On 12/08/2016 19:50, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Felipe Sateler, on Fri 12 Aug 2016 17:44:20 +, wrote:
localed by itself does little more than updating /etc/default/keyboard et
al[1] (it can set XKBMODEL, XKBVARIANT, XKBLAYOUT and XKBOPTIONS in that
file). It then tries to invoke
Hello.
The freeze date is about three months away and i'd like to know if there
are any plans about these packages before then.
The main problem is that currently systemd comes with a partially broken
localectl, well explained here:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2015/07/msg00110.html
On 08/08/2014 08:31, Michael Gilbert wrote:
Here's a really interesting view showing the downward trend starting
somewhere in April [0]. Note that the xfce trend was consistently
growing prior to and past January (when the default was changed), but
slowed a lot in April. At the same time,
On 12/04/2014 12:23, alberto fuentes wrote:
xfce4 felt like a less polished gnome2 but at least it didn't disrupt
my workflow.
JFYI, it's not ready yet in Debian but MATE is advancing and looks
promising for those who still miss Gnome2. Recently a number of packages
entered in unstable
On 24/10/2013 17:40, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Let's change the default desktop for installation to xfce.
I agree.
I'm using it happily for more than a year and it mostly works. Less
mature than Gnome 2.x, which i still miss, but powerful and functional.
Pros:
* CD#1 will work again without
On 15/01/2012 19:52, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
On one system, that is exactly, that is what I observe.
Ok, i suspected that.
I've haven't yet found the time to test zram and surely will do. But i
also admit that the more i think the more seems to me the wrong way to
solve the responsiveness
On 07/01/2012 18:48, Rainer Dorsch wrote:
I recently setup zram (for compressed swap space in RAM) on an older low RAM
machine. I was quite happy with the result and started now to do the same
setup also on my other machines. I am wondering if anybody is investigating,
if debian should do that
On 20/11/2011 20:36, Ben Hutchings wrote:
If that is so, we should instead think forward to 686-class
with CMOV as a minimum for wheezy + 1. Use of CMOV instructions is an
important optimisation and they *are* generated directly by compilers.
While i might agree with the exclusion of 486 cpu
Hi all.
I'd like to know if someone has more info on the Wine package status.
From the outside and after searching from time to time on the internet,
it's still not clear to me what's the reason why this package is so old.
Upstream is 1.2.3 (stable) and 1.3.28 (development) and they looks
On 11/09/2011 14:56, Ove Kåven wrote:
Because of the work and time needed for compliance with Debian's strict
DFSG requirements (in addition to having to package a full mingw
toolchain to compile it, upstream's Gecko package had to undergo a
repackaging for DFSG compliance, plus a complete
On 08/05/2010 19:07, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
Perhaps we should do a poll to collect
information on how testers experience their boot with
CONCURRENCY=makefile, to make it easier to switch with some confidence
that it would work for most users. :)
If that helps, reading this thread i've set
Cesare Leonardi wrote:
In May i've sent the following mail to debian-gtk-gnome to signal this
problem but since nothing happened so far, i file a bug:
-
Since some days i've noted (updated Debian Sid) that when i right-click
on a usb
Neil Williams wrote:
Have you disabled dbus notifications? The point at which the icon
disappears is not the point at which the drive is safe to remove. DBus
normally raises a notification window Data is being written to the
device followed by Device is now safe to remove.
Mmh, i feel you are
Hi, i would like to extrapolate a discussion from the big Sun Java
available from non-free thread and comment and listen for comment on
it. In particular, the primary question is: Who can write on debian-devel?
Please, don't consider this a polemic message (except the last part
maybe... ;-) ):
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
I don't think debian has decided on a more or less 'official' position
regarding software patents. There many packages in debian, which are
suspected to implement many ideas described by software patents. I don't
know of any case were debian had to explain in court. This
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 05:23:51PM +0200, Cesare Leonardi wrote:
I am for the radical way, to keep Debian completely free, libre.
If I'm understanding you correctly on this (i.e. remove from Debian
every software which has parts covered by software patents
Juan Piñeros wrote:
In machine1 hdparm is not currently installed, but it was 1 year ago when the
machine1 had woody installed. I suppose hdparm does not change anything to
the disk itself but only to the ide modules of the kernel?
Hdparm is a powerful tool that can activate/deactivate some
Juan Piñeros wrote:
I do not find any logical explanation. No strange message in syslog, we used
normal programs (konqueror, thunderbird, oowriter) when sudenly when try to
save a file or read mail, an error appears just saying that the directories
did not exist any more.
In the past i had a
Sam Morris wrote:
You need to edit /var/lib/dpkg/info/linux-image-2.6.14-2-k7.postrm.
Comment out line 268, which reads: $ret = stop ();. Then purge the
package.
Thank you very much for the precise information: it works.
And thanks also to have CC'ed your reply to #344767.
Regards.
Cesare.
Hi all.
I would ask a question i've already posted in the #344767 bug report.
Recently i've talked with someone else that cannot purge the 2.6.14
kernel, due to bug #344767. It's a known problem, already solved for
2.6.15, but for people that still use 2.6.14 or have used it, the
problem of
20 matches
Mail list logo
