On Sun, Feb 02, 2020 at 02:49:55PM -0500, Michael Bonert wrote:
> Thank you for the comments! I emailed the developer.
>
> As the dislocker packages don't seem to have dependencies - that aren't part
> of stable (buster),
> I decided to create a so-called "FrankenDebian" (
>
Thank you for the comments! I emailed the developer.
As the dislocker packages don't seem to have dependencies - that
aren't part of stable (buster),
I decided to create a so-called "FrankenDebian" (
https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian )
Here is hack:
I downloaded the (amd64) debs:
On Du, 02 feb 20, 00:27:54, Michael Bonert wrote:
> I am running Debian stable (buster).
>
> The dislocker backport doesn't work for files from Windows 10 1903 (as noted
> here:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org/msg1710592.html
> )
According to
On 2/2/20 4:27 pm, Michael Bonert wrote:
I am running Debian stable (buster).
The dislocker backport doesn't work for files from Windows 10 1903 (as
noted here:
https://www.mail-archive.com/debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org/msg1710592.html
)
I noted that the latest version of dislocker in
I am running Debian stable (buster).
The dislocker backport doesn't work for files from Windows 10 1903 (as
noted here:
https://www.mail-archive.com/debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org/msg1710592.html
)
I noted that the latest version of dislocker in 'sid' (unstable) is
0.7.1-5 (
Folks,
I am trying to install Nvidia CUDA toolkit package (to try out CUDA
programming) but seem to be getting this circular dependency problem:
~$ sudo aptitude install nvidia-cuda-toolkit
The following NEW packages will be installed:
libcublas6.5{a} libcuda1{a} libcuda1:i386{a}
I have a few bones files from playing nethack by now and installed the
hearse package. I played those games as a system user not as root.
Whenever I run hearse as a user I get told that user token file
/etc/nethack/hearse.user-token file exists but cannot be read permission
denied. However
Hi,
I am sorry for jumping in this thread a bit late. I hope that this is
still relevant.
On May 08 2006, Carl D. Blake wrote:
I've been trying to install emacs21 on unstable for the last few days
and aptitude keeps reporting that emacs21-bin-common package is
broken.
If you are an Emacs
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 17:49:57 -0700, kruton wrote:
OK, I'll ask a stupid question. How do you setup
the sources.list file
so you can use unstable, but install emacs from
testing at the same
time?
i don't think even testing is working... both testing
and unstable have the same
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 02:42, Florian Kulzer wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 17:49:57 -0700, kruton wrote:
OK, I'll ask a stupid question. How do you setup
the sources.list file
so you can use unstable, but install emacs from
testing at the same
time?
i don't think even testing
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 15:32:38 -0700, kruton wrote:
--- Carl D. Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been trying to install emacs21 on unstable for
the last few days
and aptitude keeps reporting that emacs21-bin-common
package is broken.
I keep waiting thinking that the problem will
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 02:17, Florian Kulzer wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 15:32:38 -0700, kruton wrote:
--- Carl D. Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been trying to install emacs21 on unstable for
the last few days
and aptitude keeps reporting that emacs21-bin-common
package
On 5/9/06, Florian Kulzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you need emacs you can install the version from testing and forbid
further upgrades of these packages until this dependency issue is fixed.
You can also install xemacs21, which can live happily alongside
emacs21, and has no dependencies on
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 07:41:35PM -0400, Michael Marsh wrote:
You can also install xemacs21, which can live happily alongside
emacs21, and has no dependencies on emacs21 (that I can see).
..., and is also not GNU Emacs.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
OK, I'll ask a stupid question. How do you setup
the sources.list file
so you can use unstable, but install emacs from
testing at the same
time?
i don't think even testing is working... both testing
and unstable have the same version number.. so wait
till the bug is fixed. (or use xemacs as
On 5/9/06, Matthew R. Dempsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 07:41:35PM -0400, Michael Marsh wrote:
You can also install xemacs21, which can live happily alongside
emacs21, and has no dependencies on emacs21 (that I can see).
..., and is also not GNU Emacs.
And vim is not
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 10:06:59PM -0400, Michael Marsh wrote:
The OP didn't say he wanted/needed GNU Emacs, he said he was trying to
install emacs21.
I would have thought the latter implied the former.
He can get essentially the same functionality with xemacs21 while
waiting for emacs21
On 5/9/06, Matthew R. Dempsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 10:06:59PM -0400, Michael Marsh wrote:
The OP didn't say he wanted/needed GNU Emacs, he said he was trying to
install emacs21.
I would have thought the latter implied the former.
He can get essentially the same
I've been trying to install emacs21 on unstable for the last few days
and aptitude keeps reporting that emacs21-bin-common package is broken.
I keep waiting thinking that the problem will be resolved, but nothing
has been done about it. aptitude reports that the following packages
have unmet
--- Carl D. Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been trying to install emacs21 on unstable for
the last few days
and aptitude keeps reporting that emacs21-bin-common
package is broken.
I keep waiting thinking that the problem will be
resolved, but nothing
has been done about it. aptitude
kruton wrote:
couple of days back, when I was upgrading to v7.0.16
of xorg, these emacs packages were removed. i am
hoping that the dependency issues are fixed before i
need to use emacs again..
--kruton
I had noticed that xfs-xtt has some dependency issues with xorg v7.0.16.
I
On 5/8/06, Carl D. Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been trying to install emacs21 on unstable for the last few days
and aptitude keeps reporting that emacs21-bin-common package is broken.
I keep waiting thinking that the problem will be resolved, but nothing
has been done about it. aptitude
Hi,
I'm facing this probelm in Etch.
I installed Debian(Desktop) using the Sarge CD. Migrated apt to
testing and upgraded all packages.GNOME however did not upgrade.
I tried upgrading GNOME with :
apt-get install gnome-desktop-environment but got the following error.
===
Since you only
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:13:01 +0530
Toufeeq Hussain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm facing this probelm in Etch.
I installed Debian(Desktop) using the Sarge CD. Migrated apt to
testing and upgraded all packages.GNOME however did not upgrade.
I tried upgrading GNOME with :
apt-get
On Monday 24 April 2006 06:39, Liam O'Toole wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:13:01 +0530
Toufeeq Hussain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm facing this probelm in Etch.
I installed Debian(Desktop) using the Sarge CD. Migrated apt to
testing and upgraded all packages.GNOME however did not
Hi,
The current versions of gnome-core and evolution in Etch are 2.12.3 and
2.4.2.1-2, respectively. So the dependencies should be satisfied.
Please check the file /etc/apt/sources.list, run 'apt-get update', and
try again.
If it still does not work, run 'apt-get dist-upgrade -s' (note the
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 03:13:01PM +0530, Toufeeq Hussain wrote:
Hi,
I'm facing this probelm in Etch.
I installed Debian(Desktop) using the Sarge CD. Migrated apt to
testing and upgraded all packages.GNOME however did not upgrade.
I tried upgrading GNOME with :
apt-get install
Hi Klurt Vader,
You have indeed brought me to the darkside,I
am now in complete darkness as far as Debian is concerned. I installed
libjack by itself with the command apt-get install libjack0.100.0-0
and in the process many files were deleted, including kaffeine and even
kdm. As a result,
Can someone confirm if the package libjack0.100.0-0 is broken?
I cannot install mplayer because of it.
thks.
kangja
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2005-12-27 20:57:41, kangja wrote:
Can someone confirm if the package libjack0.100.0-0 is broken?
I cannot install mplayer because of it.
It seems to be OK.
$ apt-cache policy libjack0.100.0-0
libjack0.100.0-0:
Installed: 0.100.0-4
Candidate: 0.100.0-4
Version table:
*** 0.100.0-4 0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005, kangja wrote:
Can someone confirm if the package libjack0.100.0-0 is broken?
I cannot install mplayer because of it.
kangja,
since i pushed you to the mplayer darkside (see: set-up for watching
video thread)... i'll try to
Upon apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade; finishing and a restart of my
laptop:
ssh -vv [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OpenSSH_3.8.1p1 Debian 1:3.8.1p1-6, OpenSSL 0.9.7d 17 Mar 2004
debug1: Reading configuration data /home/error/.ssh/config
debug1: Applying options for mephisto
debug1: Reading configuration
I downloaded one from testing to restore the previous version (-83)
manwhile. Happens sometimes :-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Baron wrote:
| I downloaded one from testing to restore the previous version (-83)
| manwhile. Happens sometimes :-)
|
|
Or get one from incoming.
Paul
- --
/** Running Debian Linux
* For God so loved
Hi all,
The latest libcurl2 package (version 7.12.0-1) in unstable is broken, see
bug # 252348. I strongly recommend staying with 7.11.2-1 or earlier until
the bug is fixed. Among other things, it breaks discover and therefore
also xserver-xfree86 preinst and postinst scripts.
regards,
--
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:27:25 -0800
Craig Dickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think I see merit in simply saying that binary packages
cannot be automatically removed to allow for an upgrade of a doc
package. I dislike the idea of having different rules for doc
packages.
To the extent that
Folks ~
I'm trying to install the sylpheed-doc package, but it conflicts with the slypheed
package (see below). This strikes me as odd, but I don't know enough about debs to
debug it.
I installed the doc package, copied the files, then installed Sylpheed again (which
removed the doc package,
Randall Hansen wrote:
I'm trying to install the sylpheed-doc package, but it conflicts with
the slypheed package (see below). This strikes me as odd, but I don't
know enough about debs to debug it.
I installed the doc package, copied the files, then installed Sylpheed
again (which removed
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:30:44 -0800
Craig Dickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
version of sylpheed itself. Unstable has a newer sylpheed that is
compatible with sylpheed-doc, but it hasn't been moved into testing
yet. That's what's causing your problem.
There is no need to file a bug about this;
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 04:56:35PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:30:44 -0800
Craig Dickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
version of sylpheed itself. Unstable has a newer sylpheed that is
compatible with sylpheed-doc, but it hasn't been moved into testing
yet. That's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It may resolve itself when sylpheed moves into testing, but it's still a
bug.
Installing a doc package shouldn't cause removal of a binary package,
even if the binary package an older version.
Does Debian policy say anything about this? If not, then the maintainer
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:21:34 +
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure; not one that filing's going to particularly help, though ...
If you're saying the maintainer will ignore it, I guess that's possible.
But if the maintainer is in the habit of specifying dependencies this
way, the
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:31:46 -0800
Craig Dickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you objecting to the idea that a doc package and a binary package
can conflict simply because the documentation is for a different
version of the program? Or are you suggesting that apt should simply
refuse to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm saying there are probably several ways to resolve this, but throwing
out a binary (without an available upgrade) because the doc package for
a later release is available is not one of them.
Well, the normal apt behavior when you request to install a particular
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 05:57:42PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:21:34 +
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure; not one that filing's going to particularly help, though ...
If you're saying the maintainer will ignore it, I guess that's possible.
No, I'm
I understand that apt doesn't know anything about packages other than
what it't told about dependencies and conflicts.
Let's get to the big picture -- is the doc there to support the use of
the binary, or is the binary there to support the use of the doc?
If we can agree that the binary is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand that apt doesn't know anything about packages other than
what it't told about dependencies and conflicts.
Let's get to the big picture -- is the doc there to support the use of
the binary, or is the binary there to support the use of the doc?
If we can agree
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand that apt doesn't know anything about packages other than
what it't told about dependencies and conflicts.
Let's get to the big picture -- is the doc there to support the use of
the binary, or is the binary there to support the use of the doc?
The doc
I installed kdebase-libs today to get Kmail working. It seems to have
broken a few things, so I'm wonder how best to deal with it.
First, I had gkrellm2 installed. Now dpkg shows:
rc gkrellm1.2.12-2 Multiple stacked system monitors: 1 process.
rc gkrellm2 2.0.3-1
On Sun, Dec 22, 2002 at 09:45:32AM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
I had also install Aspell 0.50.3 from source -- I have some code that
depends on the New Aspell.
[snip]
That on is probably my fault due to installing the New Aspell from source,
but I'm not sure.
apt-get install equivs and
On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 01:34:08PM -0500, Michael Heldebrant wrote:
On 10 Aug 2001 18:24:57 +0100, James Green wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ autoconf --version
Autoconf version 2.13
At which various 'configure' scripts are bailing asking for 2.50 or
above. It seems autoconf2.13 installs
Hi,
I dist-upgraded my sid installation last weekend, and in came 'autoconf'
and 'autoconf2.13'.
ii autoconf 2.52-1 automatic configure script builder
ii autoconf2.13 2.13-35automatic configure script builder
(obsolete
Problem is this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ autoconf
Have you taken a look at this blurb in the 2.13 thingy in dselect?
This package provides compatibility wrappers for autoconf, autoheader,
and
autoreconf that attempt to automatically choose which version of
Autoconf
to use, based on some simple heuristics. For information on these
heuristics
Not *quite* sure if this is a buglet or not...figured I'd run it by you guys
first before I file a big report on it.
Tracking unstable/woody (mostly unstable ;) ) I get the following when
attempting to install courier-imap:
---
# apt-get install courier-imap
Reading Package
It seems that the wu-ftpd packate is broken. It's not generating the
/etc/inetd.conf entry.
Because of problems I had to do the following:
1) Installation wu-ftpd ftp server
2) Removal of the wu-ftpd and installation of ftpd
3) Patched ftp.pl
4) Removal of ftpd and reinstallation of wu-ftpd
I just did my nightly apt-get dist-upgrade, and it downloaded about 26
packages, one of which was acct 6.3.5-16. After downloading all the packages,
apt went right into configuring packages. and it stopped. and sat. and sat.
I let it sit about a half hour with no hard drive activity, before I
On 16/11/99 Todd Suess wrote:
I just did my nightly apt-get dist-upgrade, and it downloaded about 26
packages, one of which was acct 6.3.5-16. After downloading all
the packages,
apt went right into configuring packages. and it stopped. and sat. and sat.
I let it sit about a half hour
I am unable to get the esound package installed on potato.
Is anyone else having this problem?
--
Andrew
-
GnuPG Public KeyID: 0x48109681
*we all live downstream*
I just did
apt-get update
apt-get install rpm
rpm -i Device3Dfx-2.2-3.src.rpm
And got rpm: error in loading shared libraries: libbz2.so.0.1: cannot
open shared object file: No such file or directory
Did a locate libbz2.so, found nothing. Did a search for packages
containing libbz2.so at
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 12:39:04AM -0400, Darxus wrote:
I just did
apt-get update
apt-get install rpm
rpm -i Device3Dfx-2.2-3.src.rpm
And got rpm: error in loading shared libraries: libbz2.so.0.1: cannot
open shared object file: No such file or directory
Did a locate libbz2.so,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
OK, I have a few questions. Background:
[ Simple responses to most of these, your biggest problem is #4 ]
We have a mirror (debian.ssc.com for those on the west coast who hadn't
noticed) which makes on-site installs a breeze. However, we have
employees
Pann McCuaig wrote:
OK, I have a few questions. Background:
We have a mirror (debian.ssc.com for those on the west coast who hadn't
noticed) which makes on-site installs a breeze. However, we have
employees who'd like to install Debian at home, so I thought Gee, we
have a mirror, why don't
OK, I have a few questions. Background:
We have a mirror (debian.ssc.com for those on the west coast who hadn't
noticed) which makes on-site installs a breeze. However, we have
employees who'd like to install Debian at home, so I thought Gee, we
have a mirror, why don't I just burn a CD or two?
Mannually adding more rights seems to solve that, but the log file keeps
complaining:
mailagent[6]: starting SAVE /var/spool/mail/ben
mailagent[6]: WARNING could not lock /var/spool/mail/ben
mailagent[6]: WARNING was unable to get any lock on /var/spool
/mail/ben
mailagent[6]:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I have made several attempts to install the mailagent_3.44-6.deb package
from the stable tree without much success.
After installation, the command mailagent -I (for user installation) results
in:
bash: /usr/bin/mailagent: Permission denied
Mannually
65 matches
Mail list logo
