Marc Haber writes:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 20:35:30 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>>This is a feature of systemd and PackageKit.
>>See http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/SystemUpdates/
>
> Please disable this for Debian. Not tomorrow, do it today.
+1
--
CYa,
⡍⠁⠗⠊⠕
Raphael Hertzog dijo [Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 02:41:59PM +0200]:
> > Please tell me which package is the one misbehaving and I gladly report it.
> > But so far I have yet to figure that our.
>
> Are you sure that you did not shutdown your computer from GNOME and did
> not pay attention to the new che
Hi Dimitri
Am 01.09.2015 um 05:57 schrieb Dimitri John Ledkov:
> boot, whilst executing itself. And no upstream mechanisms are provided
> to disable particular generators.
>
This is outdated/incorrect knowledge.
systemd generators nowadays support being overwritten just like normal
unit files.
On 1 September 2015 at 03:43, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 31, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
>
>> Ideally the update generators, targets and units should be split into
>> a separate package and not installed by default. Since those are
>> really unexpected on Debian.
> No, because the system update
On Aug 31, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> Ideally the update generators, targets and units should be split into
> a separate package and not installed by default. Since those are
> really unexpected on Debian.
No, because the system update infrastructure stays idle until some other
package tells i
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:04:02 +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov
wrote:
>Ideally the update generators, targets and units should be split into
>a separate package and not installed by default. Since those are
>really unexpected on Debian.
I would be fine with them being installed but disabled by default.
Philipp Kern writes:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 06:00:50PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
>> I have been told by several newbies that the "updates available"
>> notification, and them subsequently following the prompts to update
>> their own system, was the first time they'd ever felt like they were i
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 03:47:19PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> An user does probably not need an “automatic updates” feature if she
> wants such a level of manual control. In which case she can just disable
> the updates and do her thing.
Absolutely agreed. That's why I'd like to see the use
Michael Meskes wrote:
> In that case, the WLAN access point ("FooAP" or so) should be tagged
as
> "modem", not sure if n-m can do that. Am trying to file a wishlist
> bug for that by BCCing submit@.
And? How's that supposed to solve the problem?
On 31 August 2015 at 10:43, Michael Meskes wrote:
>> This is getting ridiculous, are you now claiming the Debian Gnome team
>> or Gnome upstream was tracking the Windows 10 betas?
>
> If anything is getting ridiculous then it's people believing we know better
> hen the user when a line is to be us
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 10:41:16PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On the other hand I don't see why I, as a user, need to care about the
> constant churn of updates myself. Why do I have to spend brain cycles on
> that? What are my options? Am I going to inform myself on each and every
Right, every
> This is getting ridiculous, are you now claiming the Debian Gnome team
> or Gnome upstream was tracking the Windows 10 betas?
If anything is getting ridiculous then it's people believing we know better
hen the user when a line is to be used for update ans when not. This is
simply impossible.
As
> In that case, the WLAN access point ("FooAP" or so) should be tagged as
> "modem", not sure if n-m can do that. Am trying to file a wishlist
> bug for that by BCCing submit@.
And? How's that supposed to solve the problem?
I may be just fine using my cell for updates at home, but not while trav
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 06:00:50PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> I have been told by several newbies that the "updates available"
> notification, and them subsequently following the prompts to update
> their own system, was the first time they'd ever felt like they were in
> charge of a computer, ra
eOn Sun, 30 Aug 2015 18:00:50 +0100, Philip Hands
wrote:
>Could we perhaps decide to buck this trend, and instead by default
>assume that our users are not idiots?
>
>Then we could just notify them when updates are available (as used to be
>the case), and expect them to make an informed decision a
Hi,
> Simon McVittie wrote (30 Aug 2015 15:41:32 GMT) :
> >> Or even noconnectivity at all
> >> (which at least Android and Windows actively check for using a call-home
> >> mechanism.)
>
> > Both NetworkManager and ConnMan are able to do that, although I don't
> > know whether that's enabled in
Michael Meskes debian.org> writes:
> Who said the update failed? I want to make the decision as to when and
> how to update my system and I never want to see some stupid software
PSA: the src:mirabilos-support package¹ builds a growing number of
prevent-* packages; among them is prevent-unattend
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 10:30:54AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> But in general I think we want that our users get security updates ASAP,
I think this implementation doesn't fit that problem.
All of this is IIUC:
A user who depends on this only gets security updates when they
reboot. As long as
Marc Haber writes:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 14:42:54 +0200, intrigeri
> wrote:
>>Marc Haber wrote (30 Aug 2015 11:43:09 GMT) :
>>> You reasoning again resembles what Microsoft says.
>>
>>I may be misunderstanding, but given what immediately follows ("I
>>don't know whether [...]) it seems to me tha
Simon McVittie wrote (30 Aug 2015 15:41:32 GMT) :
>> Or even noconnectivity at all
>> (which at least Android and Windows actively check for using a call-home
>> mechanism.)
> Both NetworkManager and ConnMan are able to do that, although I don't
> know whether that's enabled in Debian. In both cas
Quoting Simon McVittie (2015-08-30 17:41:32)
> On 30/08/15 16:18, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> FWIW, it is possible to heuristically detect iPhones and Android
>> devices that offer tethering and to discard WWAN connections. But I'm
>> not sure if we have a framework on Linux now that would offer an
>
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 14:42:54 +0200, intrigeri
wrote:
>Marc Haber wrote (30 Aug 2015 11:43:09 GMT) :
>> You reasoning again resembles what Microsoft says.
>
>I may be misunderstanding, but given what immediately follows ("I
>don't know whether [...]) it seems to me that you're attaching
>a negative
On 30/08/15 16:18, Philipp Kern wrote:
> FWIW, it is possible to heuristically detect iPhones and Android devices
> that offer tethering and to discard WWAN connections. But I'm not sure
> if we have a framework on Linux now that would offer an answer to the
> question if you're currently on a band
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 06:46:24AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > It’s gnome-software in sid, or g-s-d in jessie, querying PackageKit for
> > updates.
> > The default policy is to not schedule any downloads when running on
> > battery or on a modem connection.
> Which is not enough IMO. (W)LAN co
Jakub Wilk (2015-08-30):
> * Cyril Brulebois , 2015-08-30, 05:38:
> >>JFTR, what is g-s-d? gnome-software-?
> >
> >kibi@arya:~$ apt-file search /usr/bin/g*-s*-d*
> >gnome-settings-daemon: /usr/bin/gnome-settings-daemon
>
> To clarify: it only worked because you had g-s-d installed, so your shell
Michael Banck wrote:
> I think it probably makes sense to have this on by default for stable
> and off by default for testing/unstable. I assume the default option is
> not configurable?
>
> Even better might be a first-boot question asking the user about it, but
> I am not sure such a framework
Hi,
Marc Haber wrote (30 Aug 2015 11:43:09 GMT) :
> You reasoning again resembles what Microsoft says.
I may be misunderstanding, but given what immediately follows ("I
don't know whether [...]) it seems to me that you're attaching
a negative connotation to this statement.
In case that's indeed
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 11:27:02 +0200, Michael Banck
wrote:
>On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 10:53:17AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>> Yes, Windows 10 has _exactly_ the same issue. I am astonished that we
>> managed to copy that epic fuckup in such a short time span.
>
>This is getting ridiculous, are you now c
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 10:30:54 +0200, Michael Banck
wrote:
>Package: network-manager
>Severity: wishlist
>
>On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 06:46:24AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
>> > It’s gnome-software in sid, or g-s-d in jessie, querying PackageKit for
>> > updates.
>> > The default policy is to not sch
Hi,
Michael Banck wrote:
> Package: network-manager
> Severity: wishlist
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 06:46:24AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > > It’s gnome-software in sid, or g-s-d in jessie, querying PackageKit for
> > > updates.
> > > The default policy is to not schedule any downloads when
On Sun, 2015-08-30 at 10:30 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> Package: network-manager
> Severity: wishlist
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 06:46:24AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > > It’s gnome-software in sid, or g-s-d in jessie, querying PackageKit for
> > > updates.
> > > The default policy is to no
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 10:53:17AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> Yes, Windows 10 has _exactly_ the same issue. I am astonished that we
> managed to copy that epic fuckup in such a short time span.
This is getting ridiculous, are you now claiming the Debian Gnome team
or Gnome upstream was tracking th
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 05:38:36 +0200, Cyril Brulebois
wrote:
>Chris Bannister (2015-08-30):
>> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 10:42:13PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> > Le jeudi 27 août 2015 à 05:22 +0200, Michael Meskes a écrit :
>> > > Besides, what causes the system to make those package downloads
Quoting Chris Bannister (2015-08-30 09:37:31)
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 05:38:36AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> Chris Bannister (2015-08-30):
>>> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 10:42:13PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 27 août 2015 à 05:22 +0200, Michael Meskes a écrit :
> Besides,
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 22:42:13 +0200, Josselin Mouette
wrote:
>The default policy is to not schedule any downloads when running on
>battery or on a modem connection.
Bad policy, there are gazillions of people using mobile hotspots which
_are_ metered but appear as a normal WiFi connection.
Yes, Wi
Package: network-manager
Severity: wishlist
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 06:46:24AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > It’s gnome-software in sid, or g-s-d in jessie, querying PackageKit for
> > updates.
> > The default policy is to not schedule any downloads when running on
> > battery or on a modem con
* Cyril Brulebois , 2015-08-30, 05:38:
JFTR, what is g-s-d? gnome-software-?
kibi@arya:~$ apt-file search /usr/bin/g*-s*-d*
gnome-settings-daemon: /usr/bin/gnome-settings-daemon
To clarify: it only worked because you had g-s-d installed, so your
shell expanded the wildcard.
This works ever
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 05:38:36AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Chris Bannister (2015-08-30):
> > On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 10:42:13PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Le jeudi 27 août 2015 à 05:22 +0200, Michael Meskes a écrit :
> > > > Besides, what causes the system to make those package d
> :D Sorry, it never occurred to me that this was an ambiguous statement.
No worries.
> Anyway, the issue you encountered was highly likely bug #797138 which is
> already fixed in case you have PackageKit 1.0.8 installed.
> So, this problem is resolved now and was a bug, not intended behavior.
R
> It’s gnome-software in sid, or g-s-d in jessie, querying PackageKit for
> updates.
> The default policy is to not schedule any downloads when running on
> battery or on a modem connection.
Which is not enough IMO. (W)LAN connections cannot be expected to not
carry a penalty for download volume.
Chris Bannister (2015-08-30):
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 10:42:13PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le jeudi 27 août 2015 à 05:22 +0200, Michael Meskes a écrit :
> > > Besides, what causes the system to make those package downloads before?
> > > I may be behind a slow or expensive line and don't
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 10:42:13PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 27 août 2015 à 05:22 +0200, Michael Meskes a écrit :
> > Besides, what causes the system to make those package downloads before?
> > I may be behind a slow or expensive line and don't want any downloads
> > performed at al
Le jeudi 27 août 2015 à 05:22 +0200, Michael Meskes a écrit :
> Besides, what causes the system to make those package downloads before?
> I may be behind a slow or expensive line and don't want any downloads
> performed at all.
It’s gnome-software in sid, or g-s-d in jessie, querying PackageKit fo
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:32:35PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:26:13 +0200, Matthias Klumpp
> wrote:
> >1) This feature is not enabled by default. It only gets triggered if a
> >frontend tool makes use of it, and will not be activated automatically. So,
> >you will only see i
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 07:27:25AM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> On 08/27/2015 05:19 AM, Michael Meskes wrote:
> >
> >> Strange - then the install-updates mode should not have been entered in
> >> the first place.
> > Let me guess, the file was re-created by some software.
> As administrator o
2015-08-28 6:03 GMT+02:00 Michael Meskes :
> > Having just read this entire thread, and been affected by this once, it
> > occurs to me that the likely answer has been offered, but I suspect you
> > may have thought Matthias' reference to “GNOME Software” to be a generic
> > answer (apologies if I
On 28.08.2015 08:10, Geert Stappers wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 06:14:05AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
>>> Is this enough to go on to move this to a report against gnome-software?
>>
>> Bug reported btw.
>
> Where? ( "Where to follow the bugreport?" )
#797135
Seems you were faster than th
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 06:14:05AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > Is this enough to go on to move this to a report against gnome-software?
>
> Bug reported btw.
Where? ( "Where to follow the bugreport?" )
This is from https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=gnome-software
* Ou
On 08/27/2015 05:19 AM, Michael Meskes wrote:
>
>> Strange - then the install-updates mode should not have been entered in
>> the first place.
> Let me guess, the file was re-created by some software.
As administrator of my own systems it would bother me that some random
file /remove-my-packages wi
> Is this enough to go on to move this to a report against gnome-software?
Bug reported btw.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
Jabber: michael.meskes at gmail dot com
VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go
> Having just read this entire thread, and been affected by this once, it
> occurs to me that the likely answer has been offered, but I suspect you
> may have thought Matthias' reference to “GNOME Software” to be a generic
> answer (apologies if I'm wrong). But in fact the name of the relevant
No,
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 05:19:18 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> I never wanted to execute offline-updates. So seeing those updates
> proves that something triggered it, right?
Having just read this entire thread, and been affected by this once, it
occurs to me that the likely answer has been offer
> Jup, sorry, that was a typo. It's called something like "Restart &
> Install updates"
There definitely was no such button and besides I shut the system down
and started it again the next morning.
> Strange - then the install-updates mode should not have been entered in
> the first place.
Let m
> The GNOME story goes like this: when there are pending updates the
> reboot / halt dialog contains a "install pending software updates"
> checkbox, unchecked by default (as seen in attached screenshot).
So either the update were done despite an unchecked box, or something
changed it to be checke
> Are you sure that you did not shutdown your computer from GNOME and did
> not pay attention to the new checkbox allowing it to install upgrades
> during shutdown/boot?
>
> I have seen it once already and I have always unchecked it.
I may have missed the checkbox, no doubt about that, but I defi
2015-08-26 15:17 GMT+02:00 Michael Biebl :
> Am 26.08.2015 um 14:48 schrieb Matthias Klumpp:
> > Actually, this query:
> >
> http://codesearch.debian.net/perpackage-results/trigger-offline-update%20-package%3Apackagekit%20-package%3Aaptdaemon/2/page_0
> > is more complete, and shows that likely gn
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:26:13 +0200, Matthias Klumpp
wrote:
>1) This feature is not enabled by default. It only gets triggered if a
>frontend tool makes use of it, and will not be activated automatically. So,
>you will only see it when you use GNOME with GNOME-Software or any other
>tool which trig
Michael Meskes wrote:
> > update, you will have chosen to do that by clicking the "Reboot and
> > Restart" button.
>
> Eh? This neither makes sense nor is it true. A "Reboot and Restart" button
> (if such a thing existed, could this be a typo?) would not give you any hint
> whatsoever that the re
Am 26.08.2015 um 14:48 schrieb Matthias Klumpp:
> Actually, this query:
> http://codesearch.debian.net/perpackage-results/trigger-offline-update%20-package%3Apackagekit%20-package%3Aaptdaemon/2/page_0
> is more complete, and shows that likely gnome-settings-daemon would trigger
> this.
Are you sur
2015-08-26 14:40 GMT+02:00 Matthias Klumpp :
> 2015-08-26 14:27 GMT+02:00 Michael Meskes :
>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 01:26:13PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>> > 1) This feature is not enabled by default. It only gets triggered if a
>> > frontend tool makes use of it, and will not be activated
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 07:39:38AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> > There doesn't seem to have a bug report for this. This would be a better
> > place to discuss this issue.
>
> Please tell me which package is the one misbehaving and I gladly report it.
2015-08-26 14:27 GMT+02:00 Michael Meskes :
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 01:26:13PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> > 1) This feature is not enabled by default. It only gets triggered if a
> > frontend tool makes use of it, and will not be activated automatically.
> So,
> > you will only see it when
❦ 26 août 2015 14:17 +0200, Michael Meskes :
>> There doesn't seem to have a bug report for this. This would be a better
>> place to discuss this issue.
>
> Please tell me which package is the one misbehaving and I gladly report it.
> But so far I have yet to figure that our.
I would have said
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 01:26:13PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> 1) This feature is not enabled by default. It only gets triggered if a
> frontend tool makes use of it, and will not be activated automatically. So,
> you will only see it when you use GNOME with GNOME-Software or any other
> tool w
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 07:39:38AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> There doesn't seem to have a bug report for this. This would be a better
> place to discuss this issue.
Please tell me which package is the one misbehaving and I gladly report it.
But so far I have yet to figure that our.
Michael
Calm down, people...
A few more clarifications:
1) This feature is not enabled by default. It only gets triggered if a
frontend tool makes use of it, and will not be activated automatically. So,
you will only see it when you use GNOME with GNOME-Software or any other
tool which triggers the funct
On 26.08.2015 06:05, Russ Allbery wrote:
Michael Meskes writes:
PackageKit uses the very same resolver as apt itself does... A log
file of what actually happened would be very helpful here, to determine
the problem causing the package removal.
Just try an update on a recently updated (Sund
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 20:35:30 +0200, Matthias Klumpp
wrote:
>This is a feature of systemd and PackageKit.
>See http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/SystemUpdates/
Please disable this for Debian. Not tomorrow, do it today.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No
❦ 26 août 2015 05:23 +0200, Michael Meskes :
>> Looks like it's probably worth uninstalling all of the packagekit
>> stuff if you don't want this horrendous anti-feature.
>
> Turns out I had only packagekit itself installed. Shouldn't its
> description mention this "horrendous anti-feature"? I c
> I'm unclear as to what you have installed that triggers this, because I've
> been using systemd and sid for eons and have never encountered this
> behavior. (That also makes me pretty sure, pace Steve, that this is not
> something *systemd* as systemd is actually doing, but some other
> componen
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015, at 08:48 PM, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Can anyone tell me which package/configuration is reponsible for systemd
> running a package upgrade during bootup? I certainly never willingly
> configured this feature, but still have it. And for the second time it
> destroyed my system b
Michael Meskes writes:
>> PackageKit uses the very same resolver as apt itself does... A log
>> file of what actually happened would be very helpful here, to determine
>> the problem causing the package removal.
> Just try an update on a recently updated (Sunday) sid system and you'll
> see see
> PK does understand apt holds - only Aptitude doesn't set them correctly,
> see bug #683099
I wasn't talking about existing holds, but about an update strategy that
prioritized removing packages like gnome-control-center over putting
some other on hold automatically. I would expect an automatic s
> I used the term "anti-feature" deliberately. I am well aware of what
> the systemd devs are trying to achieve here, and I strongly believe
> that it is a significant backwards step for Debian. We should not be
> doing this and making things worse for our users without (at the very
> least!) discu
> The only thing which makes use of this feature is GNOME through
> GNOME-Software, so if you don't want this, removing GNOME-Software will
> be enough.
This is a joke, right?
> P.S: A log file on why the update failed would be very helpful though,
> because even if you don't use it, the function
> Looks like it's probably worth uninstalling all of the packagekit
> stuff if you don't want this horrendous anti-feature.
Turns out I had only packagekit itself installed. Shouldn't its
description mention this "horrendous anti-feature"? I couldn't agree
more on the wording. Actually I consider
2015-08-25 23:53 GMT+02:00 Simon McVittie :
> On 25/08/15 16:18, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > And for the second time it
> > destroyed my system by deinstalling a lot of packages, instead of
> putting the
> > conflicting packages on hold.
>
> That's the major issue here: packagekit and/or gnome-softw
On 25/08/15 16:18, Michael Meskes wrote:
> And for the second time it
> destroyed my system by deinstalling a lot of packages, instead of putting the
> conflicting packages on hold.
That's the major issue here: packagekit and/or gnome-software (I'm not
sure which of them is the relevant part here
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 08:35:30PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>This is a feature of systemd and PackageKit.
>See http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/SystemUpdates/
I used the term "anti-feature" deliberately. I am well aware of what
the systemd devs are trying to achieve here, and
This is a feature of systemd and PackageKit.
See http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/SystemUpdates/
The only thing which makes use of this feature is GNOME through
GNOME-Software, so if you don't want this, removing GNOME-Software will be
enough.
Nothing else in Debian uses this[1].
Michael Meskes wrote:
>Can anyone tell me which package/configuration is reponsible for systemd
>running a package upgrade during bootup? I certainly never willingly
>configured this feature, but still have it. And for the second time it
>destroyed my system by deinstalling a lot of packages, inste
Michael Meskes writes:
> Can anyone tell me which package/configuration is reponsible for systemd
> running a package upgrade during bootup? I certainly never willingly
> configured this feature, but still have it. And for the second time it
> destroyed my system by deinstalling a lot of packages
❦ 25 août 2015 18:03 +0200, Vincent Bernat :
>> Can anyone tell me which package/configuration is reponsible for systemd
>> running a package upgrade during bootup? I certainly never willingly
>> configured this feature, but still have it. And for the second time it
>> destroyed my system by dei
On 25/08/15 16:18, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Can anyone tell me which package/configuration is reponsible for systemd
> running a package upgrade during bootup?
I think packagekit does the actual upgrade during boot, if one has been
staged by some other component. gnome-software is the only PK front
❦ 25 août 2015 17:18 +0200, Michael Meskes :
> Can anyone tell me which package/configuration is reponsible for systemd
> running a package upgrade during bootup? I certainly never willingly
> configured this feature, but still have it. And for the second time it
> destroyed my system by deinsta
85 matches
Mail list logo
