On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:59:34 -0800, peasthope wrote: > From: noela...@gmail.com > Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:26:49 +0000 (UTC) >>> From: Cam..ó.. > > That's the HTML numeric reference to miniscule oacute.
You mean the hex code, right? But why your MUA renders as such? >> It seems your Oberon Mail does not like accented characters ... > > According to IETF standards, how should characters beyond basic ASCII be > handled? The mailer has some elementary settings which I might adjust > to make accented Roman characters work directly. Oberon Email does not support ISO nor UTF-8 character encoding? Wow. >> As I already pointed, esr is for the enterprise version ... > > Who would know the esr acronym? Another bit of wiki.debian.org in need > of fixing. People who is interested in the Enterprise based version will know ;-) Besides, Google is always of help. >> ... update your Iceweasel (and your flash player plugin) to the lastest >> version available, ... ?? > Yes. I chose aurora. By the way, everyone else in the world would call > it alpha. I wonder why Debian chose "aurora". Aurora is the codename that Mozilla uses for this version... from where rock are you coming from? ;-P >> Are you sure you selected the right version? > > No. I merely chose the latest as you instructed. ?? I don't remember to have said "aurora" :-) I was referring to the latest version of the stable branch, of course (release). >> ... please send the output of what you get when using aptitude >> interactively? :-? > > root@dalton:/etc/apt# aptitude > ... > [1(1)/...] Suggest 13 removals (...) What suggests those removals? Is there no more info? > --\ Remove the following packages: > empathy [2.30.3-1 (now, stable)] > icedove [3.0.11-1+squeeze10 (now, > stable)] > iceweasel [10.0.5esr-1~bpo60+1 (now, > squeeze-backports)] > libcamel1.2-14 [2.30.3-2+squeeze1 (now, > stable)] > libebook1.2-9 [2.30.3-2+squeeze1 (now, > stable)] > libedataserver1.2-13 [2.30.3-2+squeeze1 (now, > stable)] > libmozjs2d [1.9.1.16-16 (now, stable)] > libnspr4-0d [4.8.6-1 (now, stable)] I don't see any compelling reason on why aptitude suggests to remove those packages. There has to be a detailed report you can read explaining it, can't you find it? Also, compare this output with the one provided by apt-get. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jrvl4p$ibc$1...@dough.gmane.org
