debian-user and debian-desktop are both good lists for this question.
It is off-topic for debian-devel.
Anyone who answers, please remove debian-devel from the replies.
(Sorry, I don't have an answer for you.)
Thanks...Marvin
-- Forwarded message -
Från: inkrm
Date: tors 13 juli 2023 kl 23:48
Subject: Wayland and NVidia driver conflict
To:
Hi
I just installed Debian 12 'Bookworm' with KDE Plasma 5.27.5 , and I
installed NVidia driver on my machine, following the official gu
Hi all,
I upgraded Bookworm from buster recently and I have noticed my internet
connection sometimes cuts off. I thought the problem was conflict of
connman and the networkmanager so I uninstalled networkmanager but the
problem still continues.
I was checking Synaptic package manager then I
On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 11:52:02AM +0100, local10 wrote:
> Nov 6, 2022, 06:47 by dev@yandex.ru:
>
> > But if i delete "openoffice.org-unbundled" from libreoffice-common conflict
> > string Apache OpenOffice install and work fine!
> >
> >
> > May
On 2022-11-06 at 05:52, local10 wrote:
> Nov 6, 2022, 06:47 by dev@yandex.ru:
>
>> But if i delete "openoffice.org-unbundled" from libreoffice-common
>> conflict string Apache OpenOffice install and work fine!
>>
>>
>> Maybe libreoffice
Nov 6, 2022, 06:47 by dev@yandex.ru:
> But if i delete "openoffice.org-unbundled" from libreoffice-common conflict
> string Apache OpenOffice install and work fine!
>
>
> Maybe libreoffice-common not need "openoffice.org-unbundled" in conflict
&
Package: libreoffice-common
Version: 1:7.0.4-4+deb11u3
Hello!
I can not install lLbreOffice from repo and Apache OpenOffice from
openoffice.org together
Package "libreoffice-common" conflict with openoffice deb packages
In libreoffice-common package
INFO file (debian/control) confl
On 2021-08-22 1:09 p.m., The Wanderer wrote:
> Note that if you eventually hit a command line which succeeds, you'll
> probably wind up marking all the listed packages as manually installed,
> which you may not want. It may be worth backing up your
> "manually-installed packages" state (as repor
Greetings.
On 22/08/2021 19.10, The Wanderer wrote:
What explicit version number do you suggest that I try? Running "apt
install kodi gnome-control-center" tells me that
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
kodi : Depends: kodi-bin (>= 2:19.1+dfsg2-2) but it is not going to be
in
On 2021-08-22 at 12:39, Tristan Miller wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> On 22/08/2021 18.10, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> This appears to mean either that something is resulting in a
>> conflict with that version of kodi-bin, or that that version of
>> kodi-bin is not availabl
Greetings.
On 22/08/2021 18.10, Greg Wooledge wrote:
Do you have any packages on hold? dpkg -l | grep ^h
No, no output from that command.
Do you have any packages pinned, either manually, or by way of some
automatic action performed by apt-listbugs? I'm not an expert in
pinning, but maybe
Greetings.
On 22/08/2021 18.10, The Wanderer wrote:
This appears to mean either that something is resulting in a conflict
with that version of kodi-bin, or that that version of kodi-bin is not
available.
I have:
$ apt-cache policy gnome-control-center kodi kodi-bin
gnome-control-center
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 12:04:46PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> If neither of these is the case, then I'd try:
>
> apt-cache polisy kodi kodi-bin # just to get some information
Wow, today must be Typoday. "policy" of course.
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 05:37:52PM +0200, Tristan Miller wrote:
> # apt install kodi gnome-control-center
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree... Done
> Reading state information... Done
> kodi is already the newest version (2:19.1+dfsg2-2).
> Some packages could not be instal
On 2021-08-22 at 11:37, Tristan Miller wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> On 22/08/2021 17.20, The Wanderer wrote:
>> On 2021-08-22 at 10:46, Tristan Miller wrote:
>>> On my bullseye system, it doesn't seem to be possible to install both
>>> kodi and gnome-control-c
Greetings.
On 22/08/2021 17.20, The Wanderer wrote:
On 2021-08-22 at 10:46, Tristan Miller wrote:
On my bullseye system, it doesn't seem to be possible to install both
kodi and gnome-control-center as they conflict with each other. (See
below for what happens when I've got kodi ins
On 2021-08-22 at 10:46, Tristan Miller wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> On my bullseye system, it doesn't seem to be possible to install both
> kodi and gnome-control-center as they conflict with each other. (See
> below for what happens when I've got kodi installed and the
Dear all,
On my bullseye system, it doesn't seem to be possible to install both
kodi and gnome-control-center as they conflict with each other. (See
below for what happens when I've got kodi installed and then try to
install gnome-control-center.)
Is this a known issue that affe
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019, Sebastian Hofmann wrote:
I'm not sure if I get your idea completly right, but first I got only one UPS
Sorry, my mistake - I assumed wrongly that you had a mixed APC non-APC setup.
and second isn't the driver from nut I posted in my first mail already made to
use both on
Am 04.10.2019 um 10:59 schrieb Roger Price:
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, Sebastian Hofmann wrote:
>
>> ... Therefore I want to use both packages at the same time, but
>> trying to install both results in a conflict between 'apcupsd' and
>> 'nut-client'. Both
t there is at least one NAS I would like to connect which has only
>> support for nut. Since all devices support nut, I hoped I could give
>> nut a go.
> You didn't tell us that earlier. That changes things.
I didn't because my focus was on solving the package conflict problem
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, Sebastian Hofmann wrote:
... Therefore I want to use both packages at the same time, but trying to
install both results in a conflict between 'apcupsd' and 'nut-client'. Both
provide and conflict 'ups-monitor':
This looks like a packaging pr
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 23:59:36 +0200
Sebastian Hofmann wrote:
> I gave it a try and it did just fine for multiple devices.
I take it that by "it" you mean apcupsd.
> Problem is
> that there is at least one NAS I would like to connect which has only
> support for nut. Since all devices support nut,
>> Therefore I want to use both packages at the same
>> time,
> I suspect you will find that apcupsd is sufficient. I run apcupsd here
> with two UPSs and multiple clients for each. I had never heard of nut
> until I read your email.
I gave it a try and it did just fine for multiple devices. Pro
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 12:47:38 +0200
Sebastian Hofmann wrote:
> Therefore I want to use both packages at the same
> time,
I suspect you will find that apcupsd is sufficient. I run apcupsd here
with two UPSs and multiple clients for each. I had never heard of nut
until I read your email.
> My quest
missing from NUT.' Therefore I want to use both packages at the same
time, but trying to install both results in a conflict between 'apcupsd'
and 'nut-client'. Both provide and conflict 'ups-monitor':
$ sudo apt show apcupsd
Package: apcupsd
Version: 3.1
I am using a BeagleBone Black to interface between a weather station and radio
modem. I am using two USB to serial converters and am experiencing USB system
crashes which I have not yet been able to solve. I am thinking there may be
some type of a conflict with the drivers when using both
conflict with the existing libglib2.0-dev:amd64 package. As
it turned out, the libglib2.0-dev conflict in multiarch is a known old
issue (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=648621).
So in the end we didn't succeed in building the i386 version of the
software this way, which mad
He is
> > invested in it. He should be the expert petitioning the
> > decision-makers, but he should not be one of the decision-makers.
> >
> > I really think this concept is obvious and was really surprised
> > that Debian allowed a vote for default init sys
On 10/16/2014 11:30 PM, Marty wrote:
On 10/16/2014 08:41 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
But, I consider it idiotic to bash Red Hat as ~anyone~ with the guts can
do what Bob Young did. Just gather some talented people together around
a kitchen table and create your own distro. That is perfectly legal and
ld be the expert petitioning the
>> decision-makers, but he should not be one of the decision-makers.
>>
>> I really think this concept is obvious and was really surprised
>> that Debian allowed a vote for default init system to occur in a
>> technical committee whose membe
this concept is obvious and was really surprised that Debian
> allowed a vote for default init system to occur in a technical committee
> whose members have vested interests in one init system or another.
>
> Avoiding perceived conflict of interest is just as important as avoiding
On 10/16/2014 08:41 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
But, I consider it idiotic to bash Red Hat as ~anyone~ with the guts can
do what Bob Young did. Just gather some talented people together around
a kitchen table and create your own distro. That is perfectly legal and
now they are worth billions, by start
hing"
Do you mean, job-related ethics?
to do there just as we do on this list.
I'm glad you replied because you're just the person to query.
When you discussed job-related ethics at lunchtime, did the subject of
conflict of interest ever come up, regarding voting in Debian?
On Thu 16 Oct 2014 at 14:08:47 -0400, Rob Owens wrote:
> > From: "Marty"
> >
> > It seems like free software employment and market share come with
> > increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main
> > concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends.
> >
> > I hope tha
init system or another.
Avoiding perceived conflict of interest is just as important as avoiding actual
conflict of interest, because it undermines confidence in the leadership. Most
conflict-of-interest regulations that I know of (USA-based) reflect this. (But
let's not start citing ex
ed interests in one init system or another.
Avoiding perceived conflict of interest is just as important as avoiding actual
conflict of interest, because it undermines confidence in the leadership. Most
conflict-of-interest regulations that I know of (USA-based) reflect this. (But
let
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:06:00 +0900
Joel Rees wrote:
> 2014/10/16 5:46 "Ric Moore" :
> >
> > On 10/15/2014 12:39 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
> >
> >> We've actually been in this place before. Wonderful Linux company
> >> Caldera became SCO (oversimplification, but you know what I mean).
> >> Wonderful L
On 16/10/14 00:14, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
>
>
> Le 15.10.2014 12:37, Scott Ferguson a écrit :
>> On 15/10/14 22:08, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 15.10.2014 12:09, Brian a écrit :
On Wed 15 Oct 2014 at 10:41:12 +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org
wro
e "Right Thing"
Do you mean, job-related ethics?
to do there just as we do on this list.
I'm glad you replied because you're just the person to query.
When you discussed job-related ethics at lunchtime, did the subject of
conflict of interest ever come up, regarding vot
On 10/15/2014 05:06 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
2014/10/16 5:46 "Ric Moore" mailto:wayward4...@gmail.com>>:
>
> On 10/15/2014 12:39 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
>
>> We've actually been in this place before. Wonderful Linux company
>> Caldera became SCO (oversimplification, but you know what I mean).
>>
On Wednesday 15 October 2014 22:44:18 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 15 oct 14, 21:37:57, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> > As far as I'm aware Debian has *never* been sold anywhere, nor are
> > there plans to - did I miss another meeting down the docks?
>
> http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/
>
> No, that's
On Mi, 15 oct 14, 21:37:57, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> As far as I'm aware Debian has *never* been sold anywhere, nor are
> there plans to - did I miss another meeting down the docks?
http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/
No, that's not meant as a joke. As far as I understand, this is about
the only w
2014/10/16 5:46 "Ric Moore" :
>
> On 10/15/2014 12:39 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
>
>> We've actually been in this place before. Wonderful Linux company
>> Caldera became SCO (oversimplification, but you know what I mean).
>> Wonderful Linux company Corel changed their CEO, and promptly accepted
>> money
On 10/15/2014 12:39 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
We've actually been in this place before. Wonderful Linux company
Caldera became SCO (oversimplification, but you know what I mean).
Wonderful Linux company Corel changed their CEO, and promptly accepted
money from Microsoft and dropped all their Windows
On 10/15/2014 07:08 AM, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
Le 15.10.2014 12:09, Brian a écrit :
On Wed 15 Oct 2014 at 10:41:12 +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org
wrote:
Le 15.10.2014 09:11, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
>On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:51:07AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
>>Check ou
On 14 October 2014 17:10, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014, Marty wrote:
>> It seems like free software employment and market share come with
>> increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality.
>
> People have to eat. Almost everyone who works on Debian has someone who
> pays them.
On Wed 15 Oct 2014 at 12:53:52 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 23:37:37 +0900
> Joel Rees wrote:
>
> > 2014/10/15 1:47 "Brian" :
> > >
>
> > > Give me swearing in posts rather than innuendo and attempted
> > > character assassination of a group dedicated workers.
> >
> > Do you
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 23:37:37 +0900
Joel Rees wrote:
> 2014/10/15 1:47 "Brian" :
> >
> > Give me swearing in posts rather than innuendo and attempted
> > character assassination of a group dedicated workers.
>
> Do you realize that a lot of your posts, jumping on anti-systemd
> topics, might app
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 08:11:10 +0100
Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:51:07AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > Check out what single company has 30% of the gatekeepers. Surprise,
> > surprise.
>
> Damned for their success. We want Linux to be successful, but woe
> betide any compa
Ahoj,
Dňa Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:09:53 +0100 Brian
napísal:
> On Wed 15 Oct 2014 at 10:41:12 +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org
> wrote:
>
> > Le 15.10.2014 09:11, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
> > >On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:51:07AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > >>Check out what single company has
2014/10/15 1:47 "Brian" :
>
> On Tue 14 Oct 2014 at 12:06:11 -0400, Henning Follmann wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:02:10AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > > On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:05:06 -0400
> > > Henning Follmann wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:56:40AM -0400, Marty wrote:
Steve Litt writes:
> Check out what single company has 30% of the gatekeepers. Surprise,
> surprise.
Better Red Hat than just about anybody else.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe
Le 15.10.2014 12:37, Scott Ferguson a écrit :
On 15/10/14 22:08, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
Le 15.10.2014 12:09, Brian a écrit :
On Wed 15 Oct 2014 at 10:41:12 +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org
wrote:
Le 15.10.2014 09:11, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
>On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12
Comments inline below:
On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 06:37:57 Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 15/10/14 22:08, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
> > Le 15.10.2014 12:09, Brian a écrit :
> >> On Wed 15 Oct 2014 at 10:41:12 +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Le 15.10.2014 09:
On 15/10/14 22:08, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
>
>
> Le 15.10.2014 12:09, Brian a écrit :
>> On Wed 15 Oct 2014 at 10:41:12 +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Le 15.10.2014 09:11, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
>>> >On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:51:07AM -0400, Steve Litt wrot
Le 15.10.2014 12:09, Brian a écrit :
On Wed 15 Oct 2014 at 10:41:12 +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org
wrote:
Le 15.10.2014 09:11, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
>On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:51:07AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
>>Check out what single company has 30% of the gatekeepers.
Surprise,
On Wed 15 Oct 2014 at 10:41:12 +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
> Le 15.10.2014 09:11, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
> >On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:51:07AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> >>Check out what single company has 30% of the gatekeepers. Surprise,
> >>surprise.
> >
> >Damned for their
On Mi, 15 oct 14, 10:41:12, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
>
> Maybe you want.
> But I think that most users just want it to work fine and efficiently, which
> does not necessarily imply being sold massively around the world.
>
> The fact is, that linux is actually a success, but it has nev
Le 15.10.2014 09:11, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:51:07AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
Check out what single company has 30% of the gatekeepers. Surprise,
surprise.
Damned for their success. We want Linux to be successful, but woe
betide any
company that actually gets
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:51:07AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> Check out what single company has 30% of the gatekeepers. Surprise,
> surprise.
Damned for their success. We want Linux to be successful, but woe betide any
company that actually gets us there...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-u
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 20:35:54 -0400
Marty wrote:
>
> http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/whos-writing-linux
>
> Say hello to our new bosses?
Check out what single company has 30% of the gatekeepers. Surprise,
surprise.
SteveT
Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.co
On 10/14/2014 12:47 PM, Brian wrote:
On Tue 14 Oct 2014 at 12:06:11 -0400, Henning Follmann wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:02:10AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:05:06 -0400
> Henning Follmann wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:56:40AM -0400, Marty wrote:
> > > It se
On 10/14/2014 12:10 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014, Marty wrote:
It seems like free software employment and market share come with
increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality.
People have to eat. Almost everyone who works on Debian has someone who
pays them.
It's my ma
On Tue 14 Oct 2014 at 12:06:11 -0400, Henning Follmann wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:02:10AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:05:06 -0400
> > Henning Follmann wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:56:40AM -0400, Marty wrote:
> > > > It seems like free software empl
On 14/10/14 16:05, Scott Ferguson wrote:
And how should we interpret that in light of your signature and constant
plugging of your business on the list?
Perhaps Joey Hess's signature holds the answer?
I presume you mean Joel Rees (yes, I get their names mixed up
occasionally too), since Joey H
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014, Marty wrote:
> It seems like free software employment and market share come with
> increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality.
People have to eat. Almost everyone who works on Debian has someone who
pays them.
> It's my main concern as a Debian user, as I consider r
On 15/10/14 02:02, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:05:06 -0400
> Henning Follmann wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:56:40AM -0400, Marty wrote:
>>> It seems like free software employment and market share come with
>>> increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my m
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:02:10AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:05:06 -0400
> Henning Follmann wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:56:40AM -0400, Marty wrote:
> > > It seems like free software employment and market share come with
> > > increasing risk to objectivity and
On Tuesday, October 14, 2014 5:50:02 PM UTC+5:30, Henning Follmann wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:56:40AM -0400, Marty wrote:
> > It seems like free software employment and market share come with
> > increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main
> > concern as a Debian use
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:05:06 -0400
Henning Follmann wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:56:40AM -0400, Marty wrote:
> > It seems like free software employment and market share come with
> > increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main
> > concern as a Debian user, as I consi
Marty,
I think I see why you suggest this: as a corporate user of Debian, I
think you would like to see Debian orientations more
enterprise-friendly, for example by loosening external software license
policy or upgrade frequency. Being myself such a user, I understand that
the stability and open-s
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:56:40AM -0400, Marty wrote:
> It seems like free software employment and market share come with
> increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main
> concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends.
>
> I hope that Debian members consider an amendm
It seems like free software employment and market share come with
increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main
concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends.
I hope that Debian members consider an amendment to restrict voting
rights for members who have a financia
s_modem in a program, the device will be conflict
because the second modem is attached to the pc.
how should i manage this in order to avoid such that conflict?
thanks in advance.
regards,
marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubs
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Tom Roche wrote:
>
> summary:
>
> 1. Repo=debian-testing was the fix.
> 2. Where to put bug on package=icedtea-netx ?
> 3. Pointers to recommended docs on setting up a VM for running a VPN are
> appreciated.
>
> details:
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/20
summary:
1. Repo=debian-testing was the fix.
2. Where to put bug on package=icedtea-netx ?
3. Pointers to recommended docs on setting up a VM for running a VPN are
appreciated.
details:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/05/msg00294.html [Sven Joachim Sun,
04 May 2014 22:21:45 +0200]
>
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Tom Roche wrote:
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/05/msg00291.html [Tom Roche
> Sun, 04 May 2014 16:04:30 -0400]
> >> me@it ~ $ inxi -r
> >> Repos: Active apt sources in file:
> /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome.list
> >>deb http://dl.googl
On Sun, 04 May 2014 17:10:28 -0400
Tom Roche wrote:
> ... is that correct? If so, which repo to add? My guess is
>
> deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ testing main contrib non-free
>
> No?
>
> TIA, Tom Roche
>
>
At this point, you should install the non-standard browser in a virtual
machi
On Sun, 04 May 2014 17:10:28 -0400
Tom Roche wrote:
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/05/msg00291.html [Tom Roche
> Sun, 04 May 2014 16:04:30 -0400]
> >> me@it ~ $ inxi -r
> >> Repos: Active apt sources in
> >> file: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome.list deb
> >> http://dl.googl
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/05/msg00291.html [Tom Roche Sun, 04
May 2014 16:04:30 -0400]
>> me@it ~ $ inxi -r
>> Repos: Active apt sources in file: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome.list
>>deb http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main
>>Active apt source
On 2014-05-04 22:04 +0200, Tom Roche wrote:
> summary: jessie/sid:amd64 box must install an i386 package which depends on
> libgif4:i386, but
>
> - libgif4:i386 conflicts with libgif4:amd64
It seems you are running some derivative which ships an older version of
libgif4 than the one in jessie/si
On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 04:04:30PM -0400, Tom Roche wrote:
> summary: jessie/sid:amd64 box must install an i386 package which depends on
> libgif4:i386, but
>
> - libgif4:i386 conflicts with libgif4:amd64
> - important apps depend on libgif4:amd64
Is this the same box that you were having the f
.1.6-10 is installed.
There seem to be 3 ways to solve my problem:
1. (easier) remove libgif4:amd64, and hope that's icedtea-*-plugin's only
dependency conflict.
2. (problematic) wait for the maintainers to fix the conflict between
libgif4:amd64 and libgif4:i386 .
3. (harder) fix
On 04/26/2014 02:57 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Vi, 25 apr 14, 17:29:13, Gary Roach wrote:
When running Aptitude, a red bar in the bottom half of the screen
says
"Unable to resolve dependencies". If I hit "g" after I update package list
and Mark Upgradable, the top of the screen lists:
i
On Vi, 25 apr 14, 17:29:13, Gary Roach wrote:
> When running Aptitude, a red bar in the bottom half of the screen
> says
> "Unable to resolve dependencies". If I hit "g" after I update package list
> and Mark Upgradable, the top of the screen lists:
> iB libc-bin
> pBA libc-bin:am
conflict between libc-bin and
libc-bin-amd64. I have not been able to resolve the conflict. My dpkg update
system is essentially frozen (everything hangs up at the conflict
notification).
Anyone have any ideas as to how to resolve this conflict. Deleting one of
the files is not an option. The software
On Mi, 23 apr 14, 11:58:49, Gary Roach wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am running an Intel i5-750, 4 core processor with Debian 3.2.54-2 x86-64
> OS and Debian Squeeze. Recent attempts to update the system, with Aptitude
> (and dpkg), have failed because of a conflict between libc-bin and
&
Hi all,
I am running an Intel i5-750, 4 core processor with Debian 3.2.54-2
x86-64 OS and Debian Squeeze. Recent attempts to update the system, with
Aptitude (and dpkg), have failed because of a conflict between libc-bin
and libc-bin-amd64. I have not been able to resolve the conflict. My
On 04/29/2013 09:42 PM, Maxim Karpenko wrote:
Hi
I've also saw the same issue with my shared IRQs (and also IRQ was
shared with nvidia graphics card).
If you look in your dmesg, it suggests you to boot with "irqpoll" option.
As for me - this didn't help until I added also "noirqdebug".
After th
On 04/29/2013 09:42 PM, Maxim Karpenko wrote:
Hi
I've also saw the same issue with my shared IRQs (and also IRQ was
shared with nvidia graphics card).
If you look in your dmesg, it suggests you to boot with "irqpoll" option.
As for me - this didn't help until I added also "noirqdebug".
After th
.
> I see nothing in the bios that can be set, but at worst, disabling the
> firewire
> What can I do to resolve this IRQ conflict?
> Thanks in advance for your ideas
>
> cat /proc/interrupts
> 17: 13 0 0 0 0 00
>
nothing in the bios that can be set, but at worst, disabling the
firewire
What can I do to resolve this IRQ conflict?
Thanks in advance for your ideas
cat /proc/interrupts
17: 13 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 IR-IO-APIC-fasteoi firewire_ohci
Got this working.
The problem was local APIC was not enabled in the bios. Once enabled
everything started to fall in place.
thanks all for your inputs and help
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 09:03:16 +0100, Bhasker C V wrote:
> I have a old PC (AMD athelon 3000+) which has an onboard network card
> (gige-
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 09:03:16 +0100, Bhasker C V wrote:
> I have a old PC (AMD athelon 3000+) which has an onboard network card
> (gige-tg3) kernel 3.5.0 debian squeeze.
Have you tried with Debian stock kernel (2.6.32) or the backported one
(3.2)? :-?
> 03:16.0 Ethernet controller: VIA Technolo
Olà,
Il 16/08/2012 10:03, Bhasker C V ha scritto:
Hi,
---cut---
Has anyone encountered this before
I have tried hpet=none (just to score off the hpet IRQ and this card IRQ
clash)
I have tried pci=biosirq
Another poss
Hi,
I have a old PC (AMD athelon 3000+) which has an onboard network card
(gige-tg3) kernel 3.5.0 debian squeeze.
03:16.0 Ethernet controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT6105/VT6106S
[Rhine-III] (rev 86)
When I do an ifconfig eth1 up (eth0 is another external card) I get
this error
[ 408.536
On Du, 12 feb 12, 20:14:32, Brad Alexander wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Andrei Popescu
> wrote:
> > There are several frontends to APT (apt-get, aptitude, synaptic, etc.),
> > which one do you use?
>
> aptitude. AFAIR, it was the recommended one for Debian. (A while back,
> I remembe
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Brad Alexander wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Andrei Popescu
> wrote:
> > There are several frontends to APT (apt-get, aptitude, synaptic, etc.),
> > which one do you use?
>
> aptitude. AFAIR, it was the recommended one for Debian. (A while back,
> I
dependencies:
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
libavutil51: Conflicts: libavutil-extra-51 but 4:0.8.0.1+b1 is to be
installed.
libavutil-extra-51: Conflicts: libavutil51 but 5:0.10-0.0 is installed.
open: 47; closed: 361; defer: 4; conflict: 4
resulted in wanting to uninstall all o
1 - 100 of 465 matches
Mail list logo
