Quoting Simon Hobson (li...@thehobsons.co.uk):
> > Sounds like a problem local to you.
>
> No, not in the least bit "local to me". I will be generous and assume
> that you simply misunderstood what I wrote - it happens a lot :-(
>
> Prior to SPF, it was perfectly OK to (for example) :
>
>
On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 11:04:23 +0100
g4sra via Dng wrote:
> I am seeking any Devuaners with an interest in lxc to bounce ideas
> off.
>
> I wish to move to multi-fully-containerised development but am
> repeatedly stumbling along the way. Unfortunately the official lxc
> resources do not help much
> On 5 Oct 2020, at 04:23, tempforever via Dng wrote:
>
> Thanks for all of your responses. I did successfully remove it, with no
> ill side effects to be seen so far. In my particular case, I don't use
> java, or, apparently, other things that depended on X11. Not sure it
> was actually
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 07:57:46PM +0100, g4sra via Dng wrote:
> > If you include the "initramfs" option in /etc/crypttab, keys noted in
> > entries marked with that will be automatically included.
> >
>
> Not in the scripts I had, they explicitly excluded any keys for the root
> filesystem
Rick Moen wrote:
>> Regardless of the arguments for and against which have been done to
>> death for long enough, SPF did predictably break email in many ways -
>> some of which I used to use, and some which my clients used to use.
>
> Sounds like a problem local to you.
No, not in the least
Thanks for all of your responses. I did successfully remove it, with no
ill side effects to be seen so far. In my particular case, I don't use
java, or, apparently, other things that depended on X11. Not sure it
was actually necessary to remove (it wasn't) but at the very least I did
free up a
