Please clarify that apt-file can also search for parts of the full path of a file
Package: apt-file Severity: minor On Vi, 24 oct 14, 13:44:06, Malte Forkel wrote: Am 24.10.2014 um 13:08 schrieb Darac Marjal: Actually, apt-file will search the whole path (try 'apt-file search bin'). If you like, try the -x option to apt-file to specify a perl-compatible regex. You're right! Thanks for pointing that out. I was mislead by the man page auf apt-file 2.5.1 (in wheezy) which says search Search in which package a file is included. A list of all pack‐ ages containing the pattern pattern is returned. apt-file will only search for filenames, not directory names. This is due to the format of the Contents files it searches. A misinterpretation on my behalf or a bug in the documentation? If my understanding is correct: packages may also contain (empty) directories, but these will not be found by apt-file (because of the format of the Contents files[1]), but files are included with the full path so a search will match a directory in the path. The manpage would probably do with a slight enhancement ;) Something like below might do it: apt-file will only search for filenames, including any portion of the full path, but not directory names. This is due to the format of the Contents files it searches. [1] excerpt from a Contents file: When a file is contained in more than one package, all packages are listed. When a directory is contained in more than one package, only the first is listed. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please clarify correct sid packages for 2.6.16 and for 2.6.17?
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:25:37 -0700 RParr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: George Borisov wrote:RParr wrote: Could someone please clarify which is the correct set of Debian sid packages to install for the following two situations: 1) install/update kernel 2.6.16, headers, etc. 2) install/update kernel 2.6.17, headers, etc. What processor have you got? Dual Opteron; that's why I originally installed the linux*-amd64-k8 You need a smp kernel. If it were me, I would remove all but the latest working kernel then install the smp kernel. The 'linux-image-amd64-k8-smp' will install the latest 2.6 kernel for amd64, same for headers. For unstable it looks like 2.6.17 is the kernel that gets installed. snip -- Greg Madden -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify correct sid packages for 2.6.16 and for 2.6.17?
RParr wrote: George Borisov wrote: What processor have you got? Dual Opteron; that's why I originally installed the linux*-amd64-k8 versions. Hmm, I can't even see the 64 bit kernels in my apt-cache. This would make sense, as I'm not running 64bit. Over to someone else on this one, sorry. -- George Borisov DXSolutions Ltd signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Please clarify correct sid packages for 2.6.16 and for 2.6.17?
Could someone please clarify which is the correct set of Debian sid packages to install for the following two situations: 1) install/update kernel 2.6.16, headers, etc. 2) install/update kernel 2.6.17, headers, etc. both including the ability to install/build modules for nvidia, ivtv, vmware, etc. I have the following installed and it appears if I just did an apt-get dist-upgrade I would wind up with half staying at 2.6.16 and half being upgraded to 2.6.17. --- ii linux-headers-2.6-amd64-generic 2.6.16-14 Header files for Linux kernel 2.6 on all x86-64 machines ii linux-headers-2.6-amd64-k8 2.6.16-14 Header files for Linux kernel 2.6 on AMD64 K8 machines ii linux-headers-2.6.16-2 2.6.16-14 Common header files for Linux kernel 2.6.16 ii linux-headers-2.6.16-2-amd64-generic 2.6.16-14 Header files for Linux kernel 2.6.16 on all x86-64 machi ii linux-headers-2.6.16-2-amd64-k8 2.6.16-14 Header files for Linux kernel 2.6.16 on AMD64 K8 machine ii linux-image-2.6-amd64-generic2.6.16-14 Linux kernel 2.6 image on all x86-64 machines ii linux-image-2.6-amd64-k8 2.6.16-14 Linux kernel 2.6 image on AMD64 K8 machines ii linux-image-2.6.16-2-amd64-generic 2.6.16-14 Linux kernel 2.6.16 image on all x86-64 machines ii linux-image-2.6.16-2-amd64-k82.6.16-14 Linux kernel 2.6.16 image on AMD64 K8 machines ii linux-kernel-headers 2.6.16.20-6 Linux Kernel Headers for development ii linux-patch-debian-2.6.162.6.16-14 Debian patches to version 2.6.16 of the Linux kernel ii linux-source-2.6.16 2.6.16-14 Linux kernel source for version 2.6.16 with Debian patch --- Thanks RParr, RHCE, Temporal Arts -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify correct sid packages for 2.6.16 and for 2.6.17?
RParr wrote: Could someone please clarify which is the correct set of Debian sid packages to install for the following two situations: 1) install/update kernel 2.6.16, headers, etc. 2) install/update kernel 2.6.17, headers, etc. What processor have you got? -- George Borisov DXSolutions Ltd signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Please clarify correct sid packages for 2.6.16 and for 2.6.17?
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:30:17 -0700 RParr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could someone please clarify which is the correct set of Debian sid packages to install for the following two situations: 1) install/update kernel 2.6.16, headers, etc. 2) install/update kernel 2.6.17, headers, etc. both including the ability to install/build modules for nvidia, ivtv, vmware, etc. I have the following installed and it appears if I just did an apt-get dist-upgrade I would wind up with half staying at 2.6.16 and half being upgraded to 2.6.17. --- ii linux-headers-2.6-amd64-generic 2.6.16-14 Header files for Linux kernel 2.6 on all x86-64 machines ii linux-headers-2.6-amd64-k8 2.6.16-14 Header files for Linux kernel 2.6 on AMD64 K8 machines ii linux-headers-2.6.16-2 2.6.16-14 Common header files for Linux kernel 2.6.16 ii linux-headers-2.6.16-2-amd64-generic 2.6.16-14 Header files for Linux kernel 2.6.16 on all x86-64 machi ii linux-headers-2.6.16-2-amd64-k8 2.6.16-14 Header files for Linux kernel 2.6.16 on AMD64 K8 machine ii linux-image-2.6-amd64-generic2.6.16-14 Linux kernel 2.6 image on all x86-64 machines ii linux-image-2.6-amd64-k8 2.6.16-14 Linux kernel 2.6 image on AMD64 K8 machines ii linux-image-2.6.16-2-amd64-generic 2.6.16-14 Linux kernel 2.6.16 image on all x86-64 machines ii linux-image-2.6.16-2-amd64-k82.6.16-14 Linux kernel 2.6.16 image on AMD64 K8 machines ii linux-kernel-headers 2.6.16.20-6 Linux Kernel Headers for development ii linux-patch-debian-2.6.162.6.16-14 Debian patches to version 2.6.16 of the Linux kernel ii linux-source-2.6.16 2.6.16-14 Linux kernel source for version 2.6.16 with Debian patch --- If you do 'apt-get -s dist-upgrade' it will do a dry run showing what it would do without the '-s' option. -- Greg Madden -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify correct sid packages for 2.6.16 and for 2.6.17?
Greg Madden wrote: On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:30:17 -0700 RParr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could someone please clarify which is the correct set of Debian sid packages to install for the following two situations: 1) install/update kernel 2.6.16, headers, etc. 2) install/update kernel 2.6.17, headers, etc. both including the ability to install/build modules for nvidia, ivtv, vmware, etc. I have the following installed and it appears if I just did an apt-get dist-upgrade I would wind up with half staying at 2.6.16 and half being upgraded to 2.6.17. --- ii linux-headers-2.6-amd64-generic 2.6.16-14 Header files for Linux kernel 2.6 on all x86-64 machines ii linux-headers-2.6-amd64-k8 2.6.16-14 Header files for Linux kernel 2.6 on AMD64 K8 machines ii linux-headers-2.6.16-2 2.6.16-14 Common header files for Linux kernel 2.6.16 ii linux-headers-2.6.16-2-amd64-generic 2.6.16-14 Header files for Linux kernel 2.6.16 on all x86-64 machi ii linux-headers-2.6.16-2-amd64-k8 2.6.16-14 Header files for Linux kernel 2.6.16 on AMD64 K8 machine ii linux-image-2.6-amd64-generic2.6.16-14 Linux kernel 2.6 image on all x86-64 machines ii linux-image-2.6-amd64-k8 2.6.16-14 Linux kernel 2.6 image on AMD64 K8 machines ii linux-image-2.6.16-2-amd64-generic 2.6.16-14 Linux kernel 2.6.16 image on all x86-64 machines ii linux-image-2.6.16-2-amd64-k82.6.16-14 Linux kernel 2.6.16 image on AMD64 K8 machines ii linux-kernel-headers 2.6.16.20-6 Linux Kernel Headers for development ii linux-patch-debian-2.6.162.6.16-14 Debian patches to version 2.6.16 of the Linux kernel ii linux-source-2.6.16 2.6.16-14 Linux kernel source for version 2.6.16 with Debian patch --- If you do 'apt-get -s dist-upgrade' it will do a dry run showing what it would do without the '-s' option. Thanks. That's how I found out it would upgrade HALF my kernel packages to 2.6.17 and leave the other half back at 2.6.16. It seems the kernel folks have rearranged the kernel (ie linux-*) packages to allow moving up to 2.6.17 OR continuing with 2.6.16. All the traffic on the kernel list left me a bit confused as to which set of packages was appropriate to achieve which goal. I posted this question several days ago to the kernel list but no one answered. I was hoping someone on this list might know and be willing to share the secret. R.Parr, RHCE, Temporal Arts -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify correct sid packages for 2.6.16 and for 2.6.17?
George Borisov wrote: RParr wrote: Could someone please clarify which is the correct set of Debian sid packages to install for the following two situations: 1) install/update kernel 2.6.16, headers, etc. 2) install/update kernel 2.6.17, headers, etc. What processor have you got? Dual Opteron; that's why I originally installed the linux*-amd64-k8 versions. I believe the kernel folks have also been shuffling around the naming for AMD vs Intel 64 versions a bit. Another aspect of the "which packages" questions. R.Parr, RHCE, Temporal Arts -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, E.L. Meijer (Eric) wrote: The autoup.sh is ment to be used in bo-hamm upgrade, AFAIK. Normal updates are easy, just point dselect/apt to a mirror, get updates and let it install. Just fire up and tap enter a few times. It is usually a good idea to upgrade dpkg first with dpkg, in case there have been enhancements of the package system. for an upgrade from bo/rexx/buzz to hamm, DO NOT attempt to upgrade with dpkg. Doing so will break bash, resulting in a non-working system...recovering from this situation is difficult for an expert and probably impossible for a novice. DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. Use the HOWTO, or use autoup.sh which a) upgrades bash and libreadline and other stuff in the correct order, and b) upgrades dpkg to the latest version. my preferred method for upgrading to hamm is: 1. download autoup.sh and the tarball from http://debian.vicnet.net.au/autoup 2. read autoup.sh to get an understanding of what it is about to do. also read Scott's HOWTO. 3. run autoup.sh 4. when autoup has run, THEN (and only then) is it safe to run dselect to complete the upgrade. Use the 'mountable' method if you have a CD or a local mirror - it works better than the old 'mounted' method. Alternatively, use apt (but you'll need to install apt and several other packages by hand first) as mentioned yesterday, i have used this method to successfully (and painlessly) upgrade dozens of systems to hamm. it works. craig -- craig sanders -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
Hello, I just tried to look at this site (http://debian.vicnet.net.au), but in vain. Anybody knows other places with autoup.sh? Does it works good with 1.3.0? my preferred method for upgrading to hamm is: 1. download autoup.sh and the tarball from http://debian.vicnet.net.au/autoup [] as mentioned yesterday, i have used this method to successfully (and painlessly) upgrade dozens of systems to hamm. it works. craig Eugene Sevinian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
Craig wrote: On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, E.L. Meijer (Eric) wrote: The autoup.sh is ment to be used in bo-hamm upgrade, AFAIK. Normal updates are easy, just point dselect/apt to a mirror, get updates and let it install. Just fire up and tap enter a few times. It is usually a good idea to upgrade dpkg first with dpkg, in case there have been enhancements of the package system. for an upgrade from bo/rexx/buzz to hamm, DO NOT attempt to upgrade with dpkg. Doing so will break bash, resulting in a non-working system...recovering from this situation is difficult for an expert and probably impossible for a novice. DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. Oops, I suppose I was a little unclear. My comment concerned upgrades _before_ hamm (and problably after hamm as well). The autoup.sh script is the way to go for bo - hamm. Eric -- E.L. Meijer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | tel. office +31 40 2472189 Eindhoven Univ. of Technology | tel. lab. +31 40 2475032 Lab. for Catalysis and Inorg. Chem. (TAK) | tel. fax+31 40 2455054 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On Wed, Jun 17, 1998 at 12:08:49PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you give me or point me to 1.1 to 1.2 to 1.3, or 1.1 to 1.3, upgrade instructions? Thanks. I don't think there were a lot of instructions for those upgrades at the time, unlike the 1.3 - 2.0 upgrade. There is a file README in the bo subdirectory at the debian mirrors, eg ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/bo/README, which gives instructions for the 1.2 to 1.3 upgrade. I *think* (but cannot confirm) that there should be no additional instructions for 1.1 to 1.3; it should work. After you have upgraded those few packages by hand, run dselect to upgrade everything else. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On 17 Jun 98 05:10:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh yeah? On my hamm-bo DOWNGRADE, I had to UPLOAD more than that. Goddamn! You win. :-) Rob Wilderspin -- But I need it to crash once every few days - reboots are the only chance I get to sleep... --= (send replies to rob@) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, Steve Lamb wrote: Yes, but *there is no need for a re-install*! Debian has a great and superior upgrading mechanism, and your system will update cleanly through every version, even major version changes. The success varied and that mostly all users can upgrade easily...to hamm *without* reinstall also states that there were failures and that there will be users who cannot uprgrade w/o a reinstall. There is no need for a re-install is an aboslute. In your own words you have conceeded there will be cases that there will be a need for a reinstall. while it is theoretically possible that a dselect/dpkg upgrade will fail, i haven't seen it happen yet in several years of using and upgrading debian. i've done dozens of bo to hamm upgrades (using autoup.sh) without a problem. i've done a handful of rex to hamm upgrades without a problem (also using autoup.sh) (i know that people have done buzz to hamm upgrades with autoup.sh too - but i haven't done any myself) also, over the last few years i have done literally hundreds of debian upgrades on dozens of machines. i keep most of the machines i am responsible for in sync with the latest stuff in unstable - most machines get upgraded every week or two...some get upgraded every six months or so. in all of these upgrades i have not once run into any really serious problem - one which corrupted dpkg's package status info...the majority of problems encountered were minor, easily solved with a few minutes work (editing config files or resolving dependancies manually by installing/removing stuff with dpkg). occasionally an updated version of a package is extremely buggy and i have to revert to an earlier version. the only time i have ever had to reinstall from scratch was the result of hardware failure. dpkg isn't proof against a dead hard disk. so, to reiterate what i said earlier: in theory, you might occasionally need to re-install rather than upgradebut in practice that will only be necessary if your hardware fails. invest in a tape backup system and a UPS. in other words, empirical evidence supports the assertion that There is no need for a re-install craig -- craig sanders -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 23:30:26 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: Yes, but it is not the time to install hamm yet for an end user. I don't think it is appropriate for Debian to switch over to Microsoft release schedule (another extreme statement I'm happy to weak). Rats, I'm not an end user? *Steve looks at his hamm/slink system* Hrm... What I wanted to say is similar to what Hamish said: The possibility to update (most of the time even without reboot) Debian in place is a release goal, and we are actually very good in achieving it. I don't doubt that. Nah, just leave it at There are times when a reinstall is needed. I would prefer There are times when a reinstalled may be preferred by the user. There we go. Perfect. Stamp it on the bumper sticker and ship it. -- Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus| employer's. They hired me for my ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions! ---+- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you give me or point me to 1.1 to 1.2 to 1.3, or 1.1 to 1.3, upgrade instructions? Thanks. imo, you'd be better off waiting for hamm (2.0) to be released - or order a pre-release hamm CD (there are several people who sell them...i think netgod - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - burns unstable CDs on request). hamm isn't released yet, but it is stable and high quality. it works. anyway, the autoup.sh script should be able to upgrade you from 1.1 to 2.0 without a problem...i know it was used to do that a few months ago, but i don't think a buzz upgrade has been tested since then (not many people are still running 1.1) craig -- craig sanders -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 10:15:07AM -0700, Nick Moffitt wrote: On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: Yes, but *there is no need for a re-install*! Debian has a great and superior upgrading mechanism, and your system will update cleanly through every version, even major version changes. I was told that there was a way to auto-upgrade. That is, my debian system would mirror or sense an update on the net somehow, and then download all appropriate packages and install them. Is this a myth, work in progress, or reality? This is reality, often tested and works on many systems. The script is called autoup.sh, and is available from Craig Sanders, but also via Debian. I don't have an adress handy, please look at the website/ftpsite/in the mailing list archives. If you don't find it, anybody else knows? The autoup.sh is ment to be used in bo-hamm upgrade, AFAIK. Normal updates are easy, just point dselect/apt to a mirror, get updates and let it install. Just fire up and tap enter a few times. --j -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
j: The autoup.sh is ment to be used in bo-hamm upgrade, AFAIK. Normal updates are easy, just point dselect/apt to a mirror, get updates and let it install. Just fire up and tap enter a few times. It is usually a good idea to upgrade dpkg first with dpkg, in case there have been enhancements of the package system. Eric -- E.L. Meijer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | tel. office +31 40 2472189 Eindhoven Univ. of Technology | tel. lab. +31 40 2475032 Lab. for Catalysis and Inorg. Chem. (TAK) | tel. fax+31 40 2455054 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 10:47:20AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: No, I draw an alternate conclusion based on facts and experiences seperate from your own. We both could go blue in the face (or get advanced carpal tunnel) defending our stances. I do not think either is wrong. I just don't agree with the absolutes that all upgrades don't need a reinstall. But that is a design goal of the distribution. If it is not being met, it is a bug -- please report bugs as appropriate. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 10:25:08PM +0200, Jens Ritter wrote: Neil Cheshire [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Should I really wait for the stable release? Seeing as I am not desperate to upgrade? In case it is expensive for you to get internet access, it is wise to wait for official cdroms. 1.3.1 - hamm takes ~50 MB of downloads. Really? My hamm system of a few weeks ago wants to download 70mb just to get itself up to date. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 05:38:51PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 10:36:24 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: But that is a design goal of the distribution. If it is not being met, it is a bug -- please report bugs as appropriate. It is an unobtainable goal. I couldn't agree less. I think it has been obtained. I have three machines which were all install with buzz (Debian 1.1); two are now running hamm, one is now running bo. One was upgraded from buzz to rex to bo without reboot during 160 days of uptime -- during those 160 days, both rexx and bo were released and installed. So my experience is that it works fine. What is your background with Debian? Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt Mobile: +61 412 011 176 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rising Software Australia Pty. Ltd. Developers of music education software including Auralia Musition. 31 Elmhurst Road, Blackburn, Victoria Australia, 3130 Phone: +61 3 9894 4788 Fax: +61 3 9894 3362 USA Toll Free: 1-888-667-7839 Internet: http://www.rising.com.au/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 10:25:08PM +0200, Jens Ritter wrote: Neil Cheshire [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Should I really wait for the stable release? Seeing as I am not desperate to upgrade? In case it is expensive for you to get internet access, it is wise to wait for official cdroms. 1.3.1 - hamm takes ~50 MB of downloads. Really? My hamm system of a few weeks ago wants to download 70mb just to get itself up to date. Depends on what kind of stuff you already have installed. On my bo-hamm upgrade, I needed to download ~80mb. -- Ed -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On 16 Jun 98 17:39:36 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is the package cruft in slink, which will compare dpkg's databases with the installed files and print the differences (taking a lot of further input into account). It sounds like cruft does much the same as the verify script found in RPM packages (in effect), in that it checks to see that the files installed from the package are still there. Am I right in saying that? Rob Wilderspin -- But I need it to crash once every few days - reboots are the only chance I get to sleep... --= (send replies to rob@) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On 17 Jun 98 03:19:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 10:25:08PM +0200, Jens Ritter wrote: Neil Cheshire [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Should I really wait for the stable release? Seeing as I am not desperate to upgrade? In case it is expensive for you to get internet access, it is wise to wait for official cdroms. 1.3.1 - hamm takes ~50 MB of downloads. Really? My hamm system of a few weeks ago wants to download 70mb just to get itself up to date. Depends on what kind of stuff you already have installed. On my bo-hamm upgrade, I needed to download ~80mb. Oh yeah? Well _I_ needed to download 17 terabytes! Beat that, I dare you!! Rob Wilderspin -- But I need it to crash once every few days - reboots are the only chance I get to sleep... --= (send replies to rob@) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Robert Wilderspin wrote: Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 03:27:50 GMT From: Robert Wilderspin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Please clarify... Resent-Date: 17 Jun 1998 04:20:23 - Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ; On 17 Jun 98 03:19:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 10:25:08PM +0200, Jens Ritter wrote: Neil Cheshire [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Should I really wait for the stable release? Seeing as I am not desperate to upgrade? In case it is expensive for you to get internet access, it is wise to wait for official cdroms. 1.3.1 - hamm takes ~50 MB of downloads. Really? My hamm system of a few weeks ago wants to download 70mb just to get itself up to date. Depends on what kind of stuff you already have installed. On my bo-hamm upgrade, I needed to download ~80mb. Oh yeah? Well _I_ needed to download 17 terabytes! Beat that, I dare you!! Oh yeah? On my hamm-bo DOWNGRADE, I had to UPLOAD more than that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On Wed, Jun 17, 1998 at 02:33:04AM +, Robert Wilderspin wrote: On 16 Jun 98 17:39:36 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is the package cruft in slink, which will compare dpkg's databases with the installed files and print the differences (taking a lot of further input into account). It sounds like cruft does much the same as the verify script found in RPM packages (in effect), in that it checks to see that the files installed from the package are still there. Am I right in saying that? Rob Wilderspin -- But I need it to crash once every few days - reboots are the only chance I get to sleep... --= (send replies to rob@) Not totally wrong except that cruft also check for file in dev, local files, spool files, etc. You can make it run any scripts you want to return a list of file paths that you consider to bbe (or must be) install in your system. RPM -V only check for files in the DB. It doesn't check for new files but check for change files, what I think cruft doesn't. IIRC, dpkg-cert are the tools for that. May be a cruft script for using with dpkg-cert will be appreciate. ;) Just my 2 pennies. -- Fabien Ninoles Running Debian/GNU Linux E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] WebPage: http://www.callisto.si.usherb.ca/~94246757 WorkStation [available when connected!]: http://nightbird.tzone.org/ RSA PGP KEY [E3723845]: 1C C1 4F A6 EE E5 4D 99 4F 80 2D 2D 1F 85 C1 70 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
Can you give me or point me to 1.1 to 1.2 to 1.3, or 1.1 to 1.3, upgrade instructions? Thanks. Chuck Kaufman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 10:47:20AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 19:39:36 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: No, I draw an alternate conclusion based on facts and experiences seperate from your own. We both could go blue in the face (or get advanced carpal tunnel) defending our stances. I do not think either is wrong. I just don't agree with the absolutes that all upgrades don't need a reinstall. Well, absolutes are for simplicity. It is true that every rule has its exceptions. It seems we disagree a bit about how much exceptions are there for a Debian upgrade needing a reinstall, but mostly we are saying the same here. There is the package cruft in slink, which will compare dpkg's databases with the installed files and print the differences (taking a lot of further input into account). So, you're telling me to use a package in the unstable distribution that is one step beyond the unstable distribution that I want to upgrade to to take care of my installation? ;) Hehe. Really smart :) Call it calculable risk. Cruft is actually not doing anything but printing a list of files. Some sort of filtered and reordered find /. But you know that already, don't you :) Those are two different things. Please read again my note about hamm is not released yet. But read also below about exceptions. Uhm, no. They were about the same thing. Someone wanting to reinstall from bo to hamm. Yes, but it is not the time to install hamm yet for an end user. I don't think it is appropriate for Debian to switch over to Microsoft release schedule (another extreme statement I'm happy to weak). What I wanted to say is similar to what Hamish said: The possibility to update (most of the time even without reboot) Debian in place is a release goal, and we are actually very good in achieving it. Alas, reality is not perfect, and won't do us the favour to comply with theory. So, there may be cases where a reinstall is the better solution, especially if the user isn't experienced enough to reesolve small glitches. (A sysadmin would rather fix a partly broken setup than reinstalling. Users may prefer to reinstall instead.) The only case where I needed a reinstall was when I accidently removed the /var directory completely, deleting all dpkg status files and lots more! (And no backup...) Once I accidently crashed the system, whole /etc was gone to lost+found. I did fix the system manually. I did only reinstall some packages to get the conf files back I couldn't find. Satisfied? Nah, just leave it at There are times when a reinstall is needed. I would prefer There are times when a reinstalled may be preferred by the user. Seldom a reinstall is really needed, it does depend what is more work, fixing or reinstalling. Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ ^^ Heh, but it makes a tasty pie. Mmmh, *chew, chew*. Marcus -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please clarify...
Hi, Could someone please clarify for me about all the Debian releases. I currently run Debian 1.3 which is bo , right? I haven't really done much to my system so was going to reinstall with Debian 2.0 which is hamm , ok so far? So what is slink? Is this what is coming out in June, ie. a stable hamm? Will that be 2.1 or is that coming later? Should I really wait for the stable release? Seeing as I am not desperate to upgrade? 1.2 rex 1.3 bo 2.0 hamm? Info please! Thanks, Neil. __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
Neil Cheshire [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: NC Could someone please clarify for me about all the Debian NC releases. I currently run Debian 1.3 which is bo , right? I NC haven't really done much to my system so was going to reinstall NC with Debian 2.0 which is hamm , ok so far? All good so far. :-) NC So what is slink? Is this what is coming out in June, ie. a NC stable hamm? Will that be 2.1 or is that coming later? hamm is Debian 2.0, which will be released Real Soon Now (TM). slink is Debian 2.1, which will be released sometime later. NC Should I really wait for the stable release? Seeing as I am not NC desperate to upgrade? It depends on whether you care about the last few little bugs. In my experience, hamm (and even slink) have been pretty stable so far. NC 1.2 rex NC 1.3 bo NC 2.0 hamm? 2.1 slink -- _ / \ Dad was reading a book called | David Maze | _Schroedinger's Kittens_. Asexual | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | reproduction? Only one cat is in the box. | http://donut.mit.edu/dmaze/ | -- Abra Mitchell \_/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On 16 Jun, David Z. Maze wrote: Neil Cheshire [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: NC Could someone please clarify for me about all the Debian NC releases. I currently run Debian 1.3 which is bo , right? I NC haven't really done much to my system so was going to reinstall NC with Debian 2.0 which is hamm , ok so far? Not sure what you mean by 'reinstall' but with Debian it is not necessary to wipe clean and start over. You can upgrade in place. If you are going to upgrade from bo(1.3) to hamm(2.0) you should get the 'autoup.sh' script that has been written to help with the process. Goto http://debian.vicnet.net.au/autoup/ to get all the necessary file to start your upgrade. [remainder of questions already answered] Brian -- Mechanical Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED] Purdue University http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~servis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 07:48:26AM -0700, Neil Cheshire wrote: Hi, Could someone please clarify for me about all the Debian releases. I currently run Debian 1.3 which is bo , right? Yes. I haven't really done much to my system so was going to reinstall with Debian 2.0 which is hamm , ok so far? Yes, but *there is no need for a re-install*! Debian has a great and superior upgrading mechanism, and your system will update cleanly through every version, even major version changes. Again: Dpkg is designed to handle all upgrades. There are some things to watch for, but nothing serious. If you can't update your system cleanly, it is a bug (and a severe one, too). Reinstalls are for Windows. So what is slink? Is this what is coming out in June, ie. a stable hamm? No. Hamm will be released as stable as soon it is finished. Will that be 2.1 or is that coming later? The next release will be Hamm 2.0. Slink 2.1 will come after that, probably September/october. Should I really wait for the stable release? Seeing as I am not desperate to upgrade? You should wait for the stable release. If you need security updates, they are incorporated in bo. If you need other upgrades, they are probably in bo-updates or bo-unstable at the ftp site. If you are an experienced user and want to test the upgrade, you are welcome to do so before the stable release (I run hamm since november last year). Note. however, that it *may* crash your system seriously (not that I think of a special bug, but take care). 1.2 rex 1.3 bo 2.0 hamm? 2.1 slink 1.1 (0.93?) buzz Marcus -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 18:50:15 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: Yes, but *there is no need for a re-install*! Debian has a great and superior upgrading mechanism, and your system will update cleanly through every version, even major version changes. Rght, that is why we see people in here complaining about problems with a bo-hamm upgrade. I'm sorry, but some things should have a reinstall. That is why the superior method it to seperate the static OS directories on their own partitions and just wipe them out. All you really need to save is /etc. -- Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus| employer's. They hired me for my ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions! ---+- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 09:52:12AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 18:50:15 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: Yes, but *there is no need for a re-install*! Debian has a great and superior upgrading mechanism, and your system will update cleanly through every version, even major version changes. Rght, that is why we see people in here complaining about problems with a bo-hamm upgrade. I'm sorry, but some things should have a reinstall. That is why the superior method it to seperate the static OS directories on their own partitions and just wipe them out. All you really need to save is /etc. Steve, there are two cases where an upgrade can fail: 1) You waited to long. It may be hard to upgrade a rexx system (although possible), and even harder to upgrade a buzz system, because interim releases are not available. 2) You changed the system in places unknown to dpkg. I'm not sure how much this can do harm. Dpkg has configuration file handling, but installing local software elsewhere than in /usr/local can rise problems. PLease use /usr/local and the appropriate places instead. 3) A bug in either a package or dpkg. Please report the bug, we'll try to fix it, thank you. People complaining about bo-hamm upgrade should not try to upgrade at all. Hamm is not released software yet. Everyone installing it before release time knows that he must expect problems. We appreciate testing reports, but not at the cost of disappointing our users. This is the reason why we don't encourage installing hamm, although it's quite stable. There are many boxes, where outtime does cost real money and wiping out the partition is not possible. Debian works fine there, and many people used Debian without reinstall up from the very first beginning. Please don't spread FUD about it. I upgraded more than one system from bo to hamm manually, not only recently but also in earlier states of hamm. The success varied, but made me optimistic that mostly all users can upgrade easily (either using autoup.sh or apt) to hamm *without* reinstall. My observations on the various debian lists, including debian-testing, only support this opinion. BTW: You also want to keep /usr/local, /home and parts of /var. Marcus -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: Yes, but *there is no need for a re-install*! Debian has a great and superior upgrading mechanism, and your system will update cleanly through every version, even major version changes. I was told that there was a way to auto-upgrade. That is, my debian system would mirror or sense an update on the net somehow, and then download all appropriate packages and install them. Is this a myth, work in progress, or reality? Photons have neither morals nor visas -Dave Farber -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 10:15:07AM -0700, Nick Moffitt wrote: On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: Yes, but *there is no need for a re-install*! Debian has a great and superior upgrading mechanism, and your system will update cleanly through every version, even major version changes. I was told that there was a way to auto-upgrade. That is, my debian system would mirror or sense an update on the net somehow, and then download all appropriate packages and install them. Is this a myth, work in progress, or reality? This is reality, often tested and works on many systems. The script is called autoup.sh, and is available from Craig Sanders, but also via Debian. I don't have an adress handy, please look at the website/ftpsite/in the mailing list archives. If you don't find it, anybody else knows? Be sure to read the mini-HOWTO and take a look at the script, so that you roughly understand what it is doing. The alternative is to use apt. Nobody knows which of both works better. Marcus -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 19:07:27 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: there are two cases where an upgrade can fail: A monty Python fan there, eh? 1) You waited to long. It may be hard to upgrade a rexx system (although 2) You changed the system in places unknown to dpkg. I'm not sure how much 3) A bug in either a package or dpkg. Please report the bug, we'll try to ;) Please don't spread FUD about it. I love that term, FUD. It implies an untruth. It is true that people have complained about a bo-hamm upgade on this list. Here is another truth. I've got directories and files that were not removed when a package was purged. Easiest way to reclaim all this space, aside from a few hours of searching the entire HD is to take about an hour to just wipe the main static portions while leaving the dynamic portions alone. hamm manually, not only recently but also in earlier states of hamm. The success varied, but made me optimistic that mostly all users can upgrade easily (either using autoup.sh or apt) to hamm *without* reinstall. This goes against this: Yes, but *there is no need for a re-install*! Debian has a great and superior upgrading mechanism, and your system will update cleanly through every version, even major version changes. The success varied and that mostly all users can upgrade easily...to hamm *without* reinstall also states that there were failures and that there will be users who cannot uprgrade w/o a reinstall. There is no need for a re-install is an aboslute. In your own words you have conceeded there will be cases that there will be a need for a reinstall. BTW: You also want to keep /usr/local, /home and parts of /var. People generally seperate those out from / while /etc is not. I did state that one would be replacing the Static portions of the OS. /usr/local, /home, /var, /tmp are rarely static. -- Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus| employer's. They hired me for my ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions! ---+- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On Tue, Jun 16, 1998 at 10:20:02AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 19:07:27 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: there are two cases where an upgrade can fail: A monty Python fan there, eh? I study mathematics --- I can neither count nor calculate :) 1) You waited to long. It may be hard to upgrade a rexx system (although 2) You changed the system in places unknown to dpkg. I'm not sure how much 3) A bug in either a package or dpkg. Please report the bug, we'll try to ;) Please don't spread FUD about it. I love that term, FUD. It implies an untruth. It is true that people have complained about a bo-hamm upgade on this list. But you draw the wrong conclusions. I already told you that hamm is not released. If there are many severe problems with the upgrade from category three above *after* we release hamm, I'm happy to agree with you. Here is another truth. I've got directories and files that were not removed when a package was purged. Those are bugs, please report them (please don't report when directories are left --- this bug is known and reported multiple times. It is so old, you can almost call it a feature :) Easiest way to reclaim all this space, aside from a few hours of searching the entire HD is to take about an hour to just wipe the main static portions while leaving the dynamic portions alone. There is the package cruft in slink, which will compare dpkg's databases with the installed files and print the differences (taking a lot of further input into account). hamm manually, not only recently but also in earlier states of hamm. The success varied, but made me optimistic that mostly all users can upgrade easily (either using autoup.sh or apt) to hamm *without* reinstall. This goes against this: Yes, but *there is no need for a re-install*! Debian has a great and superior upgrading mechanism, and your system will update cleanly through every version, even major version changes. The success varied and that mostly all users can upgrade easily...to hamm *without* reinstall also states that there were failures and that there will be users who cannot uprgrade w/o a reinstall. Those are two different things. Please read again my note about hamm is not released yet. But read also below about exceptions. There is no need for a re-install is an aboslute. In your own words you have conceeded there will be cases that there will be a need for a reinstall. Oh well, write it on a poster and stick it on a wall: I made a too extreme statement. For the record: There are cases were a reinstall is better than an update. If this is the result of a problem in the Debian distribution, please report it as a bug. Satisfied? In my opinion, a few directories left over do not warrant a reinstall. YMMV. BTW: You also want to keep /usr/local, /home and parts of /var. People generally seperate those out from / while /etc is not. I did state that one would be replacing the Static portions of the OS. /usr/local, /home, /var, /tmp are rarely static. Ok. Marcus -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
On Tue, 16 Jun 1998 19:39:36 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: I love that term, FUD. It implies an untruth. It is true that people have complained about a bo-hamm upgade on this list. But you draw the wrong conclusions. I already told you that hamm is not released. If there are many severe problems with the upgrade from category three above *after* we release hamm, I'm happy to agree with you. No, I draw an alternate conclusion based on facts and experiences seperate from your own. We both could go blue in the face (or get advanced carpal tunnel) defending our stances. I do not think either is wrong. I just don't agree with the absolutes that all upgrades don't need a reinstall. There is the package cruft in slink, which will compare dpkg's databases with the installed files and print the differences (taking a lot of further input into account). So, you're telling me to use a package in the unstable distribution that is one step beyond the unstable distribution that I want to upgrade to to take care of my installation? ;) Those are two different things. Please read again my note about hamm is not released yet. But read also below about exceptions. Uhm, no. They were about the same thing. Someone wanting to reinstall from bo to hamm. Satisfied? Nah, just leave it at There are times when a reinstall is needed. In my opinion, a few directories left over do not warrant a reinstall. YMMV. That was an exmaple. Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ ^^ Heh, but it makes a tasty pie. -- Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus| employer's. They hired me for my ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions! ---+- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please clarify...
Neil Cheshire [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Should I really wait for the stable release? Seeing as I am not desperate to upgrade? In case it is expensive for you to get internet access, it is wise to wait for official cdroms. 1.3.1 - hamm takes ~50 MB of downloads. Jens --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key ID: 2048/E451C639 Jens Ritter Key fingerprint: 5F 3D 43 1E 24 1E CC 48 1E 05 93 3A A7 10 73 37 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
