Debian never powers off
No matter what I do, I can never get Debian to power down a machine on shutdown. It doesn't work with the stock kernel, doesn't work with all the different kernels I've compiled (and I've tried every permutation of the apm kernel options). But other distributions - or OSs - installed on the same machines power them down no problem at all. Any clues? -- Bruce
Re: Compiled debs are upgraded
On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 02:24:23PM +0100, Joachim Trinkwitz wrote: Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: interesting, replacing it with the same version. Odd. Same here with gmc -- after an 'apt-get --compile source gmc' another 'apt-get upgrade' will replace my newly compiled package with the same version. I've found that it affects the same packages on both my home and work machines. It's either a subtle bug in dpkg-dev, only triggered by certain packaging arrangements, or in apt-get - which I think is more likely. Not sure how to word the bug report. Not a brand new problem, though - search the archives on Package compilation madness for some more on this. -- Bruce If the universe were simple enough to be understood, we would be too simple to understand it.
Re: apt download security?
On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 02:22:29AM +, John Carline wrote: However, I'm not above accepting all the help I can find. Can someone verify the statement below? Or better yet, is the statement wrong? Is there a way to verify the integrity of the downloaded debs? dpkg -p debian-keyring man dscverify Also Packages.gz can and should be signed. Unfortunately, while source packages can be checked quite easily, they are not always verifiable. There is no simple mechanism for verifying debs *at all*. Nor even Packages.gz - and the integrity of Packages.gz isn't actually a guarantee of the integrity of any of the packages. So there is a hole here. -- Bruce Remember you're a Womble.
Re: Compiled debs are upgraded
On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 11:39:06PM +0100, Martin Bialasinski wrote: * Joachim == Joachim Trinkwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joachim Same here with gmc -- after an 'apt-get --compile source gmc' Joachim another 'apt-get upgrade' will replace my newly compiled Joachim package with the same version. Actually, this is by design and the reason the equivs package was rewritten. Unfortunately, I didn't take notes why apt behaves like this. Therefore, I crosspost this to the gurus. They can say for sure. Well, I hope it's a good reason, it makes no sense to me and causes me unneeded hassle. -- Bruce What would Edward Woodward do?
Compiled debs are upgraded
If I compile a deb-src package and install it, apt-get upgrade will over-write it with the precompiled version unless I mark my hand-rolled package as hold. What am I doing wrong? -- Bruce It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
Re: Compiled debs are upgraded
On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 03:07:15PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: On 06-Nov-2000 Bruce Richardson wrote: If I compile a deb-src package and install it, apt-get upgrade will over-write it with the precompiled version unless I mark my hand-rolled package as hold. What am I doing wrong? nothing. you install version 1.1, there is a 1.2, it should replace 1.1. If this is not what you want, you place the package on hold. Seems you have that part working already. No, it's replacing my compiled 1.1 with the precompiled 1.1. I do apt-get source tin, and it gives me the up-to-date Potato Tin (1.4.1-1). I compile it with my own settings (i.e. nntp only) and install it. Then apt-get upgrade (or dselect upgrade) tries to replace it with the precompiled 1.4.1-1, despite the fact that it acknowleges my compiled version to be current. If I didn't have Tin on hold it would be over-written with the exact same version only not compiled how I want. It did it to me yesterday with ftape-utils. I did apt-get source ftape-utils, get the most recent ftape-tools deb-src, compile it, install it. A few hours later I use dselect to install something else and off it goes and overwrites my hand-rolled ftape-utils with the precompiled version. Madness and not what I want. It's not just doing it on my home machine (installed from what *might* be a dodgy CD set, I suppose) but from my work machine which I installed entirely over the internet. -- Bruce I see a mouse. Where? There, on the stair. And its clumsy wooden footwear makes it easy to trap and kill. -- Harry Hill
Re: Compiled debs are upgraded
On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 03:32:31PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: Madness and not what I want. It's not just doing it on my home machine (installed from what *might* be a dodgy CD set, I suppose) but from my work machine which I installed entirely over the internet. interesting, replacing it with the same version. Odd. Uh huh. On reflection, it isn't doing this with every package I compile, it left inewsinn alone. I gather debconf is badly broken and not getting any better, wonder if this has anything to do with it. -- Bruce It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
Re: gpm and X and mouse (fwd)
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 05:29:41PM -0700, Chris Majewski wrote: It's been three computers and four mice already, and I've never had this working, so I'm curious if anyone has got it to work and under what circumstances, so that maybe the next time I spend money I can make duplication of these circumstances a consideration. -chris People seem to have found a range of different answers. I have a 3 button PS/2 Logitech Trackman Marble (no wheel, thank god) and I found that if I set gpm to ps2 and repeating ps2 then gpm wouldn't work at all. To get gpm and X co-operating fully I had gpm using /dev/psaux as ps2 type and repeating as ms3 /dev/mouse pointing to /dev/gpmdata X using /dev/mouse as an Intellimouse. -- Bruce Unix and C are the ultimate computer viruses. -- Richard P. Gabriel
Re: e-conf for enlightenment
On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 10:12:45AM -0400, Michael P. Soulier wrote: On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 03:09:57PM +0200, Frederik wrote: AFAIK, e-conf is no longer in Enlightenment. You might check #e on EFNet to be sure, but I seem to recall having read something like this somewhere... Yeah, I noticed that you can access all of the configuration options with a right click on the desktop, it's just not pretty. No problems. Not all the configuration options, at least not on the version I have at work. I kept e-conf from the older enlightenment because there seemed to be no way to set preferences for keypresses and no equivalent to e-conf's background image organiser. If you have/install e-conf, it appears on the enlightenment menu as Legacy admin tool. -- Bruce Wisdom is not the purchase of a day. -- Thomas Paine
Re: (mutt gpg thread)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 09:42:25PM -0400, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote: I have sort of worked up a workaround for this problem based on a macro given in /usr/local/share/doc/mutt/PGP-Notes.txt.gz. Adding this macro: macro compose S Fgpg -s -a --clearsign\ny^T^Utext/plain; format=text; x-action= sign\n Which will work for non-mutt users but means Mutt doesn't see the mail as signed. Which is a pain. Though there is a procmail script mutt users can put in for just that kind of e-mail. - -- Bruce Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web... -- Tim Berners-Lee -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://website.lineone.net/~brichardson/pubkey/gpg.txt iD8DBQE5wDsNarK9eRmVtSkRAiRWAJ9JI2qHPK885dgXDBYL/G+CScj81gCgj40q kKqc/aCuymXS+pQbktQX6kY= =GxOh -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: bash login for root
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 04:45:27AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: actually i think bash looks for ~/.profile first and ~/.bash_profile last. and iirc only uses one, not both. Call me Mr. Stupid. There's a /root/.profile there. %-X -- Bruce A problem shared gives the consolation that someone else is now feeling as miserable as you.
Re: (mutt gpg thread)
pgpJvzdNbVxOs.pgp Description: PGP message
Re: advanced power management and linux?
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 07:50:08PM -0700, Eric G . Miller wrote: Squeaky brakes make alot of noise, but nobody'd confuse that with 'power' and 'goodness'. In fact, the opposite conclusion might be drawn. It's always wrong to make sweeping generalizations, even about Micro$oft! *Sometimes* it is good to make sweeping generalisations, especially about Micros~1. -- Bruce If the universe were simple enough to be understood, we would be too simple to understand it.
bash login for root
Debian doesn't put .bash_profile in for root. I want to put one in to extend root's path. Putting my own .bash_profile means putting in the path in full, since bash doesn't do roots path if there's a bash_profile. Is there anything else that would be missed out if I were to put in a .bash_profile? -- Bruce The good news is that in 1995 we will have a good operating system and programming language; the bad news is that they will be Unix and C++. -- Richard P. Gabriel
Re: Debian VS. Red Hat
msg.pgp Description: PGP message
Re: mutt can burn in ****!!
msg.pgp Description: PGP message
Re: laptop
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 09:01:30AM +0400, Rino Mardo wrote: debian is the most laptop-friendly distro i've encountered. I'd have to question that, even in my recent-Debian-convert fervour. Slackware comes with a whole range of kernels - low power, apm etc. When I installed Debian on my work laptop I had to compile a new kernel with APM and then compile pcmcia from source to match. Nothing taxing but I wouldn't choose Debian to install on the old laptops I get hold of for personal use - definitely not on the 4mb RAM/170mb disk/pcmcia floppy machine I spooned Slackware into. -- Bruce Unix and C are the ultimate computer viruses. -- Richard P. Gabriel
Re: laptop
msg.pgp Description: PGP message
Re: sendmail or exim?
msg.pgp Description: PGP message
Re: PGP and Mutt
msg.pgp Description: PGP message pgpgrX4is1BOD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: kde or gnome?
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 09:49:49AM +0518, USM Bish wrote: Just a small clarification sought : What exactly is meant by Gnome or KDE compliance ? Is it the capability of running Gnome or KDE apps ? No. Window managers don't run apps, they just manage the way they are placed on the screen etc. As long as the right libraries are on your system, you can run Gnome/KDE apps under any window manager. In fact, you can run any X app with *no* window manager: you can get xinit to run a single X app in the same way that windows can be set to run a single program instead of Windows Explorer. Compliance with Gnome or KDE means that a wm can detect and comply with the hints that the desktop environment gives, signals which tell a window manager how to behave so that it is acting in sync with all the bloatware that Gnome and KDE run. -- Bruce I see a mouse. Where? There, on the stair. And its clumsy wooden footwear makes it easy to trap and kill. -- Harry Hill
Re: Debian 2.2 or woody
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 12:41:43PM +0200, Julio Merino wrote: Hi, I'm going to install a new debian system at home (as I commented in some other messages)... but I'm now wondering if installing the 2.2 or woody version... I can't give you a definitive answer since I've only been using Debian since potato came out. But I've converted my home machine from RH to Debian and have needed to upgrade a few things beyond potato to get some important (to me) features that aren't in the potato versions of some apps. The reason to use potato is stability. You know that the system has been tested as a whole, not just as an assortment of apps. If you keep up with the updates then the system should actually get more stable with time. If you don't value that, go ahead and use woody all over but you know that'll be a constantly shifting surface to stand on. You don't lose out on the security front by using potato since the Debian maintainers back-propagate security/bug fixes. So far I've had no problems with the bits I've added from woody, though I've been compiling from the source packages. Compiling from source not only lets me do any personal config I need but also avoids the problems that would be caused by a binary compiled on a woody system with minor differences in set-up to a potato system. And if there were a major incompatibility, the compilation process will fail meaningfully, in a way that tells me what I might do to fix it. The binary would likely just core dump. -- Bruce Remember you're a Womble.
Re: PGP and Mutt
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 03:23:20PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: This is why the gpg maintainers get so sniffy about mutt. The mime/pgp attachments are not widely supported *at all*. So there's been an option, since 1.2.3 I think, to do it the standard way. Put set pgp_create_traditional in your muttrc. Which would have been more impressive if my message had been correctly signed. E-mail misconfiguration, forgive me, this was a RH box two days ago. -- Bruce The ice-caps are melting, tra-la-la-la. All the world is drowning, tra-la-la-la-la. -- Tiny Tim.
Re: XF68_FBDev
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 05:05:37PM +0100, Lee Elliott wrote: IIRC this is just for use with the m68k arch systems - I used this when I was running Debian on my Amigas. I *think* that the Frame Buffer drivers have been used on more architectures than that. But now they've been ported to x86 as well. They work on a lot of modern cards. You lose the card-specific extensions but you do gain a much simplified X set-up and one that you don't need to change with your card (just install the appropriate Frame-buffer driver). Also, it uses SVGA text modes for the console -- Bruce It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
Mixing stable and unstable
How advisable is it to include unstable apps in my set-up. If I wanted, for example, to run a stable installation - but with gnome 1.2 from the unstable list - would that cause me problems? What I don't know is whether the unstable packages use configurations different enough that they wouldn't run in potato. I'm prepared for a certain amount of dependency cascade, that's not what I'm worried about. -- Bruce If the universe were simple enough to be understood, we would be too simple to understand it.
Re: LILO probs fixed - MBR faulty
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 08:09:38AM -0700, Heather wrote: As a preference, I think the install-mbr is elegant. I like the idea that it won't say much, but I can hit SHIFT and access everywhere. And if you set no delay then your non-Linux-enthusiast superiors won't notice you've slipped one past them;) -- Bruce Wisdom is not the purchase of a day. -- Thomas Paine
SysVinit problem?
Just installed Potato onto my work laptop and it's mostly working great but there's one odd thing which, since I've never used Debian before, I'm not sure is an error or a feature. All the user runlevel directories, /etc/rc1.d/ through to /etc/rc5.d/, have exactly the same contents and they're all start scripts, no kill scripts. If I telinit from (for example) runlevel 2 to 4, nothing happens except for the sending a term/kill signal to all processes message. The console I type it at stays the same but all the other ttys freeze until I telinit back to the original runlevel. This seems odd behaviour and it feels as if something didn't configure properly during installation. -- Bruce If the universe were simple enough to be understood, we would be too simple to understand it.
Re: SysVinit problem?
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 10:12:33AM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote: This is ok, Debian doesn't use runlevels 3-5 for anything by default AFAIK, and they're mostly equal to runlevel 2 (I think /etc/inittab has some stuff which is different, simply to show it can do that). I thought that might be the case but I'm still concerned about the freezing ttys. I can't believe that it's intended behaviour. BTW, there's an utterly braindamaged behaviour in many (most?) daemon packages during upgrade: They will start their daemons regardless of the current runlevel, so keep this in mind during upgrades if you hand-trimmed your runlevels to actually mean something. Hmmm. A newly installed package won't know which levels you want it running in but one being upgrade ought to be able to check. Proposing a fix to this is in my TODO list. The code is rather easy, really, but requires a policy change as almost all packages who have something in /etc/init.d will have to be fixed. I'm new to Debian and only just finished reading the policy docs atc. I suppose some extended version of update-rc.d is the thing for that. -- Bruce The good news is that in 1995 we will have a good operating system and programming language; the bad news is that they will be Unix and C++. -- Richard P. Gabriel
Re: SysVinit problem?
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 01:42:17PM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote: On Sun, 03 Sep 2000, Bruce Richardson wrote: On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 10:12:33AM -0300, Henrique M Holschuh wrote: I thought that might be the case but I'm still concerned about the freezing ttys. I can't believe that it's intended behaviour. It is not, but it may be either something weird in /etc/inittab (I seem to recall some ttys aren't restarted in all runlevels by default. They WILL freeze) Aye, that is the case. Only tty1 is restarted in all 5 levels, the others only in 2 or 3. This seems bizarre and arbitrary, seeing that otherwise the runlevels are identical. -- Bruce If the universe were simple enough to be understood, we would be too simple to understand it.
