On Mi, 14 nov 12, 10:48:10, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
>
> My opinion is that Debian offer a very nice of doing things for
> releases:
> _ one stable release, like the one you can find in proprietary
> software world, with a consequence of stability, ease of use, and
> you know that ther
On 16. nov. 2012 03:39, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:51:32 -0500
Charles Kroeger wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:30:02 +0100
Chris Bannister wrote:
Please don't run Sid, if you don't understand the risk(
I like risk, why else would I run it, how could I understand it if I
didn'
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:51:32 -0500
Charles Kroeger wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:30:02 +0100
> Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> > Please don't run Sid, if you don't understand the risk(
>
> I like risk, why else would I run it, how could I understand it if I
> didn't?
Multiboot? Sid + Testing or
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:30:02 +0100
Chris Bannister wrote:
> Please don't run Sid, if you don't understand the risk(
I like risk, why else would I run it, how could I understand it if I didn't?
--
CK
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubsc
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 05:27:46PM -0500, Charles Kroeger wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:30:01 +0100
> Steven Post wrote:
>
> > the non-free 3rd party packages have not been updated to work with the
> > multiarch
> > way of doing things.
>
> So...now we wait, is that about it?
Please don't ru
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:30:01 +0100
Steven Post wrote:
> the non-free 3rd party packages have not been updated to work with the
> multiarch
> way of doing things.
So...now we wait, is that about it?
--
CK
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "u
Ralf Mardorf (ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net on 2012-11-14 19:41 +0100):
> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 13:30 -0500, Tom H wrote:
>
> And if for Debian udev still should be available as an
> independent package, then because Debian maintainers extract it from
> systemd, "In April 2012, udev's source tree was
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 13:30 -0500, Tom H wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Ralf Mardorf
>> wrote:
>>> I guess the averaged Ubuntu user isn't aware that Ubuntu switched from
>>> init to upstart, the averaged Arch user is aware of th
On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 13:30 -0500, Tom H wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Ralf Mardorf
> wrote:
> >
> > I guess the averaged Ubuntu user isn't aware that Ubuntu switched from
> > init to upstart, the averaged Arch user is aware of the switch from
> > initscripts to systemd. I wonder if it
On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 13:30 -0500, Tom H wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Ralf Mardorf
> wrote:
> >
> > I guess the averaged Ubuntu user isn't aware that Ubuntu switched from
> > init to upstart, the averaged Arch user is aware of the switch from
> > initscripts to systemd. I wonder if it
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
>
> I guess the averaged Ubuntu user isn't aware that Ubuntu switched from
> init to upstart, the averaged Arch user is aware of the switch from
> initscripts to systemd. I wonder if it was possible to Upgrade from
> Ubuntu old school to Ubuntu
On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 10:48 +0100, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
> PS: yes, I install debian regularly... Because I love to play with
> highly critical files like init scripts or boot loaders. This is my
> way to understand how things works: tinker to learn , and if you break
> things, try
On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 08:23 +, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:00:41PM -0500, Charles Kroeger wrote:
> > So since I don't have 'aptitude or aptitude-common' installed, why is
> > apt-get
> > trying to remove all my non-free programs?
> >
> > Does it need to remove the non-free
Ralf Mardorf:
> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 10:11 +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>> Ralf Mardorf:
>>
>>> I can't speak for this particular case, but sometimes it seems to be
>>> less work to make a new install.
>>
>> … which won't help in this case.
>
> If it's a transition issue, why wouldn't help a in
Le 14.11.2012 10:27, Ralf Mardorf a écrit :
On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 10:11 +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
Ralf Mardorf:
> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 08:23 +, Jon Dowland wrote:
>>
>> I suspect what is happening is the transition from ia32-libs to
multiarch, and
>> the non-free 3rd party packages ha
On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 10:11 +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> Ralf Mardorf:
> > On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 08:23 +, Jon Dowland wrote:
> >>
> >> I suspect what is happening is the transition from ia32-libs to multiarch,
> >> and
> >> the non-free 3rd party packages have not been updated to work with
Ralf Mardorf:
> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 08:23 +, Jon Dowland wrote:
>>
>> I suspect what is happening is the transition from ia32-libs to multiarch,
>> and
>> the non-free 3rd party packages have not been updated to work with the
>> multiarch
>> way of doing things.
>
> The disadvantage of up
On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 08:23 +, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:00:41PM -0500, Charles Kroeger wrote:
> > So since I don't have 'aptitude or aptitude-common' installed, why is
> > apt-get
> > trying to remove all my non-free programs?
> >
> > Does it need to remove the non-free
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:00:41PM -0500, Charles Kroeger wrote:
> So since I don't have 'aptitude or aptitude-common' installed, why is apt-get
> trying to remove all my non-free programs?
>
> Does it need to remove the non-free stuff before it can upgrade ia32-libs
> ia32-libs-gtk?
I suspect wh
Packages installed as automatic, and removed because no-one depends on
them, maybe?
Le 13.11.2012 21:00, Charles Kroeger a écrit :
acroread acroread-debian-files acroread-escript acroread-plugins
ia32-libs
ia32-libs-gtk ia32-libs-xulrunner lib32v4l-0 mozilla-acroread
nspluginwrapper
softmaker
acroread acroread-debian-files acroread-escript acroread-plugins ia32-libs
ia32-libs-gtk ia32-libs-xulrunner lib32v4l-0 mozilla-acroread nspluginwrapper
softmaker-office-2012
Now why would a 'dist-upgrade' want to do such a thing?
Then there's this: 'apt-get -u upgrade'
The following packages h
21 matches
Mail list logo
