Thomas Schmitt wrote:
...
> Thanks for this description of a real world procedure.
> Now i know at least that i am not the only one who cares about the
> post-upgrade steps in the manual. I already began to think that everybody
> lets the surplus packages rot in the dark.
i have
eal world procedure.
Now i know at least that i am not the only one who cares about the
post-upgrade steps in the manual. I already began to think that everybody
lets the surplus packages rot in the dark.
Have a nice day :)
Thomas
Le 01/06/2024, Florent Rougon a écrit:
> FWIW, removal of “obsolete or local” packages is easily done
> interactively in aptitude: you go the the corresponding section of the
> main screen, hit Enter, etc. The [ key recursively unfolds a section
> (use ] to fold it back). You
Le 31/05/2024, "Thomas Schmitt" a écrit:
> Then it offered me a list with slightly frightening wildcards:
>
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
> fuse* libreoffice-avmedia-backend-gstreamer* linux-image-4.19.0-17-amd64*
> linux-image-4.19.0-20-amd64* l
InstalledVerStr.c_str());
}
else if (V.ParentPkg()->CurrentState == pkgCache::State::ConfigFiles)
StatusStr = _("[residual-config]");
-
About my post-upgrade activities:
I ran the command that is
ally installed - Display only packages that are not (for longer)
(sic) included in one of the specified repositories.
I guess the terminology is intended to cover all conceivable cases of why a
package isn't found in the repositories, in the event the user grew confused by
one or the other term that was
Hi,
i wrote:
> > What kind of programming language can have inspired the developers
> > to define such a syntax ?
Max Nikulin:
> https://blog.jak-linux.org/2019/08/15/apt-patterns/
This points to aptitude. The package description of aptitude says
"mutt-like syntax for matchi
On Wed 29 May 2024 at 18:20:25 (+0200), Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> i wonder why none of the electricians on this list has an anecdote to
> share about dealing with "obsolete" packages after upgrade.
> No triumphs, defeats, or global catastrophes ?
Nowadays I install new releases f
with "apt list":
Re: List packages from non-default repositories. Wed, 4 Oct 2023
17:26:47 +0700
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/ufjel7$l9m$1...@ciao.gmane.io
However I did not post last variant of the query. It is for aptitude.
As to obsolete vs. local packages, my guess is th
Le 30/05/2024, "Thomas Schmitt" a écrit:
> So "local" would be just another word for "obsolete" ?
My understanding is that “obsolete” and “local” may mean different
things to the person who installed the packages (“obsolete” would
correspond to the first
Hi,
i wrote:
> > Next documenation riddle is what the word "local" means in output lines
> > like
> > linux-image-5.10.0-rc2-ts/now 5.10.0-rc2-ts-37 amd64 [installed,local]
Florent Rougon wrote:
> I don't use this but guess it is as in aptitude, where “obsolete
Hi Thomas,
Le 30/05/2024, "Thomas Schmitt" a écrit:
> Next documenation riddle is what the word "local" means in output lines
> like
>
> linux-image-5.10.0-rc2-ts/now 5.10.0-rc2-ts-37 amd64 [installed,local]
I don't use this but guess it is as in aptitude
en I use "apt autoremove", I am given a list of proposed removals and
> a prompt about whether I want to proceed.
Good to know that there are safeguards when i finally remove some of the
"obsolete" packages.
I wrote:
> > How could i get a list of only the automatical
On 29/05/2024 23:20, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
How could i get a list of only the automatically installed obsolete
packages ?
(I still did not find any documentation about the '~c' or '~o' with
"apt list".)
apt-patterns(7) and dpkg(1). Apt can not distinguish packages installed
by dpk
Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> But i am not sure whether the commercial package which i have to keep
> will be preserved with "apt autoremove".
> Is there a way to do a dry run which only tells what would happen if i
> were more courageous ?
When I use "apt autoremove", I am given a list of proposed
Hi,
i wonder why none of the electricians on this list has an anecdote to
share about dealing with "obsolete" packages after upgrade.
No triumphs, defeats, or global catastrophes ?
I wrote:
> > https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.h
t
On 29/05/2024 00:51, Michael Grant wrote:
The culprits that seemed to be causing the massive dependencies were
libsasl2-2 and libsasl2-modules-db. Though not libsasl2-modules which
i also have installed.
With adjusted priorities these packages are not an issue for "apt upgrade".
Mo
On 2024-05-28 at 15:02, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 28.05.2024 um 20:38:46 Uhr schrieb Thomas Schmitt:
>> What does "[residual-config]" mean ?
>
> Packages include system-wide configuration files. If packages are
> removed, this configuration will not be deleted. You n
Am 28.05.2024 um 20:38:46 Uhr schrieb Thomas Schmitt:
> today i upgraded a Debian 11 system to 12 and am now scratching my
> head over the final steps as described in
>
> https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#purge-removed-packages
Hi,
today i upgraded a Debian 11 system to 12 and am now scratching my head
over the final steps as described in
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#purge-removed-packages
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch
Max, your list looks very similiar to what I'm seeing.
I seem to have suceeded in removing all of the testing packages from
my backup instance, now, just need to flip the ips around and see if
the ship still floats.
The culprits that seemed to be causing the massive dependencies were
libsasl2-2
t, dropped the following
file
/etc/apt/preferences.d/80-downgrade.pref
Package: *
Pin: release n=bookworm
Pin-Priority: 1001
and after
apt upgrade
only a couple of packages from testing survived:
libdb5.3t64/now 5.3.28+dfsg2-7 amd64 [installed,local]
libssl3t64/now 3.2.1-3 amd64 [installed
with dpkg, in the future,
> will apt take it into account as a dependency of things already
> installed even though apt itself didn't install or rather downgrade
> the package itself?
Yes. Dpkg is the lower level tool. Apt is the higher level tool.
The set of installed packages is tracked by dpkg
owngrade a library package", I mean:
>
> 1) Download the .deb file for the bookworm(-security) version of the
>library package.
>
> 2) Run "dpkg -i libc6_whatever.deb".
>
> 3) When you inevitably get dependency conflicts, download the additional
>libra
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 09:12:18AM -0400, Michael Grant wrote:
> > You will most likely need to remove the testing versions of these packages
> > (apache2, git and so on) and then install the bookworm versions afterward.
>
> Those dependent packages (most if not all) ar
e work by hand.
I am trying to do it by hand. There's not many packages to deal
with at this point, doing this by hand looks like 10 or so packages.
> You will most likely need to remove the testing versions of these packages
> (apache2, git and so on) and then install the bookworm versions af
gt; 'db5.3-util'
> Selected version '5.3.2' (Debian:12.5/stable [all]) for 'db-util'
> The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer
> required:
> acl apache2-data apache2-utils augeas-lenses avahi-daemon clamav-base
> colord-data git-man gnupg-l10n gnupg-utils gpg
to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 02:02:47PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
> ISTR that "apt-get install =" will unconditionally
> install of , if necessary pulling in dependencies.
>
> But I've never tried it :-)
That pulls in dependencies b
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 07:09:16AM -0400, Michael Grant wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 06:59:50AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 06:10:11AM -0400, Michael Grant wrote:
> > > The following packages will be REMOVED:
> > > [...] libdb5.3t64 [..
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 06:59:50AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 06:10:11AM -0400, Michael Grant wrote:
> > The following packages will be REMOVED:
> > [...] libdb5.3t64 [...]
>
> You've *clearly* still got testing packages installed.
YES. As
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 06:10:11AM -0400, Michael Grant wrote:
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
> [...] libdb5.3t64 [...]
You've *clearly* still got testing packages installed.
ree... Done
Reading state information... Done
Selected version '5.3.28+dfsg2-1' (Debian:12.5/stable [amd64]) for 'libdb5.3'
Selected version '5.3.28+dfsg2-1' (Debian:12.5/stable [amd64]) for 'db5.3-util'
Selected version '5.3.2' (Debian:12.5/stable [all]) for 'db-util'
The following packages w
ease, use
> > apt-get -t releasename packagename
>
> But that's not the whole story of what `-t` does since the above does
> not explain why his attempt to use `-t` to downgrade some packages
> resulted in `apt` saying " is already the newest version".
IST
On 28/05/2024 01:02, Stefan Monnier wrote:
But that's not the whole story of what `-t` does since the above does
not explain why his attempt to use `-t` to downgrade some packages
resulted in `apt` saying " is already the newest version".
My guess is that -t increases priority of the
; > and to install a backported package plus dependencies which
> > > are also from that specific release, use
> > > apt-get -t releasename packagename
> >
> > But that's not the whole story of what `-t` does since the above does
> > not explain why his attempt
` to downgrade some packages
resulted in `apt` saying " is already the newest version".
Sometimes '-t' works for me, and does what I expect, and sometimes
it doesn't. So I generelly use now the explicit version:
apt install libc-bin=2.36-9+deb12u7
Detlef
ease, use
> > apt-get -t releasename packagename
>
> But that's not the whole story of what `-t` does since the above does
> not explain why his attempt to use `-t` to downgrade some packages
> resulted in `apt` saying " is already the newest version".
Neither syntax will specify a newer version for plain "install"
to install or upgrade.
Cheers,
David.
es
not explain why his attempt to use `-t` to downgrade some packages
resulted in `apt` saying " is already the newest version".
Stefan
On Mon 27 May 2024 at 12:23:41 (-0400), Michael Grant wrote:
> [ … ]
> so I thought I'd try the same process with db5.3, but removing db5.3
> wants to remove a slew of packages:
>
> # apt reinstall -s libdb5.3/bookworm
> ...
> Selected version '5.3.28+dfsg2-1' (Debi
Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > # apt install -t=bookworm db-util db5.3-util libc-bin libc-dev-bin
>
> I can never remember exactly what `-t` really does, but I suspect you'll
> need things like
>
> apt install libc-bin/bookworm
To install a single backported (or other release) package,
apt-get
Hans, thanks for that but I am a bit confused following your
instructions. Did you mean to I should remove the lines for 'stable'
from sources.list? Or remove the lines for 'testing'? I am trying to
get the packages to go back to stable.
I am more familiar with apt than aptitude.
I managed
Doing "apt-get upgrade" will only upgrade all installed packages, but no new
ones (even, if they are needed).
Better is to do an "apt-get full-upgrade", which will install the whole system
from stable to testing. However, this might also uninstall some wanted
packages, thu
On 27/05/2024 21:28, Michael Grant wrote:
What I want to do is get the system back to just using the packages
from stable rather than testing.
I have never tried the following, so it is better to test it in a
virtual machine or inside a container. I would try to set priority of
bookworm
> I needed to install a version of sendmail from testing a while back to
> test it.
Downgrading Debian packages is not well supported, by and large.
So installing `testing` packages into a `stable` install is manageable
(tho it itself can bring trouble) but going back to `stable` afterwards
On Mon 27 May 2024 at 09:56:54 (-0400), Michael Grant wrote:
> What's the best way to get back to running just the bookworm stable
> packages? I tried what I thought was the obvious way to fix this by
> running:
>
> # apt install -t=bookworm db-util db5.3-util libc-bin libc-
back to
> > > test it.
> >
> > Your subject header says "bookworm stable". You don't install binary
> > packages from testing on a stable system. You use backports instead.
>
> ugh no, wait, I may be using the wrong terminology. I'm not wanting
> to install special
uot;. You don't install binary
> packages from testing on a stable system. You use backports instead.
ugh no, wait, I may be using the wrong terminology. I'm not wanting
to install special packages and definitely don't need to build my own.
What I want to do is get the system back to just using th
On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 09:56:54AM -0400, Michael Grant wrote:
> I needed to install a version of sendmail from testing a while back to
> test it.
Your subject header says "bookworm stable". You don't install binary
packages from testing on a stable system. You use backports
I needed to install a version of sendmail from testing a while back to
test it. On friday, I ran 'apt upgrade' which looked like it was
going to uninstall and then reinstall the sendmail packages. I let it
run, when it was done, only some of the sendmail packages had
re-installed. Basically, I
Hi,
thanks for checking, in the end I solved this by switching mirrors from
default http://deb.debian.org/debian to http://ftp.cz.debian.org/debian
- after updating I got the correct version of QEMU package.
Maybe something was cached somewhere for several days, strange that I
had to change
Hi,
I am trying to make KVM/QEMU work on my Debian 12. I follow
https://wiki.debian.org/KVM but I get stuck already on installation,
because apt-get reports non-existent packages on debian repos.
I ran
sudo apt install qemu-system libvirt-daemon-system virt-manager
It resolves packages
Simon Hollenbach writes:
> Hello KJ,
>
> there is the snapshot archive at https://snapshot.debian.org/ - You
> can get older Packages files from there.
Thanks. I was not aware of this service.
KJ
--
http://stopstopnop.pl/stop_stopnop.pl_o_nas.html
Hello KJ,
there is the snapshot archive at https://snapshot.debian.org/ - You
can get older Packages files from there.
I don't know if you mean the links like `Packages.gz ->
by-hash/SHA256/c039245acc063d9b42cade368a874bf5e0ee3025a7bb2634f3f3bc601f15bb89`
or the actual contents of Packa
At http://deb.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/binary-amd64/ we can find
files with SHA256 sums of packages. Unfortunately they are only 2 weeks
old. Is this possible to have little older files? (For example month or
2)?
KJ
--
http://stopstopnop.pl/stop_stopnop.pl_o_nas.html
Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Looking at a set of installed binary packages built from the same source
> package, I would like to keep the version numbers consistent. There might
> be exceptions, but in general you won't like to mix unstable and experimental
> bi
Hi folks,
Looking at a set of installed binary packages built from the same source
package, I would like to keep the version numbers consistent. There might
be exceptions, but in general you won't like to mix unstable and experimental
binary packages from the nvidia-graphics-drivers, for example
t; 2) save the install log into a file (apt-get install reports to you
> the order of installation) from which you can then created a dpkg
> based script
> 3) move all packages from /var/cache/ ... to wherever is needed.
I don't remember ever having to worry about the order. I would just
t
ependencies, so I decided
to change the strategy to:
1) using apt-get install ...
2) save the install log into a file (apt-get install reports to you
the order of installation) from which you can then created a dpkg
based script
3) move all packages from /var/cache/ ... to wherever is needed
On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 10:28:14PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Sat 02 Dec 2023 at 13:48:34 (+), Darac Marjal wrote:
> > On 02/12/2023 04:22, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > apt-get has the side effect of installing the packages on the
> > connected system.
>
> Not
; In that case, use apt-get instead of apt. That way the downloaded .deb
> > files will not be removed afterward. Then you can just sweep 'em up
> > from /var/cache/apt/archives, copy them to a stack of floppies, put
> > the floppies in a box, tie the box to a trained ferret, sen
On Sat 02 Dec 2023 at 07:06:37 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 02:52:25AM +, Albretch Mueller wrote:
> > direct dependencies of packages which haven't been downloaded,
> > install. I need to download those packages.
> > These should be a stra
On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 06:15:17AM +, Albretch Mueller wrote:
> They are even using "AI" to mess with
> people they target and it doesn't matter if they know well (which they
> have actually told me) that you are not a criminally minded dude, a
> threat to society, ... and they are quite
n a box, tie the box to a trained ferret, send the ferret
across town
apt-get has the side effect of installing the packages on the connected
system. There used to be "apt-zip" (no longer in Debian), which was
built around the idea of using ZIP disks for transferring files.
"apt-zip-li
sed
hardware), I am trying to streamline a way of:
a) booting a live Deb Linux from a DVD (which, physically, you can't
write onto)
b) running a short script with an array of utility packages which are
not part of §a's install base preferably from a pen drive or a
subdirectory of a hard driv
On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 02:52:25AM +, Albretch Mueller wrote:
> direct dependencies of packages which haven't been downloaded,
> install. I need to download those packages.
> These should be a straightforward way to do that or an easy hack.
> lbrtchx
I /think/ this hack m
On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 10:01:54PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 01 Dec 2023 at 21:55:42 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > apt install ./myfile.deb
>
> That requires you to be online, aka "exposed mode". The OP only
> exposes a live USB to the outside world, not their "real" system.
>
On Fri 01 Dec 2023 at 21:55:42 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 02:52:25AM +, Albretch Mueller wrote:
> > direct dependencies of packages which haven't been downloaded,
> > install. I need to download those packages.
> > These should be a stra
Albretch Mueller writes:
> How can you list just the direct dependencies? and how safe is it
> downloading and installing only those via dpkg?
'apt depends ' would list the direct dependencies without
recursion.
Why do you want to download them individually and install directly with
dpkg when
On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 02:52:25AM +, Albretch Mueller wrote:
> direct dependencies of packages which haven't been downloaded,
> install. I need to download those packages.
> These should be a straightforward way to do that or an easy hack.
I'm still struggling to figure out w
direct dependencies of packages which haven't been downloaded,
install. I need to download those packages.
These should be a straightforward way to do that or an easy hack.
lbrtchx
On 12/2/23, Tom Furie wrote:
...
> This is a recursive search, also showing dependencies of dependencies,
> etc.
How can you list just the direct dependencies? and how safe is it
downloading and installing only those via dpkg?
lbrtchx
Albretch Mueller writes:
> https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/wget
>
> shows 8 packages as "depends"
>
> dep: libc6 (>= 2.28)
> dep: libgnutls30 (>= 3.7.0)
> dep: libidn2-0 (>= 0.6)
> dep: libnettle8
> dep: libpcre2-8-0 (>= 10.22)
> dep:
https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/wget
shows 8 packages as "depends"
dep: libc6 (>= 2.28)
dep: libgnutls30 (>= 3.7.0)
dep: libidn2-0 (>= 0.6)
dep: libnettle8
dep: libpcre2-8-0 (>= 10.22)
dep: libpsl5 (>= 0.16.0)
dep: libuuid1 (>= 2.16)
dep: zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.
For this sort of thing I prefer the aptitude TUI. Highlight the package
in question and hit 'r' and the list of reverse dependencies appears.
Installed packages will be in bold (also bright white with my terminal
settings). One can continue up the chain by highlighting one of the
installed
On 2023-11-30, David Wright wrote:
> deborphan -Ps or orphaner
Perhaps
deborphan -Ps --ignore-suggests
Or even
deborphan -Ps --ignore-suggests --ignore-recommends
On 2023-11-30, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> My first thought is that popularity-contest should be able to tell you
> this, because it's able to tell *Debian* which packages are "old"
I should live on the "old" but mandatory edge :)
20 tk
20 tcl
14 g++
On Thu 30 Nov 2023 at 16:06:06 (-0600), Mike McClain wrote:
> Is there any way to determine which packages are used of the many
> that come with an install?
I don't know of one.
> My Raspberry Pi install of bookworm has some 1800 packages
> installed many of which I know
Mike McClain writes:
> Is there any way to determine which packages are used of the many that
> come with an install? My Raspberry Pi install of bookworm has some
> 1800 packages installed many of which I know I don't use, many others
> I suspect I don't use but don't know if some
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 04:06:06PM -0600, Mike McClain wrote:
> Is there any way to determine which packages are used of the many
> that come with an install?
My first thought is that popularity-contest should be able to tell you
this, because it's able to tell *Debian* which pa
Mike McClain wrote:
> Is there any way to determine which packages are used of the many
> that come with an install?
> My Raspberry Pi install of bookworm has some 1800 packages
> installed many of which I know I don't use, many others I suspect I
> don't use but don
Is there any way to determine which packages are used of the many
that come with an install?
My Raspberry Pi install of bookworm has some 1800 packages
installed many of which I know I don't use, many others I suspect I
don't use but don't know if some program I do use depends on them
reverse to the one I had followed while installing all
those packages on the 10th Nov 2023.
So what I did was that I noted down his advice on a plain text editor,
then opted for "uninstall completely ..." the following packages:
php-common
apache2
apache2-bin
apache2-data
mariadb-c
t; apache2
> apache2-bin
> apache2-data
> mariadb-client-10.5
>
> and then an apt autoremove.
>
> Then perhaps an apt-purge apache2 .. and so on.
> Then go back and remove any outlying packages that have not already been
> removed until you have no more left.
[ ... ]
Ok. Th
has a Log file for the installed packages yesterday:
>
>
>
> Commit Log for Fri Nov 10 21:04:10 2023
>
> Upgraded the following packages:
> mariadb-common (1:10.5.18-0+deb11u1) to 1:10.5.21-0+deb11u1
>
> Installed the following packages:
> default-mysql-server (1.0.7)
> ga
Hi.
I am considering using Nix to install packages that are not available in
Debian, or not available in the version I need. But I ear NixOS has a
quite different taste than usual Linux distros, and I know Debian, and
all our homemade admin scripts are tailored for Debian-based systems, so
I
On 2023-10-28 at 00:25, Max Nikulin wrote:
> On 28/10/2023 02:02, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> for the case of hierarchical snapshots
>
> qemu-img(1) allows to create snapshots of disk images that are stored
> in the same file. In addition the "create" command has the "-b
> BACKING_FILE" option
On 28/10/2023 02:02, The Wanderer wrote:
for the case of hierarchical snapshots
qemu-img(1) allows to create snapshots of disk images that are stored in
the same file. In addition the "create" command has the "-b
BACKING_FILE" option
If the option BACKING_FILE is specified, then the
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:46:52 +
Minecraftchest1 wrote:
> With Virt-Manager, you should have the option to choose an existing
> disk image.
It can also create a disk image for you. On which you will have to make
partitions and file systems.
--
Does anybody read signatures any more?
On 2023-10-27 at 10:46, Minecraftchest1 wrote:
> With Virt-Manager, you should have the option to choose an existing
> disk image.
That only helps if you've already created a disk image, which will not
be the case when creating a new VM from scratch. Having to resort to the
command line (or to
and share some screenshots
later today.
On October 27, 2023 9:17:46 AM UTC, The Wanderer wrote:
>On 2023-10-26 at 15:28, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
>
>> Apt-get install virt-manager will pull in all the associated
>> qemu/KVM packages you might need. It should be at least as
>>
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 05:17:46AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2023-10-26 at 15:28, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
>
> > Apt-get install virt-manager will pull in all the associated
> > qemu/KVM packages you might need. It should be at least as
> > straightforward to use
On 2023-10-26 at 15:28, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> Apt-get install virt-manager will pull in all the associated
> qemu/KVM packages you might need. It should be at least as
> straightforward to use as Virtualbox.
I've seen people state or suggest multiple times that virt-manag
On 26/10/2023 14:39, Hans wrote:
Hi folks,
is there a very easy way, if I want to install packages from trixie oder sid
into my bookworm installation?
I read about apt pinning, but as far as I understood, I have to name
explicitily each package I want to install from sid. This can be much work
just about
> everywhere, then choose libvirt/QEMU/KVM.
>
> Jeff
>
Apt-get install virt-manager will pull in all the associated qemu/KVM
packages you might need. It should be at least as straightforward to
use as Virtualbox.
I use this for testing when we do the testing for every Debian point release
- it's straightforward.
Andy
> Do you know another way, except pinning or my (weired) way?
>
> Oh, last but not least, I know, Oracle has its own debian-repo for virtualbox,
> but it looks somehow not well set up IMHO.
The latest version of Virtualbox for bookworm is available from the Fast
Track repository [1] [2]. I've
vbe...@gmail.com (Alexander V. Makartsev):
> > I don't use virtualbox (KVM does everything and more for me) so I can't
> > vouch for the quality of packages from Oracle.
>
> I switched from VirtualBox to KVM at one point; as I recall a Debian
> kernel upgrade broke VirtualBox and sti
On 26 Oct 2023 21:37 +0500, from avbe...@gmail.com (Alexander V. Makartsev):
> I don't use virtualbox (KVM does everything and more for me) so I can't
> vouch for the quality of packages from Oracle.
I switched from VirtualBox to KVM at one point; as I recall a Debian
kernel upgrade
On 26.10.2023 18:39, Hans wrote:
Hi folks,
is there a very easy way, if I want to install packages from trixie oder sid
into my bookworm installation?
I read about apt pinning, but as far as I understood, I have to name
explicitily each package I want to install from sid. This can be much work
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 03:39:23PM +0200, Hans wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> is there a very easy way, if I want to install packages from trixie oder sid
> into my bookworm installation?
That will depend very much on the package.
1. If you try a naive install, the package will
Hi folks,
is there a very easy way, if I want to install packages from trixie oder sid
into my bookworm installation?
I read about apt pinning, but as far as I understood, I have to name
explicitily each package I want to install from sid. This can be much work,
when installing a high number
1 - 100 of 10427 matches
Mail list logo
