Bug#1030189: Let regular users know need to put non-free-firmware in sources.list

Control: reassign -1 release-notes On 2023-02-01 08:30 +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote: > Package: general > > The average user will not notice his firmware is not updating any more. Unless they pay close attention to apt(itude)'s messages, that is probably true. > So he must do Google Search. > http

Processed: Re: Bug#1030189: Let regular users know need to put non-free-firmware in sources.list

Processing control commands: > reassign -1 release-notes Bug #1030189 [general] Let regular users know need to put non-free-firmware in sources.list Bug reassigned from package 'general' to 'release-notes'. Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #1030189 to the

Bug#1030189: Let regular users know need to put non-free-firmware in sources.list

On Wed, 2023-02-01 at 20:13 +0100, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: > Am 1. Februar 2023 01:30:10 MEZ schrieb Dan Jacobson > : > > So he must do Google Search. > > Do you think this problem only affects make users? I would expect at least ninja-build users to be affected as well unless they use a VM. A

Bug#1030189: Let regular users know need to put non-free-firmware in sources.list

Am 1. Februar 2023 01:30:10 MEZ schrieb Dan Jacobson : >So he must do Google Search. Do you think this problem only affects make users? mfh.her.fsr IOhannes

Bug#1030189: Let regular users know need to put non-free-firmware in sources.list

Package: general The average user will not notice his firmware is not updating any more. Some users, if they do $ apt-show-versions |grep 'No available version in archive' will see firmware-amd-graphics:all 20221214-3 installed: No available version in archive firmware-brcm80211:all 20221214-3 in

Re: packages producing broken apt sources.list for bullseye security

Paul Wise wrote: > I welcome help with completing the bug reports. PS: I'm now usertagging the bug reports like this: User: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Usertags: bullseye-security -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message p

packages producing broken apt sources.list for bullseye security

Hi all, A user on #debian-next noticed that Debian bullseye live images produce a broken apt sources.list that references bullseye/updates instead of the replacement bullseye-security suite. https://bugs.debian.org/969930 I noticed that a lot of other packages still use /updates for security

Bug#867400: marked as done (general: backports suite-names can't be properly used in sources.list)

Your message dated Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:15:22 +0200 with message-id <20200730111521.3es5upqv2hu4b...@percival.namespace.at> and subject line Re: Bug#867400: general: backports suite-names can't be properly used in sources.list has caused the Debian Bug report #867400, regarding general

Bug#867400: general: backports suite-names can't be properly used in sources.list

Package: general Severity: normal Hey. Not sure where this should actually go to (apt? ftp-masters? backports?)... please reassign as it fits :-) It's seems to have never properly worked for me, to use the suite-names for backports repos in sources list. E.g. having: deb http://foo/debian/ o

Bug#742118: python-apt: sources.list writing may fail; encoding of sources.list files (advice wanted)

Package: python-apt Version: 0.9.3.3 Severity: serious On Sunday, I merged a bug fix from Ubuntu to force /etc/apt/sources.list to be opened with utf-8 encoding. This was a mistake. The patch was broken, and things can fail now for empty entries. It is reverted in git. I also do not think that

Re: Retrieving source package from repository without touching sources.list?

Paul Wise writes: > Sounds like you are looking for chdist: [...] I knew someone must have done the work already :-). Both chdist and pull-debian-source seem to do exactly what I need, thanks! Now there's just the difficult decision which one to use.. Best, -Nikolaus -- »Time flies lik

Re: Retrieving source package from repository without touching sources.list?

Hi Paul (2013.01.15_12:42:54_+0200) > > It's called pull-debian-source > Sounds like something that should be moved into devscripts. It uses Launchpad to authenticate packages without having to fetch and read Packages and InRelease itself, so it probably couldn't go into devscripts as-is. SR --

Re: Retrieving source package from repository without touching sources.list?

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > It's called pull-debian-source Sounds like something that should be moved into devscripts. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe

Re: Retrieving source package from repository without touching sources.list?

On 15 January 2013 04:46, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > # fancy-dget http://http.debian.net/debian/ experimental mypackage > > would download the newest mypackage source from experimental. Bonus > points if messing with the system wide sources.list is avoided entirely > and no root

Re: Retrieving source package from repository without touching sources.list?

Sounds like you are looking for chdist: pabs@chianamo ~ $ chdist create foo http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ unstable main contrib non-free Run chdist apt-get foo update And enjoy. pabs@chianamo ~ $ chdist apt-get foo update Get:1 http://ftp.debian.org unstable InRelease [228 kB] Get:2 http://ftp.deb

Retrieving source package from repository without touching sources.list?

Hello, I often find myself wanting to download a particular source package from some apt repository that I don't have in sources.list. For me, this procedure seems annoyingly tedious. I have to: (a) become root, (b) edit sources.list (c) run apt-get update (d) become regular user again an

Bug#172318: marked as done (apt: Automatic appends to sources.list via webpages.)

Your message dated Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:22:32 +0100 with message-id <200902261522.38235.hol...@layer-acht.org> and subject line wontfix has caused the Debian Bug report #172318, regarding apt: Automatic appends to sources.list via webpages. to be marked as done. This means that you claim th

Re: Modifying /etc/apt/sources.list in postinst ; determining the suite in postinst

On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 04:28:06PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: [...] > update-manager and netselect-apt already modify /etc/apt/sources.list > but not in postinst. netselect-apt writes sources.list to the current directory unless told so, and makes a backup before writing if the said file

Re: Re: primary mirrors, debootstrap and d-i (was Modifying/etc/apt/sources.list in postinst)

Am I right in thinking that normal d-i installations ensure that at least one primary mirror is selected (or at least strongly advise that one primary should exist)? No -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: primary mirrors, debootstrap and d-i (was Modifying /etc/apt/sources.list in postinst)

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:47:00 +0200 Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Parse sources.list. Many people have multiple suites in there and you > will want to add multiple entries then. apt-cache policy already covers that output and it is easier to parse - the code of

Re: Modifying /etc/apt/sources.list in postinst ; determining the suite in postinst

's why I'm changing the existing method (which does simply append > data to /etc/apt/sources.list). The previous hack isn't good. > :-) > > However, determining the suite from within postinst is my main issue at > the moment. > > Is it safe to use `apt-cache polic

Re: Modifying /etc/apt/sources.list in postinst ; determining the suite in postinst

On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 21:14 +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > What about determining the suite? You should probably use debconf to ask, though. I wouldn't be surprised to find that some Emdebian users want a stable host and an unstable target. If you still want to find the default suite, you should

Re: Modifying /etc/apt/sources.list in postinst ; determining the suite in postinst

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 21:43:43 +0200 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Neil Williams: > > > Finally, if this is done in postinst, presumably the changes will > > have to be removed in postrm or can dpkg be persuaded to do this > > for me? (Could I ship a so

Re: Modifying /etc/apt/sources.list in postinst ; determining the suite in postinst

ppend data to /etc/apt/sources.list). The previous hack isn't good. :-) However, determining the suite from within postinst is my main issue at the moment. Is it safe to use `apt-cache policy` ? > Basically, since sources.list is a configuration file belonging to > apt, your package may only ed

Re: Modifying /etc/apt/sources.list in postinst ; determining the suite in postinst

* Neil Williams: > Finally, if this is done in postinst, presumably the changes will have > to be removed in postrm or can dpkg be persuaded to do this for me? > (Could I ship a sources.list file in the package and move the previous > one to sources.dpkg-old?) There is /etc/apt/so

Re: Modifying /etc/apt/sources.list in postinst ; determining the suite in postinst

ith regards to Debian Policy, you need to read section 10.7. Basically, since sources.list is a configuration file belonging to apt, your package may only edit it in postinst if apt provides commands for doing so. I don't think apt does that, but I could be wrong. With regards to the life of

Modifying /etc/apt/sources.list in postinst ; determining the suite in postinst

mined cleanly? Which primary mirror? (preferably not another debconf question). Finally, if this is done in postinst, presumably the changes will have to be removed in postrm or can dpkg be persuaded to do this for me? (Could I ship a sources.list file in the package and move the previous one to source

Re: sources.list

At 1146288267 past the epoch, Mohsen Pahlevanzadeh wrote: > Dear all, > When i wanna a local directory from my HDD,& parallel of it,I use > apt-get from that directory,How i dpo it? > Yours,Mohsen Hi, the appropriate list for this type of question is "debian-user" rather than -devel: see

Re: sources.list

On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 05:24:27AM +0430, Mohsen Pahlevanzadeh wrote: > When i wanna a local directory from my HDD,& parallel of it,I use > apt-get from that directory,How i dpo it? man sources.list Kind regards Christoph Haas -- ~ ~ ".signature" [Modified] 1 line --100%--

sources.list

Dear all, When i wanna a local directory from my HDD,& parallel of it,I use apt-get from that directory,How i dpo it? Yours,Mohsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: rsync in apt sources.list?

>> But why at the end of http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/~cz210552/aptrsync.html : >> # Get anything we missed due to failed rsync's. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 24 Mar >> 2002. >> os.system('apt-get update') well, it seems for me this just starts apt-get getting everything all over again, http_proxy or not.

Re: rsync in apt sources.list?

>> Doing apt-get update just seems to start downloading the Packages.gz >> even though we just rsynced Packages. Tim> It could easily be a bug. Radim> It writes HIT! message there and skip this file, because it is Radim> up-to-date by rsync. Next time I will try with http_proxy unset, because I rec

Re: rsync in apt sources.list?

From: Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >It seems the simplest solution is to just use >http://home.tiscali.cz:8080/~cz210552/aptrsync.html >But why does he do at the bottom > ># Get anything we missed due to failed rsync's. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 24 Mar 2002. >os.system('apt-get update') ># Used to hav

Re: rsync in apt sources.list?

ed over again for me. And of course commenting out apt-get update means that if some of the servers in sources.list don't run rsync, then they won't be hit.

Re: rsync in apt sources.list?

On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 09:17:37PM +1200, Corrin Lakeland wrote: > get the rgzip package into debian. This patch is 100% stable (read > it, it is short). The only problem with it is it can only be used in > 99% of situations, so to avoid unexpected bugs it probably should be > off by default (e.g

Re: rsync in apt sources.list?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 17 June 2003 17:35, you wrote: > Is there a link to just the changelog so I can see if they added this > before I spend the modem time downloading? http://packages.debian.org > doesn't seem to have links to changelogs, not are they in separ

rsync in apt sources.list?

Re: Package Lists and Size, linux.debian.devel Cor> Some of the servers run rsync, which works well for the Packages Cor> file, but does not work for the packages themselves. OK, will putting rsync in one's sources.list as you say below just affect the Packages file fetching,

Bug#55773: marked as done (general: apt/sources.list on a per mirror basis?)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Mar 2000 11:36:11 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Good sources.list file with non-US has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it