding it?

Yesterday, when I did it as written, everything worked fine at my side.

Regards,
Klaus.

Dale Harris wrote:
> Yeah, I did that.
> 
> I have
> 
> deb
> https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/Emulators:/Wine:/Debian/Debian_10
> ./
> 
> in my sources.
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:11 PM Klaus Singvogel 
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > you'll need the libfaudio0 package, which is only avail at opensuse.org
> >
> > https://wiki.winehq.org/Debian
> >
> > For details about hotwo, look at the second point with an "!" from this
> > site.
> > https://forum.winehq.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32192
> >
> > Add the opensuse.org repo as suggested and install all at once again.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Klaus.
> >
> > Dale Harris wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have a system where I have tried to install wine32 and the newer wine5
> > > version, It can't resolve dependencies, like so:
> > >
> > > # apt install --install-recommends wine-stable
> > > Reading package lists... Done
> > > Building dependency tree
> > > Reading state information... Done
> > > Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
> > > requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
> > > distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
> > > or been moved out of Incoming.
> > > The following information may help to resolve the situation:
> > >
> > > The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> > >  wine-stable : Depends: wine-stable-i386 (= 5.0.0~buster)
> > > E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
> > >
> > > If I try to follow this down the chain of all the dependencies the aren't
> > > installing and attempt to install that individually, I get to a point
> > where
> > > the system will try to uninstall a bunch of packages, most notably apt,
> > > which is kind of annoying.  So does anyone have any suggestions how I fix
> > > this?   The maddening thing is I have another system, almost identical,
> > > that all this installed fine on!  So I'm a little bit at wit's end
> > > presently.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dale Harris
> > > rod...@maybe.org
> > > rod...@gmail.com
> > > /.-)
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dale Harris
> rod...@maybe.org
> rod...@gmail.com
> /.-)

-- 
Klaus Singvogel
GnuPG-Key-ID: 1024R/5068792D  1994-06-27

Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch

[The Wanderer]

On 2020-04-23 at 15:18, Dale Harris wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:39 PM The Wanderer  wrote:

>> (It does seem *really* odd to be getting Debian packages from an
>> OpenSUSE repository, but I have no specific reason to expect them to be
>> a problem.)
> 
> I don't disagree.

FTR for the list's awareness: this is in regard / reference to one of
the two repositories added as a result of following the directions at

https://computingforgeeks.com/how-to-install-wine-on-debian/

>> ...that looks like an unnecessarily complicated install procedure, to
>> me. I'm not sure what the benefit is supposed to be, vs. just installing
>> the wine or wine-development package from the official Debian
>> repositories. I certainly don't think it came from anyone on the Debian
>> side, nor is it something that Debian is likely to particularly support.
> 
> Right, well, I went that route hoping to get anything installed, because
> wine32 was failing.
> 
>> What do you get if you just try
>>
>> # apt-get install wine
> 
>  # apt install wine32

This isn't actually the same package. I expect that the same result
would follow, because wine will pull in wine32, but exact package names
can be important and I think this may be the second time in this process
that you've tried installing a different one from what was suggested.

> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
> requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
> distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
> or been moved out of Incoming.
> The following information may help to resolve the situation:
> 
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>  wine32:i386 : Depends: libwine:i386 (= 4.0-2) but it is not going to be
> installed
> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

What (if anything) do you get from the following commands?

$ apt-mark showhold

$ grep wine /etc/apt/preferences /etc/apt/preferences.d/*

What does the following command report?

$ apt-cache policy wine wine32 wine64 libwine

>> The wine-development package available in stable has version 4.2-4, and
>> the one in testing has version 5.4-1, at least as of a few days ago or
>> so. For myself, I run the latter, when I need to run Wine.
> 
> I don't necessarily need a newer version of wine, I just need anything, and
> that's what I'm not getting currently, because nothing is installing.

That you don't need newer than what's in stable is good, because the
failure of any such packages to install is something we can probably
troubleshoot and get fixed. It might take a bit of working at, but this
sort of thing is resolved all of the time.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Debian is testing Discourse

[deloptes]

to...@tuxteam.de wrote:

> [citation needed]
> 
> Now irony aside: manipulation efforts are to be expected on high
> visibility sites like Wikipedia. I think that, given the constraints,
> it's doing a pretty good job nevertheless.
> 
> If you pick anything up on the internet, don't swallow it right away,
> says my doctor.
> 
> What's your source of wisdom? Facebook?

Nope - personal experience and I gave up on wikipedia 10+y ago.

But the story of "Felix" is worth following

If you read German:
https://kenfm.de/tagesdosis-26-2-2019-wikipedia-manipulationen-feliks-darf-nach-gerichtsurteil-wieder-mit-klarnamen-genannt-werden/

or search for "Markus Fiedler Felix Wikipedia"

I am confident that many topics are being edited without any factual
evidence by very "interesting" people, who seem to have the time to follow
all the topics of their interest. I won't go into detail, but I leave it to
your imagination. Also at universities it is not considered as a source -
with good reason I would add.

Consequently I came to the conclusion that freedom in sense of anarchy is
not possible and thus any structure based on it will not hold. Meritocracy
however proves successful. Imagine the linux kernel without Linuz - it
would never work. So it seems at the end there should be one to "sign of"
and "merge" the changes.

While there are good articles on the debian wiki, there are also bad once
and if you are not familiar with linux and debian, you never know what you
are dealing with. There are also many not well maintained or outdated (and
don't ask for examples please).

If you ask me, there should be someone close to the development in specific
area, who can sign of documents to be published online. Let the community
come with suggestions in the background and you adopt the changes you think
are meaningful. If you wish  be it something like a blog, but to the front
should come only high quality.

Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch

[Dale Harris]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:39 PM The Wanderer  wrote:

> (Is there a reason you replied off-list? This sort of thing is generally
> better handled in public, so that others can chime in if they have
> something to contribute.)
>

Sorry, user error.

(It does seem *really* odd to be getting Debian packages from an
> OpenSUSE repository, but I have no specific reason to expect them to be
> a problem.)
>

I don't disagree.

...that looks like an unnecessarily complicated install procedure, to
> me. I'm not sure what the benefit is supposed to be, vs. just installing
> the wine or wine-development package from the official Debian
> repositories. I certainly don't think it came from anyone on the Debian
> side, nor is it something that Debian is likely to particularly support.
>


Right, well, I went that route hoping to get anything installed, because
wine32 was failing.


> What do you get if you just try
>
> # apt-get install wine
>

 # apt install wine32
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 wine32:i386 : Depends: libwine:i386 (= 4.0-2) but it is not going to be
installed
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.


> ? Without specifying any architecture, or bitness, or similar.
>
> In my experience, with just the plain official Debian repositories, this
> successfully installs Wine without issues. I'll admit that it's an older
> version by this point, though.
>

Yeah, I've never had problems before now.


> The wine-development package available in stable has version 4.2-4, and
> the one in testing has version 5.4-1, at least as of a few days ago or
> so. For myself, I run the latter, when I need to run Wine.
>

I don't necessarily need a newer version of wine, I just need anything, and
that's what I'm not getting currently, because nothing is installing.



-- 
Dale Harris
rod...@maybe.org
rod...@gmail.com
/.-)

Re: cleanly getting rid of manually installed transitional packages due to rename

[David Wright]

On Thu 23 Apr 2020 at 02:53:06 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2020-04-22 16:07:28 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > For trivial renames, which yours looks like, as do those I've done,
> > it would be pretty easy to script. I've never made the effort,
> > because it's not something I do frequently enough, usually just once,
> > soon after I start running a new release on the first computer. Then
> > I adjust the list of packages used for the rest of them. Manually:
> > 
> >  $ apt-get -s purge pdftk
> >  The following package was automatically installed and is no longer 
> > required:
> >   pdftk-java
> >  Use 'apt autoremove' to remove it.
> >  # apt-mark manual pdftk-java
> >  pdftk-java set to manually installed.
> >  $ apt-get -s purge pdftk
> >  # apt-get purge pdftk
> >  Removing pdftk (2.02-5) ...
> > 
> > (Routine output edited out.) The first step can list more packages,
> > so checking the Depends line for the original package should show
> > which is the replacement.
> 
> I think that you are over-optimistic. Imagine the following case.
> The pdftk package has been manually installed in the past

Right…

> and is
> not a transitional package to pdftk-java

OK, let's pretend that is true…
(Not changing the names may be confusing.)

> (currently, this is like
> your example).

I can't determine what you mean by this, so I'm ignoring it.

> But the system has some package that depends on
> pdftk-java. So, when you run
> 
>   apt-get -s purge pdftk
> 
> you won't have any message about pdftk-java.

Why would I suddenly decide to purge pdftk? I installed it for a
reason and, if it's not transitional, it's still fulfilling that
purpose.

> Later in the future,
> the dependency on pdftk-java disappears, so that pdftk-java will
> be proposed for autoremoval.

No, because I'm not removing pdftk in the first place, so the rest
of this hypothetical scenario is flawed, hence ignored: {{

> But since this can occur a long time
> after the removal of pdftk, you probably have forgotten that you
> still need pdftk-java, even if you use it everyday. Well, for
> this one, one can probably guess (not sure though, as "-java"
> could also mean an extension for java), but there are packages
> for which one cannot remember/know all command they define.

}}

So let's leave that example by the side, as it's nothing to do with
transitional packages.

> I think that the script should look at the dependencies of the
> transitional package, and mark all of them as manually installed
> (even if this is currently useless due to dependencies from other
> packages).

In the cases where I think you could write a simple script, there will
typically be one dependency: the replacement package itself. The
"noise" that autoremove can generate (as in your first example¹) is
just because the replacement itself might have dependencies that
it wants to remove.

But if the transitional package has more than one dependency, then it
likely involves a split, and the change should be under consideration
by the sysadmin. After all, you might have no use at all for one
part of the split, so it might be better to remove that part,
rather than have the system automatically mark it just the opposite:
that you deliberately installed it manually.

¹ I can't test that example because I run stable/buster. Obviously
  I'm assuming that autoremove only listed those three *161 packages
  when you threatened to remove dnsutils, and not before.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Debian is testing Discourse

[David Wright]

On Thu 23 Apr 2020 at 08:29:46 (+0200), deloptes wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
> 
> > 1. Going from thinking to knowing. Even assuming they're well-informed,
> > it may be worth checking with other people running different systems
> > about what's wrong, and what the new text should say.
> > 
> > 2. Pages often need more than just piecemeal corrections: they may
> > need someone with a sense of ownership to restructure them, or even
> > to coordinate a rewrite when they lose focus.
> 
> totally agree with you. You see what happens to wikipedia. (I mean wikipedia
> can not be trusted. it was prooven that people falsify information or
> impose censorship).

It depends what sort of pages you're reading. I think it's fairly
obvious that there are going to be contentious topics that attract
those problems, and in some cases investigators have even tracked
the source of edits via IP addresses and suchlike. But that tends
not to be the sort of information I'm looking for on wikipedia.

> Best would be to have ownership and the community to decide what needs to be
> there, after which the owner of the document can edit.

On Thu 23 Apr 2020 at 14:56:36 (+0300), Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> The best thing about a wiki is that anyone can edit it[1]. Having to 
> check with others first would, in my opinion, just hinder contributions.
> [1] Unfortunately this can also mean that nobody is actually editing it.

I haven't said that they can't, but only that they can choose, on the
basis of their own knowledge, whether to edit the page directly or
else to suggest changes in the discussion area.

And I totally agree with Jonathan Dowland that the worst decision was
separating the discussion area from the page. I also think that the
page's History should be there too, not just in a time-sorted sidebar
of miscellaneous individual changes made across the entire Debian wiki
(and which evaporate after a few days or weeks).

> > 2. Pages often need more than just piecemeal corrections: they may
> > need someone with a sense of ownership to restructure them, or even
> > to coordinate a rewrite when they lose focus.
> 
> This looks very much like "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"[2] models.
> 
> In my opinion a wiki is much better suited for the bazaar model, the 
> cathedral model you seem to be advocating is better suited for more 
> formal documents (Debian Policy, Installation Guide, Release Notes, 
> etc.).

I'm not advocating the Cathedral model at all: I deliberately wrote
"sense of ownership¹" and not "ownership". IOW it helps if there people
who care not only about the raw information in the wiki, but how it's
expressed and presentation.

Clean-up can vary from increasing clarity by removing unintentional
ambiguities and improving unidiomatic phrases (many contributors are
not writing in their mother tongues), to regrouping related information,
prioritising the order in which it's presented, inserting headings,
and so on.

> Reminder: development of all Debian manuals is open, anyone is free to 
> report bugs and/or provide suggestions, preferably as patches.

*These* are, rightly, the Cathedral.

> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar

¹ a sense of ownership is shown by somebody who walks their street
  after school turns out, picking up the litter, and then does the
  same whenever they visit their favourite beauty spot.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Debian is testing Discourse

[Brian]

On Thu 23 Apr 2020 at 14:24:06 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 02:56:36PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> 
> > This looks very much like "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" models.
> > 
> > In my opinion a wiki is much better suited for the bazaar model [...]
> 
> I think you are right, in principle. That said, I don't believe you'll
> get as outstanding a result as Arch Wiki is by just bazaaring around.

"bazaaring". What a lovely use of the English language!

I think it is about time we had some concrete examples of "outstanding".
Preferably technical in nature. Contrasts would be useful.

-- 
Brian.

Re: Boot so slow it never completes, while Windows boots fine

[Alexander V. Makartsev]

On 23.04.2020 19:57, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> TL;DR: My laptop starts ~20x slower than normal. Booting Debian hangs
> before the kernel starts. Windows 10 boots slow, but then works fine.
> Hardware problem?
>
> More details:
>
> I bought a Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5 in April 2019. It came with Windows
> 10, I installed Debian buster on it (dual-boot with GRUB 2). Worked
> flawlessly (with secure boot!) for ~8 months.
>
> In January 2020 after some reboot for the first time it started slow,
> and hung while booting Debian. Windows boots slow too, but once it's
> up it works just fine. BIOS SETUP UI is also very slow.
>
> Since it might not be obvious what I mean, here is a recording, with
> detailed timeline in video description:
> https://youtu.be/HCgO9UblqtI
>
> After a few reboots it came back to normal. Then this effect came and
> went a few times, and now it's here for good. I cannot boot Debian at
> all. I tried leaving it booting overnight once and it didn't show any
> progress. Windows still works OK. Updating BIOS to the most recent
> version did not help.
>
> I asked on the Polish Lenovo support forum
> ,
> the response was that "this model does not support dual boot (sic!),
> they have had no similar reports in the past, and installing Linux on
> it might have caused the problem". I'm shocked.
>
> Initially I thought this might have something to do with Windows
> updates, because on the first occasion it seems to have disappeared
> after Windows completed its scheduled update. But now I think it was
> just a red herring.
>
> In my almost 30-year experience I have not encountered a problem which
> does not go away after a cold reboot, but does go away after Windows
> starts :-O
>
> My only theories now are:
> - a hardware problem (but why does it go away once Windows boots?)
> - a botched CPU microcode update (but I suppose there are checksums
> which would prevent it from happening, so not likely).
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Marcin
I've watched your video and definitely I haven't seen anything like it
before. I've seen slow BIOSes in the past, but not *that* slow. And it
continues being slow even after it hits bootloader.
I'd suspect either poorly tested Windows 10 update, which is known fact,
Windows can update laptop BIOS without user's consent. Or some kind of
malware/rootkit. These are rare, but still exist for BIOS and for UEFI. [1]
It also could be a hardware problem where CPU\GPU runs on low frequency
with failed attempts to rise it up. Or some device hogs some bus,
generating interrupts in a loop, but never fails. The fact that after
Windows starts it suddenly looks normal, could be because drivers take
control over problematic device or Windows kernel applies some measures
to circumvent known problem.

In the first case BIOS should be reflashed with image made exactly for
your laptop model, downloaded from official Lenovo website. Reset BIOS
settings to defaults after reflash and set them up again.
In the second case I'd check PSU and battery and removed it, if it is
detachable. Check if cooling fan is working. Then gradually strip all
devices, like M.2\NVMe\SATA drives, mini-PCIe WiFi adapter, DVD drive,
keyboard, touchpad, any connected USB devices, etc. Connect external USB
keyboard if needed. If you will be disconnecting laptop LCD screen, make
sure to disconnect PSU and battery first, to avoid possible permanent
damage to ICs on motherboard.
This should be enough to tell if this is something user serviceable. If
device stripping helps, then by adding devices back one by one you will
find the culprit.

I'd be interested to know exact laptop model\part number, for personal
statistics and possible further research.


[1] https://www.welivesecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ESET-LoJax.pdf

-- 
With kindest regards, Alexander.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄ 

Re: Debian is testing Discourse

[Brian]

On Wed 22 Apr 2020 at 17:44:00 -0500, David Wright wrote:

> On Tue 21 Apr 2020 at 20:07:55 (+0100), Brian wrote:
> > On Tue 21 Apr 2020 at 11:18:14 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:35:00PM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > > > I don't know what the writer of those two sentences meant by
> > > > structure, but I specifically mentioned the Discussion page
> > > > (≡ Wikipedia's Talk page) which I think is an important
> > > > factor in improving content.
> > > 
> > > At some point a long time ago, the Debian Wiki administrators (at the
> > > time) decided to direct meta-discussions towards the debian-www@ mailing
> > > list, instead of Discussion pages. I think this was a mistake, and it's
> > > something I've been wanting to push back on for some time, but it hasn't
> > > raised up my TODO list far enough.
> > 
> > I do not have a TODO list, but pushing all wiki issues onto debian-www
> > probably wasn't the best of ideas. It seems to me that discourse would
> > be a good place to put them.
> > 
> > At the same time, what is the point of discusssion? A user thinks a
> > technical point on the wiki is wrong; they know it is wrong; they change
> > it. Where's the problem? 
> 
> 1. Going from thinking to knowing. Even assuming they're well-informed,
> it may be worth checking with other people running different systems
> about what's wrong, and what the new text should say.

If I were to conduct some rewriting of

  https://wiki.debian.org/xinit

the last thing I would ask for is opinions on altering the External
links section, the provision of other links and removal of ?. Should
I go on to explain the function of the xinit and startx commands and
expand on the text, I would not be likely to seek advice on the
purpose or content. Those who come afterwards can deal with it in
whatever way they see fit.

You could see this as arrogant - but Debian is a do-ocracy.

> 2. Pages often need more than just piecemeal corrections: they may
> need someone with a sense of ownership to restructure them, or even
> to coordinate a rewrite when they lose focus.

I like this idea of "sense of ownership".

-- 
Brian.

Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch

[Klaus Singvogel]

Hi,

you'll need the libfaudio0 package, which is only avail at opensuse.org

https://wiki.winehq.org/Debian

For details about hotwo, look at the second point with an "!" from this site.
https://forum.winehq.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32192

Add the opensuse.org repo as suggested and install all at once again.

Regards,
Klaus.

Dale Harris wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have a system where I have tried to install wine32 and the newer wine5
> version, It can't resolve dependencies, like so:
> 
> # apt install --install-recommends wine-stable
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
> requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
> distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
> or been moved out of Incoming.
> The following information may help to resolve the situation:
> 
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>  wine-stable : Depends: wine-stable-i386 (= 5.0.0~buster)
> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
> 
> If I try to follow this down the chain of all the dependencies the aren't
> installing and attempt to install that individually, I get to a point where
> the system will try to uninstall a bunch of packages, most notably apt,
> which is kind of annoying.  So does anyone have any suggestions how I fix
> this?   The maddening thing is I have another system, almost identical,
> that all this installed fine on!  So I'm a little bit at wit's end
> presently.
> 
> -- 
> Dale Harris
> rod...@maybe.org
> rod...@gmail.com
> /.-)

Re: Debian is testing Discourse

[Brian]

On Thu 23 Apr 2020 at 10:21:57 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 08:07:55PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > I do not have a TODO list, but pushing all wiki issues onto debian-www
> > probably wasn't the best of ideas. It seems to me that discourse would
> > be a good place to put them.
> 
> I think the mistake was trying to drive discussion about the wiki *away*
> from the wiki. Pushing it to Discourse instead of debian-www@ would not be
> an improvement in that respect.
> 
> > At the same time, what is the point of discusssion? A user thinks a
> > technical point on the wiki is wrong; they know it is wrong; they change
> > it. Where's the problem?
> 
> Discussion pages serve as the place to discuss planning what goes where,
> explaining changes that might be obvious, asking questions about the content
> of a page e.g. phrasing to establish whether there's a mistake or something
> should be reworded for clarity, etc.
> 
> Take a look at "Talk" pages on a large Mediawiki instance (E.g.  Wikipedia)
> to see how they can be used. Here's an example
> 

Discourse would provide a single point of contact for wiki discussion.
That's a step up on what we have at present and is (I assume) very easy
to implement.

Does MoinMoin even allow for Discussion pages in an easy way?

-- 
Brian.

Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch

[The Wanderer]

On 2020-04-23 at 13:11, Dale Harris wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I have a system where I have tried to install wine32 and the newer
> wine5 version, It can't resolve dependencies, like so:
> 
> # apt install --install-recommends wine-stable
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
> requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
> distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
> or been moved out of Incoming.
> The following information may help to resolve the situation:
> 
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>  wine-stable : Depends: wine-stable-i386 (= 5.0.0~buster)
> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

What is your sources.list like?

I track Debian testing+stable (main + contrib + non-free), and I get:


$ apt-get --dry-run install wine-stable
NOTE: This is only a simulation!
  apt-get needs root privileges for real execution.
  Keep also in mind that locking is deactivated,
  so don't depend on the relevance to the real current situation!
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Package wine-stable is not available, but is referred to by another package.
This may mean that the package is missing, has been obsoleted, or
is only available from another source
However the following packages replace it:
  wine-development wine

E: Package 'wine-stable' has no installation candidate


I also already have wine installed, via the wine-development package. If
I wanted to install the stable version of wine, I'd just install the
package named 'wine', which would pull in wine32 and wine64 as needed.

If I search the package repository for 'wine-stable', the only things I
find are a hint that this may be a package name that's available in
Ubuntu. I haven't dug any deeper than that as of yet.

> If I try to follow this down the chain of all the dependencies the
> aren't installing and attempt to install that individually, I get to
> a point where the system will try to uninstall a bunch of packages,
> most notably apt, which is kind of annoying.

Generally, before you get to that point, it's wise to start doing
'apt-cache policy' on some of the package names you're specifying and
see what versions they're available at. This type of error is frequently
caused by available-version mismatches between different packages which
have versioned dependencies towards one another.

> So does anyone have any suggestions how I fix this?   The maddening
> thing is I have another system, almost identical, that all this
> installed fine on!  So I'm a little bit at wit's end presently.

Assuming you're running Debian and not Ubuntu, I'd suggest trying to
install the 'wine' package instead.

If you're running Ubuntu, you may need to ask in their forums instead.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Boot so slow it never completes, while Windows boots fine

[Alexis Grigoriou]

On Thu, 2020-04-23 at 16:57 +0200, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> TL;DR: My laptop starts ~20x slower than normal. Booting Debian hangs
> before the kernel starts. Windows 10 boots slow, but then works fine.
> Hardware problem?
> 
> My only theories now are:
> - a hardware problem (but why does it go away once Windows boots?)
> - a botched CPU microcode update (but I suppose there are checksums
> which
> would prevent it from happening, so not likely).
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Marcin

I also believe it is a harware problem. I would first run a memtest to
ensure RAM is good. 

Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch

[Dale Harris]

Hi,

I have a system where I have tried to install wine32 and the newer wine5
version, It can't resolve dependencies, like so:

# apt install --install-recommends wine-stable
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 wine-stable : Depends: wine-stable-i386 (= 5.0.0~buster)
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

If I try to follow this down the chain of all the dependencies the aren't
installing and attempt to install that individually, I get to a point where
the system will try to uninstall a bunch of packages, most notably apt,
which is kind of annoying.  So does anyone have any suggestions how I fix
this?   The maddening thing is I have another system, almost identical,
that all this installed fine on!  So I'm a little bit at wit's end
presently.

-- 
Dale Harris
rod...@maybe.org
rod...@gmail.com
/.-)

Re: Boot so slow it never completes, while Windows boots fine

[Kent West]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:15 AM Marcin Owsiany  wrote:

> TL;DR: My laptop starts ~20x slower than normal. Booting Debian hangs
> before the kernel starts. Windows 10 boots slow, but then works fine.
> Hardware problem?
>
>
>
This "feels" like a hardware issue. Try removing the drive and see if the
BIOS is still slow.


-- 
Kent West<")))><
Westing Peacefully - http://kentwest.blogspot.com

Boot so slow it never completes, while Windows boots fine

[Marcin Owsiany]

TL;DR: My laptop starts ~20x slower than normal. Booting Debian hangs
before the kernel starts. Windows 10 boots slow, but then works fine.
Hardware problem?

More details:

I bought a Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5 in April 2019. It came with Windows 10, I
installed Debian buster on it (dual-boot with GRUB 2). Worked flawlessly
(with secure boot!) for ~8 months.

In January 2020 after some reboot for the first time it started slow, and
hung while booting Debian. Windows boots slow too, but once it's up it
works just fine. BIOS SETUP UI is also very slow.

Since it might not be obvious what I mean, here is a recording, with
detailed timeline in video description:
https://youtu.be/HCgO9UblqtI

After a few reboots it came back to normal. Then this effect came and went
a few times, and now it's here for good. I cannot boot Debian at all. I
tried leaving it booting overnight once and it didn't show any progress.
Windows still works OK. Updating BIOS to the most recent version did not
help.

I asked on the Polish Lenovo support forum
,
the response was that "this model does not support dual boot (sic!), they
have had no similar reports in the past, and installing Linux on it might
have caused the problem". I'm shocked.

Initially I thought this might have something to do with Windows updates,
because on the first occasion it seems to have disappeared after Windows
completed its scheduled update. But now I think it was just a red herring.

In my almost 30-year experience I have not encountered a problem which does
not go away after a cold reboot, but does go away after Windows starts :-O

My only theories now are:
- a hardware problem (but why does it go away once Windows boots?)
- a botched CPU microcode update (but I suppose there are checksums which
would prevent it from happening, so not likely).

Any thoughts?

Marcin

Re:

[Alexander V. Makartsev]

On 23.04.2020 01:52, Default User wrote:
> Hey,
>
> A recent thread got me to thinking. So I checked my primary (only
> installed) ssd:
>
> === START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
> Model Family: SandForce Driven SSDs
> Device Model: KINGSTON SV300S37A120G
This drive is based on MLC (2-bit) NAND type chips. According to
datasheet [1] your drive is rated for 64TB TBW.

> 241 Lifetime_Writes_GiB 0x0032   000   000   000Old_age
> Always   -   3157
> 242 Lifetime_Reads_GiB  0x0032   000   000   000Old_age
> Always   -   2340
And you has written to it only 3.1TB. This means your drive should
continue to serve you well for a long time, since your workload is low.
The rest of SMART attributes only support my opinion.

> === START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
> Model Family: SandForce Driven SSDs
> Device Model: SanDisk SDSSDA240G
This drive doesn't have any public information about type of NAND memory
it based on, and manufacturer doesn't even rated it for TBW.
If manufacturer this stingy to disclose technical specifications about
his products, usually means that drive is based on cheap TLC (3-bit) or
even QLC (4-bit) NAND type chips.
These kind of chips do not have as much lifespan as MLC, so first drive
is still better, except for its volume 128GB vs 240GB.

> User case is conventional, nothing taxing. No video editing, gaming, etc.
>
> And yes, I do back up, home partition only, using rsync to an external
> usb drive:
>
> sudo rsync -avvzHAXPish --delete /home/default
> /media/default/USBHD005/Backup_of_home_directory_of_Dell_Debian_dimwit
>
> I suppose I could [learn to] do a full system backup and restore to a
> new drive, if I had to.
>
> And if I do need to try to copy my current install to a new drive
> (instead of a fresh install), what is the EASIEST way to do that?
>
If you already doing regular backups you'll be fine. There are no signs
of first drive to be failing anytime soon.
As for full system backup, I usually use CloneZilla project [2]. They
have LiveCD which could be run from USB flash drive to perform efficient
offline copy of entire disk image to another disk or over the network.
If online full system backup is required then I hope somebody else will
chime in with recommendation.


[1] https://www.kingston.com/datasheets/sv300s3_us.pdf
[2] https://clonezilla.org/

-- 
With kindest regards, Alexander.

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian - The universal operating system
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://www.debian.org
⠈⠳⣄ 

Re: Persistent sshfs mount from inside a Buster virtual machine?

[Nate Bargmann]

* On 2020 23 Apr 01:24 -0500, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> 
> Maybe you need to 'enable-linger' with loginctl.

Looking through the command history in that VM, I did try that.  A
couple of times.

I made sure enable-linger is enabled for my user and the mount is still dumped
after five minutes or so.

- Nate

-- 

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."

Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian is testing Discourse

[tomas]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 02:56:36PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

> This looks very much like "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" models.
> 
> In my opinion a wiki is much better suited for the bazaar model [...]

I think you are right, in principle. That said, I don't believe you'll
get as outstanding a result as Arch Wiki is by just bazaaring around.

Cheers
-- tomas "all generalizations suck"


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian is testing Discourse

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Mi, 22 apr 20, 17:44:00, David Wright wrote:
> On Tue 21 Apr 2020 at 20:07:55 (+0100), Brian wrote:
> > 
> > At the same time, what is the point of discusssion? A user thinks a
> > technical point on the wiki is wrong; they know it is wrong; they change
> > it. Where's the problem? 
> 
> 1. Going from thinking to knowing. Even assuming they're well-informed,
> it may be worth checking with other people running different systems
> about what's wrong, and what the new text should say.
 
The best thing about a wiki is that anyone can edit it[1]. Having to 
check with others first would, in my opinion, just hinder contributions.

Reverts are much easier to do than edits ;)

> 2. Pages often need more than just piecemeal corrections: they may
> need someone with a sense of ownership to restructure them, or even
> to coordinate a rewrite when they lose focus.

This looks very much like "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"[2] models.

In my opinion a wiki is much better suited for the bazaar model, the 
cathedral model you seem to be advocating is better suited for more 
formal documents (Debian Policy, Installation Guide, Release Notes, 
etc.).

Reminder: development of all Debian manuals is open, anyone is free to 
report bugs and/or provide suggestions, preferably as patches.

[1] Unfortunately this can also mean that nobody is actually editing it.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Re: checksum fails on current openstack debian 9 image

[Marc-Antoine Bourgeot]

Thanks richard !
Now I'm sure there is something wrong on my side ! :-)

Re: The simpliest way to automatically rebuild few Debian packages ?

[Vincent Lefevre]

On 2020-04-23 08:31:32 +0200, deloptes wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> 
> > I was wondering whether apt-build could automate things even more
> > than my current solution, but it seems that my current solution can
> > do more, at least for the goal of just patching source packages and
> > rebuilding.
> 
> I did not miss this in the beginning. I did not understand why you try to do
> it with apt-build. I still don't

I was just asking, in case there would be some advantage.
For instance, it seems to install build dependencies automatically.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre  - Web: 
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: 
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

Re: aptitude doesn't remove unused packages

[Vincent Lefevre]

On 2020-04-23 09:19:10 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> This is controlled by the apt configuration options
> 
> APT::AutoRemove::RecommendsImportant
> APT::AutoRemove::SuggestsImportant
> 
> See apt.conf(5) for how to adjust these.

The user may want to keep Recommends.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre  - Web: 
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: 
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

Re: checksum fails on current openstack debian 9 image

[Richard Hector]

On 23/04/20 9:02 pm, Marc-Antoine Bourgeot wrote:
> Hi everyone !
> 
> I just downloaded the latest openstack debian 9 image from a debian mirror 
> using :
> https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/openstack/current-9/debian-9-openstack-amd64.qcow2
> 
> I also got the checksum and its signature :
> https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/openstack/current-9/SHA256SUMS
> https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/openstack/current-9/SHA256SUMS.sign 
> 
> 
> checksum's signature is good:
> 
> $ gpg --verify SHA256SUMS.sign
> gpg: assuming signed data in 'SHA256SUMS'
> gpg: Signature made dim. 29 mars 2020 16:40:45 CEST
> gpg: using RSA key DF9B9C49EAA9298432589D76DA87E80D6294BE9B
> gpg: Good signature from "Debian CD signing key " 
> [unknown]
> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
> Primary key fingerprint: DF9B 9C49 EAA9 2984 3258 9D76 DA87 E80D 6294 BE9B
> 
> 
> but checksum fails :
> 
> $ sha256sum -c SHA256SUMS --ignore-missing
> debian-9-openstack-amd64.qcow2: FAILED
> sha256sum: WARNING: 1 computed checksum did NOT match
> sha256sum: SHA256SUMS: no file was verified
> 
> 
> I've try to download a new copy (from the same mirror) but it still fails. 
> The mirror I use is https://caesar.ftp.acc.umu.se/cdimage/openstack/current-9
> 
> I couldn't manage to find another mirror to check if this copy only was 
> altered, or all of them.
> 
> If anyone could verify that on its side and provide me a mirror that contain 
> a valid image that would be awesome !

richard@zircon:~/temp$ wget
https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/openstack/current-9/debian-9-openstack-amd64.qcow2
--2020-04-23 22:00:19--
https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/openstack/current-9/debian-9-openstack-amd64.qcow2
Resolving cdimage.debian.org (cdimage.debian.org)... 2001:6b0:19::173,
2001:6b0:19::165, 194.71.11.173, ...
Connecting to cdimage.debian.org
(cdimage.debian.org)|2001:6b0:19::173|:443... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found
Location:
https://caesar.ftp.acc.umu.se/cdimage/openstack/current-9/debian-9-openstack-amd64.qcow2
[following]
--2020-04-23 22:00:21--
https://caesar.ftp.acc.umu.se/cdimage/openstack/current-9/debian-9-openstack-amd64.qcow2
Resolving caesar.ftp.acc.umu.se (caesar.ftp.acc.umu.se)...
2001:6b0:19::142, 194.71.11.142
Connecting to caesar.ftp.acc.umu.se
(caesar.ftp.acc.umu.se)|2001:6b0:19::142|:443... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 591897088 (564M)
Saving to: ‘debian-9-openstack-amd64.qcow2’

debian-9-openstack- 100%[===>] 564.48M  5.68MB/sin
92s

2020-04-23 22:01:55 (6.16 MB/s) - ‘debian-9-openstack-amd64.qcow2’ saved
[591897088/591897088]

so from the same mirror.

richard@zircon:~/temp$ wget
https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/openstack/current-9/SHA256SUMS
--2020-04-23 22:01:26--
https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/openstack/current-9/SHA256SUMS
Resolving cdimage.debian.org (cdimage.debian.org)... 2001:6b0:19::165,
2001:6b0:19::173, 194.71.11.165, ...
Connecting to cdimage.debian.org
(cdimage.debian.org)|2001:6b0:19::165|:443... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 1010
Saving to: ‘SHA256SUMS’

SHA256SUMS  100%[===>]1010  --.-KB/sin
0s

2020-04-23 22:01:27 (20.0 MB/s) - ‘SHA256SUMS’ saved [1010/1010]

richard@zircon:~/temp$ sha256sum -c SHA256SUMS --ignore-missing
debian-9-openstack-amd64.qcow2: OK

I didn't verify the signature (no public key?).

The checksum line is this:

c8bde8e267ea806a10ca04f05077bd83b804a376d7a60a9946bed65c540239a0
debian-9-openstack-amd64.qcow2

HTH,

Richard

Re: Groovy 2.4.16 + Java 11 is broken in debian buster stable

[Liam O'Toole]

On Thu, 23 Apr, 2020 at 11:53:14 +0200, Sven Hartge wrote:
> Liam O'Toole  wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Apr, 2020 at 11:08:27 +0200, Sven Hartge wrote:
> 
> >> Backports must not be used to fix bugs in Stable. If groovy from
> >> Stable does not work with the openjdk-11 from Stable, then this is a
> >> bug in Stable and has to be fixed in Stable.
> 
> > This is indeed a bug in stable. However, any package in testing
> > becomes a candidate for stable-backports.
> 
> Sure. But the official stance of Debian is the one I lined out above, by
> both the SRMs and the Backports-RMs.
> 
>  You must not be forced to install packages from backports just to get a
>  bug fixed.
> 
> In this case one could argue that the bug in groovy is indeed
> release-critical, since it does not work at all.
> 

No one is suggesting using force. :-)

Re: Groovy 2.4.16 + Java 11 is broken in debian buster stable

[Sven Hartge]

Liam O'Toole  wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr, 2020 at 11:08:27 +0200, Sven Hartge wrote:

>> Backports must not be used to fix bugs in Stable. If groovy from
>> Stable does not work with the openjdk-11 from Stable, then this is a
>> bug in Stable and has to be fixed in Stable.

> This is indeed a bug in stable. However, any package in testing
> becomes a candidate for stable-backports.

Sure. But the official stance of Debian is the one I lined out above, by
both the SRMs and the Backports-RMs.

 You must not be forced to install packages from backports just to get a
 bug fixed.

In this case one could argue that the bug in groovy is indeed
release-critical, since it does not work at all.

Grüße,
Sven.

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

Re:

[David]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 06:53, Default User  wrote:

> A recent thread got me to thinking. So I checked my primary (only
> installed) ssd:

> sudo smartctl --test=long /dev/sda

> I don't really know how to interpret this,

Ok, if you dont know how to interpret this, then I'd suggest that
the first step might be to use your favourite internet
search engine to learn about the meaning of your test results.

That's what I did to find this:
https://media.kingston.com/support/downloads/MKP_306_SMART_attribute.pdf

The meaning of the SMART attribute values is defined by the manufacturer,
so it's best to check with the manufacturer of your drive.

> but it looks . . .  bad,

I spent a few seconds glancing at the results you posted of your first drive,
I didn't notice anything concerning.

> with all those "old_age" and "Pre-fail" notations.

Those are in the column headed "TYPE", they are informative about the
nature of the failure criterion, they are not test results.

Re: Groovy 2.4.16 + Java 11 is broken in debian buster stable

[Liam O'Toole]

On Thu, 23 Apr, 2020 at 11:08:27 +0200, Sven Hartge wrote:
> Liam O'Toole  wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Apr, 2020 at 22:15:09 +0530, Jayant Tripathi wrote:
> 
> >>[1]https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=929460
> >>Is there a way to download patched groovy version in debian buster
> >>through apt?
> >>As default groovy version in Buster stable is: Groovy Version: 2.4.16
> >>JVM: 11.0.6 Vendor: Debian OS: Linux
> >>Regards
> >>Jayant Tripathi
> >> 
> >> References
> >> 
> >>1. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=929460
> 
> > Groovy 2.4.17 is available in bullseye (testing). Try requesting a
> > backport on the debian-backports list.
> 
> Backports must not be used to fix bugs in Stable. If groovy from Stable
> does not work with the openjdk-11 from Stable, then this is a bug in
> Stable and has to be fixed in Stable.
> 

This is indeed a bug in stable. However, any package in testing becomes
a candidate for stable-backports. There's more than one way to skin this
cat.

checksum fails on current openstack debian 9 image

[Marc-Antoine Bourgeot]

Hi everyone !

I just downloaded the latest openstack debian 9 image from a debian mirror 
using :
https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/openstack/current-9/debian-9-openstack-amd64.qcow2

I also got the checksum and its signature :
https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/openstack/current-9/SHA256SUMS
https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/openstack/current-9/SHA256SUMS.sign 


checksum's signature is good:

$ gpg --verify SHA256SUMS.sign
gpg: assuming signed data in 'SHA256SUMS'
gpg: Signature made dim. 29 mars 2020 16:40:45 CEST
gpg: using RSA key DF9B9C49EAA9298432589D76DA87E80D6294BE9B
gpg: Good signature from "Debian CD signing key " 
[unknown]
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: DF9B 9C49 EAA9 2984 3258 9D76 DA87 E80D 6294 BE9B


but checksum fails :

$ sha256sum -c SHA256SUMS --ignore-missing
debian-9-openstack-amd64.qcow2: FAILED
sha256sum: WARNING: 1 computed checksum did NOT match
sha256sum: SHA256SUMS: no file was verified


I've try to download a new copy (from the same mirror) but it still fails. The 
mirror I use is https://caesar.ftp.acc.umu.se/cdimage/openstack/current-9

I couldn't manage to find another mirror to check if this copy only was 
altered, or all of them.

If anyone could verify that on its side and provide me a mirror that contain a 
valid image that would be awesome !


Thanks for your help !

Re: Debian is testing Discourse

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 08:07:55PM +0100, Brian wrote:

I do not have a TODO list, but pushing all wiki issues onto debian-www
probably wasn't the best of ideas. It seems to me that discourse would
be a good place to put them.


I think the mistake was trying to drive discussion about the wiki *away* 
from the wiki. Pushing it to Discourse instead of debian-www@ would not 
be an improvement in that respect.



At the same time, what is the point of discusssion? A user thinks a
technical point on the wiki is wrong; they know it is wrong; they change
it. Where's the problem?


Discussion pages serve as the place to discuss planning what goes where, 
explaining changes that might be obvious, asking questions about the 
content of a page e.g. phrasing to establish whether there's a mistake 
or something should be reworded for clarity, etc.


Take a look at "Talk" pages on a large Mediawiki instance (E.g.  
Wikipedia) to see how they can be used. Here's an example

Re: Groovy 2.4.16 + Java 11 is broken in debian buster stable

[Sven Hartge]

Liam O'Toole  wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Apr, 2020 at 22:15:09 +0530, Jayant Tripathi wrote:

>>[1]https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=929460
>>Is there a way to download patched groovy version in debian buster
>>through apt?
>>As default groovy version in Buster stable is: Groovy Version: 2.4.16
>>JVM: 11.0.6 Vendor: Debian OS: Linux
>>Regards
>>Jayant Tripathi
>> 
>> References
>> 
>>1. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=929460

> Groovy 2.4.17 is available in bullseye (testing). Try requesting a
> backport on the debian-backports list.

Backports must not be used to fix bugs in Stable. If groovy from Stable
does not work with the openjdk-11 from Stable, then this is a bug in
Stable and has to be fixed in Stable.

Grüße,
Sven.

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

Re: Debian is testing Discourse

[tomas]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 08:29:46AM +0200, deloptes wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
> 
> > 1. Going from thinking to knowing. Even assuming they're well-informed,
> > it may be worth checking with other people running different systems
> > about what's wrong, and what the new text should say.
> > 
> > 2. Pages often need more than just piecemeal corrections: they may
> > need someone with a sense of ownership to restructure them, or even
> > to coordinate a rewrite when they lose focus.
> > 
> 
> totally agree with you. You see what happens to wikipedia.  (I mean wikipedia
> can not be trusted. it was prooven that people falsify information or
> impose censorship).

[citation needed]

Now irony aside: manipulation efforts are to be expected on high
visibility sites like Wikipedia. I think that, given the constraints,
it's doing a pretty good job nevertheless.

If you pick anything up on the internet, don't swallow it right away,
says my doctor.

What's your source of wisdom? Facebook?

> Best would be to have ownership and the community to decide what needs to be
> there, after which the owner of the document can edit.

Each scheme has its advantages and disadvantages. The one you propose
mimicks Debian's traditional packaging setup -- although you see more
and more team-owned packages nowadays.

Cheers
-- t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature