On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 20:23:14 -0500, Francis Gerund wrote:
>After checking the mailing list archives, I found a similar problem was
>with the "courage" package, which was solved by (as root):
>
>pacman-key --refresh-keys
Actually your install suffers from not being updated. The refresh was
need
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:54 PM, kendell clark
wrote:
>
>
> On 1/28/2016 6:49 PM, Francis Gerund wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Doug Newgard
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:57:05 -0500
>>> Francis Gerund wrote:
>>>
>>> Should this be reported as a bug (or 2-3 bugs)?
>>
On 01/28/2016 07:49 PM, Francis Gerund wrote:
> I'm sort of new to Arch. I just installed yesterday, so didn't know about
> that. I did not see a bug report (maybe I missed it).
>
> And I thought that even if it is flagged as out-of-date, it would still
> install.
>
> I thought it was a reasona
On 1/28/2016 6:49 PM, Francis Gerund wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Doug Newgard
wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:57:05 -0500
Francis Gerund wrote:
Should this be reported as a bug (or 2-3 bugs)?
No, it's not a bug. Info about this has been all over the mailing lists,
forums, and I
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Doug Newgard
wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:57:05 -0500
> Francis Gerund wrote:
>
> > Should this be reported as a bug (or 2-3 bugs)?
>
> No, it's not a bug. Info about this has been all over the mailing lists,
> forums, and IRC for days. Do some checking around
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:57:05 -0500
Francis Gerund wrote:
> Should this be reported as a bug (or 2-3 bugs)?
No, it's not a bug. Info about this has been all over the mailing lists,
forums, and IRC for days. Do some checking around.
Hello.
I am running Arch x86_64.
sudo pacmatic -Syyuv gnucash results in:
Root : /
Conf File : /etc/pacman.conf
DB Path : /var/lib/pacman/
Cache Dirs: /var/cache/pacman/pkg/
Lock File : /var/lib/pacman/db.lck
Log File : /var/log/pacman.log
GPG Dir : /etc/pacman.d/gnupg/
Targets : gnu
On 01/28/2016 04:29 PM, Elmar Stellnberger wrote:
> Now there are different opinions about this:
> Some people certainly estimate comments, questions and discussion about
> security issues which do not solely pertain to updates of packages for
> already known security issues. Allowing discussion
Now there are different opinions about this:
Some people certainly estimate comments, questions and discussion about
security issues which do not solely pertain to updates of packages for
already known security issues. Allowing discussion about potential
security risks is also an important is
As a consumer of the list, i would actually prefer that it was closed. I
want emails only when they are official security announcements from arch
security team. Thanks for asking. Keep up the good work!
ps. IMHO, the mailing lists rules, etiquette, best practices, how to
report a security issue th
I see that there is certain interest in separating messages about
security updates in given packages from general security discussions and
announcements. Nonetheless if the arch-security list becomes closed down
for public participation then we are in need of a new list for the
latter two purpo
11 matches
Mail list logo
