On Saturday, 18-01-2025 at 18:01 Richard Hector wrote:
> On 8/01/25 12:43, gene heskett wrote:
> > Basically, anything starting with a k came from ingo klockers kde desktop.
>
> Um - I can find one person called Ingo Klöcker, who doesn't appear to
> have anything to do with KDE. Wikipedia says
On Fri, 2025-01-17 at 23:37 -0800, Bob McGowan wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I've been trying to figure out how to use my BD disc writer to create
> backups of files.
>
> What I first found were instructions to create an empty file of the
> propper size, 'mkudffs file', loop mount it, copy files to it
Hello list,
I've been trying to figure out how to use my BD disc writer to create
backups of files.
What I first found were instructions to create an empty file of the
propper size, 'mkudffs file', loop mount it, copy files to it, unmount
and burn to the BD disc.
Doing this resulted in a BD disk
On 8/01/25 12:43, gene heskett wrote:
Basically, anything starting with a k came from ingo klockers kde desktop.
Um - I can find one person called Ingo Klöcker, who doesn't appear to
have anything to do with KDE. Wikipedia says KDE was founded by Matthias
Ettrich.
Richard
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 03:19:16AM +0100, poc...@homemail.com wrote:
[...]
> Oh I see you would rather stick your fingers in your ears and pretend all is
> well.
In some cases, that's the right idea, yes. You kind of prove it.
> I determine what is right for me, you certainly don't
Exactly. T
On 1/17/25 20:30, Max Nikulin wrote:
On 18/01/2025 07:34, George at Clug wrote:
Would I be correct in assuming this is because the version of Chromium
(as in its features) are being updated within Debian 12
Major browsers are an exception. Security fixes are frequent and
massive. The upstr
On Saturday, 18-01-2025 at 12:30 Max Nikulin wrote:
> On 18/01/2025 07:34, George at Clug wrote:
> > Would I be correct in assuming this is because the version of Chromium
> > (as in its features) are being updated within Debian 12
>
> Major browsers are an exception. Security fixes are freque
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 03:21:48 +0100
poc...@homemail.com wrote:
> > Stefan
> >
>
> All your post end up in the spam directory of my account on mail.com.
> I need to leave them there.
Oh, come on, Pocket. He was trolling you, apparently successfully.
Turnabout is fair play.
--
Does anyb
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 8:30 PM Max Nikulin wrote:
>
> On 18/01/2025 07:34, George at Clug wrote:
> > Would I be correct in assuming this is because the version of Chromium
> > (as in its features) are being updated within Debian 12
>
> Major browsers are an exception. Security fixes are frequent
> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 at 9:10 PM
> From: "Stefan Monnier"
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Are Debian packages updated within a release?
>
> > That is why the rolling release method is superior to the old model
> > used by others.
>
> Yes, and for the same reason non
> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 at 9:10 PM
> From: "Roberto C. Sánchez"
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Are Debian packages updated within a release?
>
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 02:36:34AM +0100, poc...@homemail.com wrote:
> >
> > That is why the rolling release method is su
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 at 01:14, George at Clug wrote:
> So this means that a patched version from :
[...]
> deb https://deb.debian.org/debian/ bookworm-backports main contrib non-free
> non-free-firmware
[...]
> Was copied into debian-security as in:
> deb https://security.debian.org/debian-se
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 02:36:34AM +0100, poc...@homemail.com wrote:
>
> That is why the rolling release method is superior to the old model used by
> others.
>
s/superior/different/
>
> Most rolling release distributions do the same and you get the latest
> updates, features and fixes
>
We
> That is why the rolling release method is superior to the old model
> used by others.
Yes, and for the same reason non-rolling release distributions of
GNU/Linux don't exist. Actually, for that same fundamental reason,
there is only one GNU/Linux distribution (the one that "is
superior").
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 12:14:16PM +1100, George at Clug wrote:
>
> I rarely use backports, but when I do, I like the "adjusted and
> recompiled for usage on Debian stable" part, much better that grabbing
> packages from other distributions and just installing them, hoping
> there will not be issu
> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 at 8:30 PM
> From: "Max Nikulin"
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Are Debian packages updated within a release?
>
> On 18/01/2025 07:34, George at Clug wrote:
> > Would I be correct in assuming this is because the version of Chromium
> > (as in
On 18/01/2025 07:34, George at Clug wrote:
Would I be correct in assuming this is because the version of Chromium
(as in its features) are being updated within Debian 12
Major browsers are an exception. Security fixes are frequent and
massive. The upstream teams do not maintain stable version
On Saturday, 18-01-2025 at 11:47 John Hasler wrote:
> In the case of rsync Debian backported a fix. Therefor it gets the old
> version number with a suffix to indicate that Debian patched it. In the
> case of chromium upstream patched it and released the patched version
> with a new version nu
In the case of rsync Debian backported a fix. Therefor it gets the old
version number with a suffix to indicate that Debian patched it. In the
case of chromium upstream patched it and released the patched version
with a new version number.
--
John Hasler
j...@sugarbit.com
Elmwood, WI USA
Hi all,
I became confused by comments on version numbers from the rsync discussion.
Rsync CVE-2024-12085
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2024-12085
bookworm (security) 3.2.7-1+deb12u2 fixed
I am still not sure but this is how I understand version numbering for rsync:
While
Hi,
Are Debian packages updated within a release?
After running: "# apt update"
# apt list -a linux-image-amd64
Listing... Done
linux-image-amd64/stable-backports 6.11.10-1~bpo12+1 amd64
linux-image-amd64/stable-updates 6.1.124-1 amd64 [upgradable from:
6.1.106-3]
linux-image-amd64/stable 6.1.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 10:57:53PM +0100, poc...@homemail.com wrote:
>
> Has the following been Fixed or back ported to 3.2.7?
>
> fixed handling of -H flag with conflict in internal flag values
>
> fixed a user after free in logging of failed rename
>
> fixed build on systems without openat()
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 10:57:53PM +0100, poc...@homemail.com wrote:
Has the following been Fixed or back ported to 3.2.7?
Stop trolling. If you want to use arch, go use arch and be happy.
> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 at 2:11 PM
> From: "Andy Smith"
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: A warning about rsync in stable: it became broken 3 days ago, is
> now fixed
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 03:42:48AM +0100, poc...@homemail.com wrote:
> > > From: "Andy Sm
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 03:42:48AM +0100, poc...@homemail.com wrote:
> > From: "Andy Smith"
> > You can verify this at:
> >
> > https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/rsync
>
> https://www.cisecurity.org/advisory/multiple-vulnerabilities-in-rsync-could-allow-for-remot
Hi Charles,
Do you mean that it should/could happen that, at a certain point, the
"kept-back" packages will be upgraded by just using "apt upgrade"?
Best,
Livio
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 5:48 AM Charles Kroeger wrote:
> This is probably related to needful dependencies not yet available, or
> ava
17 Jan 2025 14:33:05 Roberto C. Sánchez :
> Others, for various reasons, choose a stable distribution to which
> security patches are backported.
In particular Debian testing shouldn't be recommended to users as it is the
least likely to have security patches!
On 17/01/2025 11:56, Stefan Monnier wrote:
One of my main uses is when a tool is sitting there without giving me
any feedback and I'm wondering what it is that it's doing.
E.g. recently this occurred with `bup`, where I wanted to see if it was
mostly talking to the remote `bup`, or mostly reading
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 12:55:19PM +0100, poc...@homemail.com wrote:
>
>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2025 at 10:34 PM
> > From: "Stefan Monnier"
> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> > Subject: Re: A warning about rsync in stable: it became broken 3 days ago,
> > is now fixed
> >
> > > Why
> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2025 at 10:34 PM
> From: "Stefan Monnier"
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: A warning about rsync in stable: it became broken 3 days ago, is
> now fixed
>
> > Why use 3 year old rsync?
>
> If you can't answer this question, then you probably will b
On 2025-01-16, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> E.g. recently this occurred with `bup`, where I wanted to see if it was
> mostly talking to the remote `bup`, or mostly reading local files or
> writing local files (so as to guess in which phase
> it is, and whether it's making progress), or none of the abov
31 matches
Mail list logo
