Re: Debian 9 on H410 hardware / Upgraded to 11 - Zenity width quirk

[Allen Hoover]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 12:59:35PM -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> Greg Wooledge composed on 2021-10-21 09:27 (UTC-0400):
> 
> > Now, knowing that this is a piece of hardware that was released in 2021,
> > I would *not* attempt to run Debian 9 on it.  You *might* be able to
> > run Debian 11 on it, if you're lucky!   
> > 
>   
> 
> Early 2021 (Q1) is when that particular G6405 model was launched[1], but it's 
> a
> Comet Lake, which was originally launched August 21, 2019[2], so should be
> Stretch-compatible at least via backports.
> 
> [1]
> 
> [2] 

I was able to get Debian 9 mostly compatible, by using the latest 5.X 
kernel, however, opengl didn't seem to be supported.  So instead of 
trying to patch that up, I bit the bullet and upgraded to 10, then to 
11.

Now everything seems to be fully compatible. GL version shows 4.6, and 
GL Renderer is Mesa Intel(R) UHD Graphics 610.


I use a number of zenity dialogs for showing info or asking questions on 
this system.  On the Deb 9 system, these dialogs displayed with a 
reasonable width/height, without explicitly setting either --width or 
--height options.  However, after upgrading, I noticed the info, 
warning, and question dialogs display only about 10 text characters per 
line.  For instance, zenity --info --text "The quick brown fox jumped 
over the lazy dogs", displays in 5 rows, instead of in 1 row like it 
used to before upgrading.  The behaviour is the same on a fresh install 
of 11.

Was curious if anyone else had issues with this, and if there is a way 
to change the default behaviour.  Or do I need to go through and add 
--width and --height options in every instance where zenity is used?

Thanks!
Allen

Re: Debian 9 on H410 hardware

[Allen Hoover]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 08:09:20AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> alt...@emypeople.net wrote: 
> > In general I'm wondering if it is possible to upgrade an older Debian 
> > system to be compatible with newer hardware, without upgrading the whole 
> > system to a later Debian version?
> > 
> > 
> > In particular, I'm wishing to get a Debian 9 system to run on an MSI 
> > H410M-PRO-C board, with an Intel Pentium G6405 CPU.  Have updated to 
> > latest backport kernel, and firmware packages.  For the most part 
> > everything works fine, however Xorg is falling back to using fbdev 
> > graphic driver.
> > 
> > 
> > This system is used in an offline application, and I'm not ready to 
> > upgrade to Debian 11 at this time.
> 
> Do you have a backport xserver-xorg-video-intel ? That's usually
> the determining factor for X11 issues like this.
> 
> The other thing would be -- have you explicitly set the driver
> to be intel in xorg.conf?
> 
> If neither of those things work, you should upgrade to 10 and
> then 11.
> 
> -dsr-

The xserver-xorg-video-intel package description says use of it is 
discouraged on hardware newer than 2007.  I thought the built in 
modesetting driver is used for intel hardware?

Re: Print with mupdf?

[Allen Hoover]

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 08:59:09PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Wed 19 Sep 2018 at 14:41:24 -0500, Jason wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 01:32:47AM -0300, Felipe Portales wrote:
> > > El domingo, 16 de septiembre de 2018 17:15:16 -03, Glenn English escribió:
> > > > Anybody know of a civilized, bug-free pdf viewer? (will display full
> > > > screen with no or thin borders, allows for manipulating size and
> > > > position)
> > >
> > > May I suggest mupdf?
> > 
> > Is there any way to print from mupdf? It's very fast for viewing PDFs
> > but of limited use to me if it can't print.
> 
> Using a mupdf option? No.
> 
> -- 
> Brian.

Have you seen:
gv, epdfview, qpdfview, xpdf

-- 
Allen

Re: SSD unrecognized disk label

[Allen Hoover]

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 11:16:18AM +0200, Martin wrote:
> I suggest, you first have a look what you have in front of you:
> 
> What does 'lshw -c disk' say?
  *-disk
   description: ATA Disk
   product: SPCC Solid State
   physical id: 0.0.0
   bus info: scsi@0:0.0.0
   logical name: /dev/sda
   version: 12.2
   serial: DA5A076408EE02778745
   size: 111GiB (120GB)
   capabilities: partitioned partitioned:dos
   configuration: ansiversion=5 logicalsectorsize=512 sectorsize=512 
signature=0003cf43
  *-disk
   description: ATA Disk
   product: SM2246AA-5
   physical id: 0.0.0
   bus info: scsi@1:0.0.0
   logical name: /dev/sdb
   version: 0912
   serial: (03)5526888-20080228
   size: 1023MiB (1073MB)
   configuration: ansiversion=5 logicalsectorsize=512 sectorsize=512
  *-disk
   description: ATA Disk
   product: ESA3SMD2HSLB120G
   physical id: 0.0.0
   bus info: scsi@2:0.0.0
   logical name: /dev/sdc
   version: 4B
   serial: E20150303710198
   size: 111GiB (120GB)
   configuration: ansiversion=5 logicalsectorsize=512 sectorsize=512

> What does 'hdparm -I [device]' say?

/dev/sdb:

ATA device, with non-removable media
Model Number:   SM2246AA-5  
Serial Number:  (03)5526888-20080228
Firmware Revision:  20120912
Standards:
Supported: 9 8 7 6 5 
Likely used: 9
Configuration:
Logical max current
cylinders   20801008
heads   16  16
sectors/track   63  63
--
CHS current addressable sectors:15481935
LBAuser addressable sectors: 2096640
Logical/Physical Sector size:   512 bytes
device size with M = 1024*1024:7559 MBytes
device size with M = 1000*1000:7926 MBytes (7 GB)
cache/buffer size  = unknown
Capabilities:
LBA, IORDY(can be disabled)
Standby timer values: spec'd by Vendor
R/W multiple sector transfer: Max = 1   Current = 1
DMA: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 *udma5 
 Cycle time: min=120ns recommended=120ns
PIO: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4 
 Cycle time: no flow control=120ns  IORDY flow control=120ns
Commands/features:
Enabled Supported:
   *Power Management feature set
   *WRITE_BUFFER command
   *READ_BUFFER command
   *NOP cmd
   *Gen1 signaling speed (1.5Gb/s)
   *Gen2 signaling speed (3.0Gb/s)
Integrity word not set (found 0x, expected 0x4fa5)


> Do you have any SCSI and/or disk related errors in your kernel log?

Here are messages when disk is hot plugged:
[184170.852482] ata2: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
[184170.852808] ACPI Error: [DSSP] Namespace lookup failure, AE_NOT_FOUND 
(20160831/psargs-359)
[184170.852827] ACPI Error: Method parse/execution failed 
[\_SB.PCI0.SAT0.PRT1._GTF] (Node 8a082a0e4960), AE_NOT_FOUND 
(20160831/psparse-543)
[184170.852854] ata2.00: ATA-9: SM2246AA-5, 20120912, max UDMA/100
[184170.852858] ata2.00: 2096640 sectors, multi 1: LBA 
[184170.853159] ACPI Error: [DSSP] Namespace lookup failure, AE_NOT_FOUND 
(20160831/psargs-359)
[184170.853177] ACPI Error: Method parse/execution failed 
[\_SB.PCI0.SAT0.PRT1._GTF] (Node 8a082a0e4960), AE_NOT_FOUND 
(20160831/psparse-543)
[184170.853206] ata2.00: configured for UDMA/100
[184170.853219] ata2: EH complete
[184170.853527] scsi 1:0:0:0: Direct-Access ATA  SM2246AA-5   0912 
PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
[184170.892902] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] 2096640 512-byte logical blocks: (1.07 
GB/1024 MiB)
[184170.892972] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off
[184170.892976] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
[184170.893006] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: disabled, read cache: enabled, 
doesn't support DPO or FUA
[184170.894076] sd 1:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg1 type 0
[184170.895638] sd 1:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached SCSI disk


> What does 'fdisk -l [device]' say?

Disk /dev/sdb: 1023.8 MiB, 1073479680 bytes, 2096640 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes


> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> Am 13.09.2018 um 23:16 schrieb Allen Hoover:
> > I have an SSD that has some serious issues. It contains files that
> > are fairly important to recover.  The user had not done backups quite
> > recently.
> > 
> > If I view the SSD in parted, it says unrecognized disk label, and the
> > size is shown as 1073MB instead of 120GB as it should.
> > 
> > I have another SSD here that would have an identical partition table,
> > at 1 point it was an exact clone.
> > 
> > There are multiple partitions, but the main one is the one with
> >

SSD unrecognized disk label

[Allen Hoover]

I have an SSD that has some serious issues. It contains files that
are fairly important to recover.  The user had not done backups quite
recently.

If I view the SSD in parted, it says unrecognized disk label, and the
size is shown as 1073MB instead of 120GB as it should.

I have another SSD here that would have an identical partition table,
at 1 point it was an exact clone.

There are multiple partitions, but the main one is the one with
important data, and it is an ext4 filesystem.

Is there any hope of recovery?

Please CC me, as I only subscribe to user digest mailing list.

Thank You!

Re: Package lists in Debian DVD images

[Allen Hoover]

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 07:23:35PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:03:14AM -0600, Sergio Arana wrote:
> > Hi,
> 
> Hi,
> 
> first of all: don't just "answer" to a mail in the
> list with another new topic. This is called "thread
> hijacking" and confuses the hell out of us, which are
> here to try to help you, after all :-)
> 
> I posted my answer with a subject which may attract
> people who know an answer (there are more than 3000
> subscribers to this list, you know).
> 
> > I downloaded all 3 DVD images for Debian 9.5 I installed the first one, but 
> > I would like to know how can I check the other two DVDs to see if there is 
> > software I might want to use/install.
> 
> The package lists themselves should be (I think!) in the
> first DVD. So your packaging system should know about all
> packages (and tell you to insert whatever DVD is needed
> while installing).
> 
> Which program are you using to install packages? Dpkg?
> Synaptic?
> 
> Cheers
> -- tomás

Use "apt-cdrom add" to add additional DVD's to the apt repository.


Allen

Re: mailing list is the future (corrected spelling mistakes)

[Allen Hoover]

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 12:29:33AM +1200, Richard Hector wrote:
> On 11/08/18 23:28, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > Am DATE hackte AUTHOR in die Tasten: Brad Rogers
> >> On Sat, 11 Aug 2018 12:05:21 +0300
> >> "Michelle Konzack"  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello Michelle,
> >>
> >>> Oh yeah, -- let's hoover!
> >>
> >> Errr, hoover?
> >>
> >> What, like the make of vacuum cleaner?   :-)
> > 
> > Check YouTube for "Hoover Board"...
> > Realy cool inventions!
> > 
> > Let a car move like a Hooverboat!
> > 
> 
> Um, any search results for that are likely to be spelling mistakes ... I
> think the word you're after is 'hover' :-)
> 
> Richard
> 



Hoover looks totally fine to me!!

Regards,
Allen Hoover

Re[2]: Brother or Canon; not both

[Allen Hoover]

-Original Message- 
> From: Brian  
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org 
> Date: 08/09/18 11:25 
> Subject: Re: Brother or Canon; not both 
> 
> On Thu 09 Aug 2018 at 11:10:44 +0100, Brian wrote:
> 
> > On Wed 08 Aug 2018 at 19:12:09 -0500, Allen Hoover wrote:
> > 
> > > Ever since upgrading some customized Debian 64bit systems to Debian 8, 
> > > I've
> > > had trouble with the Canon UFRII printer drivers.  I've now been
> > > testing this issue on a vanilla Debian 8, and Debian 9 system with the
> > > same issues on both.
> > > 
> > > I use official Brother printer drivers which are i386 only, so have
> > > multi-arch installed, and the libc6-i386 package.  The Canon UFRII
> > > package installs fine, but when printing with any of those drivers the
> > > following error shows in the status: "Idle - src =
> > > libcanon_pdlwrapper.c, line = 514, err = 0nError Response:ReqNo=2,
> > > SeqNo=3,opvpErrorNo=-2".  If I uninstall the libc6-i386 package, the
> > > Canon drivers dont't throw an error, but the official Brother drivers
> > > quit working. The Brother doesn't indicate any error, but it simply
> > > prints nothing.
> > > 
> > > This was very repeatable on the 3 different systems( 2 systems were
> > > fresh installs) I've tried.  Its like an On/Off switch, install
> > > libc6-i386 and only one brand works, un-install and the only the other
> > > brand works
> > 
> > Printer models, please.
> 
> Allen - you responded in another thread. I have moved your response to
> here, the thread you started.


Sorry, not sure how that happened...

> 
> > The Canon issue first appeared with a Canon MF414, though the status error
> > message appears when using any of the UFRII drivers. I've been mainly 
> > testing
> > on a Brother MFC 9560, though at least one other official Brother driver has
> > same issue.  I'm using very latest UFRII package.
> 
> The MF414 is an AirPrint printer and has PDF as a language emulation.
> That means it will do driverless printing on unstable, testing and
> stretch, disposing of any need for a Canon UFRII printer driver.
> 
> For stretch:
> 
> 1. Get the device on the network with a wireless connection.
> 
> 2. Check that AirPrint is enabled (it probably is) by connecting to
>    the IP address of the device with a web browser (see the manual).
> 
> 3. Check that the Bonjour broadcasts from the device are detected with
>    avahi-daemon by looking at the output of 'avahi-browse -art'.
> 
> 4. In /etc/cups/cups-browsed.conf have CreateIPPPrinterQueues Yes and
>    restart cups-browsed.
> 
> 5. 'lpstat -a' and print dialogs of applications should list the printer.
> 
> See the wiki for further details.
> 
> Wih the MFC 9560 you are stuck with what Brother provides.
> 
> I would be interested in how you go on printing driverless.
> 
> -- 
> Brian.
> 


The systems I'm most concerned with are Jessie, I was only testing on Stretch
to see if I get the same results.


I don't have the MF414 myself, a user of my custom Jessie system does, and I
can't easily access that system for testing.


I'm not so much concerned with these 2 specific models, as I'm concerned about
getting the official Brother drivers, and the Canon UFRII drivers working on the
same system.


Thanks for your input,
Allen

Re: Brother or Canon; not both

[Allen Hoover]

> On Wed 08 Aug 2018 at 19:12:09 -0500, Allen Hoover wrote:
> 
> > Ever since upgrading some customized Debian 64bit systems to Debian 8, I've
> > had trouble with the Canon UFRII printer drivers.  I've now been
> > testing this issue on a vanilla Debian 8, and Debian 9 system with the
> > same issues on both.
> > 
> > I use official Brother printer drivers which are i386 only, so have
> > multi-arch installed, and the libc6-i386 package.  The Canon UFRII
> > package installs fine, but when printing with any of those drivers the
> > following error shows in the status: "Idle - src =
> > libcanon_pdlwrapper.c, line = 514, err = 0nError Response:ReqNo=2,
> > SeqNo=3,opvpErrorNo=-2".  If I uninstall the libc6-i386 package, the
> > Canon drivers dont't throw an error, but the official Brother drivers
> > quit working. The Brother doesn't indicate any error, but it simply
> > prints nothing.
> > 
> > This was very repeatable on the 3 different systems( 2 systems were
> > fresh installs) I've tried.  Its like an On/Off switch, install
> > libc6-i386 and only one brand works, un-install and the only the other
> > brand works
> 
> Printer models, please.
> 
> -- 
> Brian.
> 
> 


The Canon issue first appeared with a Canon MF414, though the status error
message appears when using any of the UFRII drivers. I've been mainly testing
on a Brother MFC 9560, though at least one other official Brother driver has 
same issue.  I'm using very latest UFRII package.


Thanks, Allen

Brother or Canon; not both

[Allen Hoover]

Ever since upgrading some customized Debian 64bit systems to Debian 8, I've
had trouble with the Canon UFRII printer drivers.  I've now been
testing this issue on a vanilla Debian 8, and Debian 9 system with the
same issues on both.

I use official Brother printer drivers which are i386 only, so have
multi-arch installed, and the libc6-i386 package.  The Canon UFRII
package installs fine, but when printing with any of those drivers the
following error shows in the status: "Idle - src =
libcanon_pdlwrapper.c, line = 514, err = 0nError Response:ReqNo=2,
SeqNo=3,opvpErrorNo=-2".  If I uninstall the libc6-i386 package, the
Canon drivers dont't throw an error, but the official Brother drivers
quit working. The Brother doesn't indicate any error, but it simply
prints nothing.

This was very repeatable on the 3 different systems( 2 systems were
fresh installs) I've tried.  Its like an On/Off switch, install
libc6-i386 and only one brand works, un-install and the only the other
brand works

-- 
Thanks, Allen