On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Michael Stone wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:39:56PM +0300, Reco wrote:
No, I got you first time. Rather it's my response deviated elsewhere.
I see nothing in those three packages that would qualify as "xyzzy".
Alternatives? No. Mime types registration? No.
About the
Hi.
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 02:38:48PM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > > > I really don't see anything I'd call "dependency hell" any more.
> > > > Perhaps it's because I experienced the real thing, or perhaps because I
> > > > don't use a DE.
> > >
> > > Try unistalling a DE, either
On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 13:59:00 -0500
John Hasler wrote:
> B writes:
> > To make things easy, I figured to just uninstall GNOME. Wouldn't work
> > no matter what method I tried. Uninstall always wanted to remove ALL X
> > based stuff. Dependency hell. Researched a lot. No solutions found.
>
>
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 21:40:08 +0300
Reco wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 11:21:26AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 12:44:32 -0500
> > John Hasler wrote:
> >
> > > Patrick Bartek writes:
> > > > They are each their own Hell. Package management software solved,
> > > >
B writes:
> To make things easy, I figured to just uninstall GNOME. Wouldn't work
> no matter what method I tried. Uninstall always wanted to remove ALL X
> based stuff. Dependency hell. Researched a lot. No solutions found.
Install LXDE *first*. Remove Gnome *second*. Do it all from a text
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 17:44:55 -0500
John Hasler wrote:
> Patrick Bartek writes:
> > Try unistalling a DE, either in part or whole, to replace it with
> > another and you'll end up with no xorg and all the stuff that goes
> > with it, and all the apps that run under it. Quite a surprise.
>
>
On Tue 08 Oct 2019 at 00:25:44 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 18:42:38 (+0100), Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 15:09:09 +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > But how do Debian list servers know ?
> >
> > A good question. How are my mails matched with
Patrick Bartek writes:
> Try unistalling a DE, either in part or whole, to replace it with
> another and you'll end up with no xorg and all the stuff that goes
> with it, and all the apps that run under it. Quite a surprise.
My desktop machine has a highly-customized FVWM installation but I've
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 11:21:26AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 12:44:32 -0500
> John Hasler wrote:
>
> > Patrick Bartek writes:
> > > They are each their own Hell. Package management software solved,
> > > more or less, one type, but created another beast as the OP has
>
On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 12:44:32 -0500
John Hasler wrote:
> Patrick Bartek writes:
> > They are each their own Hell. Package management software solved,
> > more or less, one type, but created another beast as the OP has
> > discovered and that we each deal with in our own ways. Such is life
> > .
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 08:52:11 -0400
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 09:13:31AM +0100, Joe wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 00:25:44 -0500
> > David Wright wrote:
> > > Why would you use a "subscribed.address" (presumably an email
> > > address) for your HELO (presumably actually a
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 09:13:31AM +0100, Joe wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 00:25:44 -0500
> David Wright wrote:
> > Why would you use a "subscribed.address" (presumably an email address)
> > for your HELO (presumably actually a EHLO). I was under the impression
> > that it should be a domain, ie a
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 00:25:44 -0500
David Wright wrote:
> >
> > "subscribed.address" is the HELO and can be what I want it to be.
> > See the headers of my previous mail.
>
> Why would you use a "subscribed.address" (presumably an email address)
> for your HELO (presumably actually a EHLO). I
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 18:42:38 (+0100), Brian wrote:
> On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 15:09:09 +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > But how do Debian list servers know ?
>
> A good question. How are my mails matched with my subscribed address
> so that I am awarded the accolade of LDOSUBSCRIBER?
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 15:09:09 (+0200), Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> i wrote:
> > > To my best knowledge, "X-Spam-Status: ... tests=...,LDOSUBSCRIBER,..."
> > > says that the "From:" address of the mail is subscribed.
>
> Brian wrote:
> > Are you sure it is the From: and not the envelope From? My
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 10:05:30PM +0300, Reco wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 02:45:29PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 09:17:21PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > I don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:45:29 -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 09:17:21PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > I don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a beneficial
> > > outcome.
> >
> > You're entitled
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 02:45:29PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 09:17:21PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > I don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a beneficial
> > > outcome.
> >
> > You're
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 21:17:21 +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:39:56PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > No, I got you first time. Rather it's my response deviated elsewhere.
> > >
> > > I see nothing in those three
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 09:17:21PM +0300, Reco wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
I don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a beneficial outcome.
You're entitled to your option, of course.
For context, the most recent message from that account
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:39:56PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > No, I got you first time. Rather it's my response deviated elsewhere.
> >
> > I see nothing in those three packages that would qualify as "xyzzy".
> > Alternatives? No. Mime
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 10:56:30 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 16:03:21 (+0300), Reco wrote:
[...]
> > Please show a e-mail from the list subscriber that does not have
> > aforementioned attribute, then we'll have something to talk about.
>
> Dead easy. Just configure your
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:39:56PM +0300, Reco wrote:
No, I got you first time. Rather it's my response deviated elsewhere.
I see nothing in those three packages that would qualify as "xyzzy".
Alternatives? No. Mime types registration? No.
About the only common thing about all three packages is
Patrick Bartek writes:
> They are each their own Hell. Package management software solved,
> more or less, one type, but created another beast as the OP has
> discovered and that we each deal with in our own ways. Such is life
> . . . and software
The OP is in a hell of his own making (which is
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 15:09:09 +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
[...]
> But how do Debian list servers know ?
A good question. How are my mails matched with my subscribed address
so that I am awarded the accolade of LDOSUBSCRIBER? On the basis that
my past statements about the SMTP protocol
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 10:56:30AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 16:03:21 (+0300), Reco wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:32:59PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:59:31 +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> >
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 15:09:09 +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i wrote:
> > > To my best knowledge, "X-Spam-Status: ... tests=...,LDOSUBSCRIBER,..."
> > > says that the "From:" address of the mail is subscribed.
>
> Brian wrote:
> > Are you sure it is the From: and not the envelope From?
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 4:41 PM Jonathan Dowland
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:46:53AM +0300, goleo . wrote:
> >Liar, you are the one being abusive. I am being rude for a right reason.
>
> Presumably you posted to debian-user@ in the hope of getting help.
> With this attitude I can assure
On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 10:01:31 -0500
John Hasler wrote:
> Patrick Bartek writes:
> > Welcome to the Wonderful Hell of Dependencies.
>
> That's not dependency hell. Dependency hell is what we had before
> package management systems. I assure you that occasionally permitting
> the installation
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 16:03:21 (+0300), Reco wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:32:59PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:59:31 +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > > > On
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
John Hasler wrote:
> Patrick Bartek writes:
>> Welcome to the Wonderful Hell of Dependencies.
>
> That's not dependency hell. Dependency hell is what we had before
> package management systems. I assure you that occasionally permitting
> the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Reco wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:08:04PM -, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> Reco wrote:
I don't think anything needs to be done here -- the whole idea of
(meta)packages is that you give up some choice for the benefits of not
having
Patrick Bartek writes:
> Welcome to the Wonderful Hell of Dependencies.
That's not dependency hell. Dependency hell is what we had before
package management systems. I assure you that occasionally permitting
the installation of a program you don't need is preferable by far.
--
John Hasler
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 16:03:21 +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:32:59PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:59:31 +0300, Reco wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:46:53AM +0300, goleo . wrote:
Liar, you are the one being abusive. I am being rude for a right reason.
Presumably you posted to debian-user@ in the hope of getting help.
With this attitude I can assure you help will be in short supply.
--
Jonathan Dowland
✎
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:08:04PM -, Dan Purgert wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Reco wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:56:33AM -, Dan Purgert wrote:
> >> > 3) Synaptic did not provide a user a meaningful choice.
> >> > [...]
> >> > I'm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:56:33AM -, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> > 3) Synaptic did not provide a user a meaningful choice.
>> > [...]
>> > I'm not saying that Synaptic should be transformed to aptitude (which is
>> >
Hi,
i wrote:
> > To my best knowledge, "X-Spam-Status: ... tests=...,LDOSUBSCRIBER,..."
> > says that the "From:" address of the mail is subscribed.
Brian wrote:
> Are you sure it is the From: and not the envelope From? My From: is
> not subscribed.
Interesting observation.
So the address by
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:32:59PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:59:31 +0300, Reco wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote:
> >
On 2019-10-07, Reco wrote:
>
> 1) Call me old-fashioned, but posters' personalities should not matter
> here, at this list.
I don't see what is old-fashioned about your opinion here. I would think
it were the gentilities of polite discourse that have become outmoded
(as demonstrated finely by
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:59:31 +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > >
> >
Hi.
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:56:33AM -, Dan Purgert wrote:
> > 3) Synaptic did not provide a user a meaningful choice.
> > [...]
> > I'm not saying that Synaptic should be transformed to aptitude (which is
> > famous for its multi-choice resolver), we have one aptitude already,
> >
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 13:53:43 +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Reco wrote:
[...]
> Brian wrote:
> > The non-existence of LDOSUBSCRIBER in a mails's headers says nothing
> > definite about whether the poster is subscribed to the list or reads
> > list mails.
>
> To my best knowledge,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Reco wrote:
> Hello, list.
>
> It may seem a thread hijacking (and may be it is), but I feel that the
> discussion of OP's problem has taken a wrong turn. Consider this a my
> attempt to put in on a right track ☺.
>
> So I've been reading this
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > PS Just a friendly reminder. Please
Hi,
Reco wrote:
> > 1) Call me old-fashioned, but posters' personalities should not matter
> > here, at this list. [...]
> > The language OP is using could definitely use some improvement indeed,
It would serve the general issue of constructive discussion.
> > discussing OP's personality just
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > PS Just a friendly reminder. Please check for the existence of that
> > > LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > PS Just a friendly reminder. Please check for the existence of that
> > LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before* replying to
> > e-mail. Unless, of
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote:
[...]
> PS Just a friendly reminder. Please check for the existence of that
> LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before* replying to
> e-mail. Unless, of course, you intention is *not* to reply to OP but
> have your reply
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:28:03AM +0300, Reco wrote:
> Hello, list.
>
> It may seem a thread hijacking (and may be it is) [...]
I don't feel so. Thanks for this post.
Cheers
-- t
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hello, list.
It may seem a thread hijacking (and may be it is), but I feel that the
discussion of OP's problem has taken a wrong turn. Consider this a my
attempt to put in on a right track ☺.
So I've been reading this thread, and it got me thinking. I know, it's a
somewhat strange
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 03:46:53 +0300
"goleo ." wrote:
>
> Liar, you are the one being abusive. I am being rude for a right
> reason.
>
You are being rude through (being charitable) ignorance.
1. Boot the appropriate Debian netinstall medium.
2. Deselect *all* tasks when offered the choice,
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:00:11AM +0300, goleo . wrote:
[...]
> This is harassment because you force me to use either
> Xarchiver or Ark, you don't give me the choice to use none.
Who is that "you" you keep talking about? You are aware that
you are addressing the "Debian Users" mailing list?
Carl Fink writes:
> From his writing style, I get the feeling goleo is a young teen, perhaps
> someone who learned social skills in a multiplayer game online.
Or a hateful older person who is afraid of this new "video game" stuff
and made up his mind that playing video games makes people abusive,
On 10/6/19 9:16 PM, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
Your self-description of being rude is absolutely correct. Apart from
that, you are self-righteous; there is a vast difference between that
and being right (which, incidentally, you are not).
Mind you, all you've managed to accomplish is to incite
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:46:53AM +0300, goleo . wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:08 AM Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> > Two points:
> >
> > 1. If you don't like the dependencies in the packaging system, there
> > are multiple better ways to deal with this. File bugs, or
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:08 AM Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:00:11AM +0300, goleo . wrote:
> >On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:49 PM Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 09:50:54PM +0300, goleo . wrote:
> >> >Hi.
> >> >
> >> >After
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:00:11AM +0300, goleo . wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:49 PM Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 09:50:54PM +0300, goleo . wrote:
>> >Hi.
>> >
>> >After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT)
>> >I noticed that
goleo . wrote:
> You are a bunch of hypocrites and assholes, you are not
> fighting for freedom, you just provide separate contrib and
> non-free repositories just to make up illusion of fighting fighting
> for freedom.
by saying this you are describing your self at the same moment.
Feel free
On 2019-10-06 at 17:00, goleo . wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:49 PM Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 09:50:54PM +0300, goleo . wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT) I
>>> noticed that Xarchiver is
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:49 PM Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 09:50:54PM +0300, goleo . wrote:
> >Hi.
> >
> >After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT)
> >I noticed that Xarchiver is preinstalled and it was inconvenient
> >to me in the
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 21:50:54 +0300
"goleo ." wrote:
> Hi.
>
> After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT)
> I noticed that Xarchiver is preinstalled and it was inconvenient
> to me in the past, so I opened Synaptic to remove it. But when
> I click on "xarchiver" and choose
On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 09:50:54PM +0300, goleo . wrote:
>Hi.
>
>After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT)
>I noticed that Xarchiver is preinstalled and it was inconvenient
>to me in the past, so I opened Synaptic to remove it. But when
>I click on "xarchiver" and choose
On Sun 06 Oct 2019 at 21:50:54 (+0300), goleo . wrote:
> Hi.
>
> After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT)
> I noticed that Xarchiver is preinstalled and it was inconvenient
> to me in the past, so I opened Synaptic to remove it. But when
> I click on "xarchiver" and choose
Hi.
After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT)
I noticed that Xarchiver is preinstalled and it was inconvenient
to me in the past, so I opened Synaptic to remove it. But when
I click on "xarchiver" and choose "Mark for Removal" or
"Mark for Complete Removal" it says it'll
65 matches
Mail list logo
