Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 14:18:50 +0530
Message-id: <[🔎]
CAEG4cZVnD0rC0DVV8Ljqck9iQRaPfSo7MQ13P7Cm5uCMg=6...@mail.gmail.com>
Ref: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2023/05/msg00909.html
It seems that the clue is here:
https://github.com/lxqt/pcmanfm-qt/wiki/custom_actions
In the next few days I
associated
Script/Command in the Right Click Drop Down Menu List in OpenBox WM?
Also, autostart applications every session?
[/quote]
http://icculus.org/pipermail/openbox/2023-May/009637.html
Susmita/Rajib
http://icculus.org/pipermail/openbox/2023-May/009638.html
Mathias Dufresne
http://icculus.org
On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 12:06:15PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > I do program. `-SPACE, ~-SPACE and so on are deep in my muscle
> > memory.
>
> Interesting. Wouldn't `` and ~~ be easier to type?
At the beginning, yes. Later on, no, because you don't need to
release the first key completely be
> I do program. `-SPACE, ~-SPACE and so on are deep in my muscle
> memory.
Interesting. Wouldn't `` and ~~ be easier to type?
Stefan
On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 12:21:22PM -0300, Eike Lantzsch KY4PZ wrote:
[...]
> Hihi ...
> If one is also programming dead tilde and dead acute grave are probably
> not what one wants.
I do program. `-SPACE, ~-SPACE and so on are deep in my muscle
memory. I seem to prefer that than compo
and one precludes the other.
> >
> > Thanks. In a nutshell, what's the difference between deal tilde and
> > dead acute?
>
> Dead tilde /also/ makes the tilde key (~) into a dead key, so
> you can type ñ, ã and things. With deadgraveacute, only the
> ´ and ` keys are "de
On Donnerstag, 29. Dezember 2022 08:09:14 -03 Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> Am 29/12/2022 um 10:59 schrieb Eike Lantzsch KY4PZ:
> > I would need German dead tilde and dead grave
> > acute and one precludes the other.
>
> Thanks. In a nutshell, what's the difference between deal tilde and
> dead acute?
>
On 29/12/2022 18:23, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
I mapped the compose
key to CAPS LOCK (who needs that, right?)
/etc/default/keyboard:
XKBOPTIONS="grp:shift_caps_switch,compose:ralt"
- [CapsLock] to select first layout
- [Shift+CapsLock] to select second layout
- [RightAlt] for Compose
Gnome can
On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 12:23:00PM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> That depemds on your needs and software. For the occasional foreign
> character, I like to use X's compose facility. I mapped the compose
> key to CAPS LOCK (who needs that, right?), and then I can, for example
> do COMPOSE + < + 3
eal tilde and dead
> acute?
Dead tilde /also/ makes the tilde key (~) into a dead key, so
you can type ñ, ã and things. With deadgraveacute, only the
´ and ` keys are "dead keys".
> BTW, I have standard German layout and I am still able to do the French
> accented vowels:
>
On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 10:39:11AM +, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I live in UK and have a UK QWERTY physical keyboard, but will have to write
> a low of documents in German with umlauts, Eszet and so on.
>
> As you can see from picture:
>
> https://i.ibb.co/pnPt0qS/Screenshot-at-2022-12-
not one size fits all. I have PC105
installed with standard German, also US and Latin American. That is
allright for Programming, German documents and Spanish but for
Portuguese and French I would need German dead tilde and dead grave
acute and one precludes the other. Also C-cedille is missin
Jaroslav FojtÃk writes:
> Syntax errors are detected in generated GRUB config file.
> Ensure that there are no errors in /etc/default/grub
> and /etc/grub.d/* files or please file a bug report with
> /boot/grub/grub.cfg.new file attached.
Interesting, it looks like os-prober gets confused by you
Hi,
>Looks like your partition is full.
>Check if there are old and unneeded kernels installed. If so, uninstall
these
>and try again.
133GigaBytes free space on the partition should be sufficient enough.
>Please could you install pastebininit, maybe and put all the details into a
>pasteb
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 08:34:25PM +0200, Jaroslav FojtÃk wrote:
>
> Dears,
>
>
>
>
> Please fix an issue in Debian installer that blocks automatic installation.
>
> It affects all known Debian distributions on my machine.
>
>
>
>
>
> http://78.108.103.11/~fojtik/debian11/DebianInstallFa
Am Mittwoch, 27. April 2022, 20:34:25 CEST schrieb Jaroslav FojtÃk:
Looks like your partition is full.
Check if there are old and unneeded kernels installed. If so, uninstall these
and try again.
Good luck!
Hans
> Dears,
>
>
>
>
> Please fix an issue in Debian installer that blocks automati
Dears,
Please fix an issue in Debian installer that blocks automatic installation.
It affects all known Debian distributions on my machine.
http://78.108.103.11/~fojtik/debian11/DebianInstallFail.jpg
Debian could be hacked to finish installation and then works.
This does not loo
On 16/03/2021 12:20, songbird wrote:
Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 1:50 PM Stefan Monnier
wrote:
...
FWIW And MIPS was there even a bit earlier with their R4000 (tho the
software support for it only appeared some years later: they first
wanted to have an installed base to whi
Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 1:50 PM Stefan Monnier
> wrote:
...
>> FWIW And MIPS was there even a bit earlier with their R4000 (tho the
>> software support for it only appeared some years later: they first
>> wanted to have an installed base to which to deploy the software), w
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 12:08:51AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 15 mar 21, 11:19:55, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >
> > Last I heard Debian works on the M1 already :-), but its Emacs package
> > doesn't :-(
>
> No surprise considering Emacs is itself a full OS :p
>
> (sorry, could not resist
lower
>>> memory so the IPX driver would fit so Doom would run.)
>> For me it was Warcraft :)
>> And for some game (possibly also Warcraft) I had to pretend having a
>> sound card by listing the driver in config.sys, otherwise it wouldn't
>> even start.
> For
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 15 mar 21, 17:21:39, Dan Ritter wrote:
> >
> > At last report: normal desktop Ryzens (nothing with a G suffix
> > unless it also has a PRO marking)
>
> Do you have a reliable source for the lack of ECC support in G suffix
> processo
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 12:08:51AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 15 mar 21, 11:19:55, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >
> > Last I heard Debian works on the M1 already :-), but its Emacs package
> > doesn't :-(
>
> No surprise considering Emacs is itself a full OS :p
>
Yeah, but it could really
was Warcraft :)
And for some game (possibly also Warcraft) I had to pretend having a
sound card by listing the driver in config.sys, otherwise it wouldn't
even start.
For me it was "Worms".
And I was using QEMM and Quarterdeck Manifest to get maximal memory in
the lower 640k.
regards,
chris
On Lu, 15 mar 21, 11:19:55, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
> Last I heard Debian works on the M1 already :-), but its Emacs package
> doesn't :-(
No surprise considering Emacs is itself a full OS :p
(sorry, could not resist)
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
signatur
On Lu, 15 mar 21, 17:21:39, Dan Ritter wrote:
>
> At last report: normal desktop Ryzens (nothing with a G suffix
> unless it also has a PRO marking)
Do you have a reliable source for the lack of ECC support in G suffix
processors?
And why would it work for PRO processors instead?
or some game (possibly also Warcraft) I had to pretend having a
sound card by listing the driver in config.sys, otherwise it wouldn't
even start.
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
top Ryzens (nothing with a G suffix
unless it also has a PRO marking) on any ASrock, most ASUS, and
some Gigabyte motherboards will support this. To the best of my
current knowledge, no MSI motherboards.
-dsr-
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 03:50:56PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
In retrospect maybe DEC and SGI should have merged and then partnered
with AMD (as you note above some of DEC's processor design team indeed
ended up at AMD on the Opteron project), but I think it would have taken
a crapload of fores
Dan Ritter writes:
> Intel knew that their argument was bull: they owned the market
> and needed ways of subdividing their CPUs to fit every price
> point. Turning off ECC support was one of those ways.
> That strategy started with the 80486, when they brought out a
> cheap version called the 80
>>So it was a great move on the part of AMD: cheap to implement but with
>>an enormous marketing impact.
> It had much more than a marketing impact, because x86 was a PITA for more
> than 2GB of RAM and that was getting cheap and becoming a common problem by
> 2003. Switching to opteron for 8G or 1
Sven Hartge wrote:
> Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
> > From a purely technical perspective, it's hard to understand how Intel
> > managed to pour so much energy into such an obviously bad idea. The
> > only explanations seem all to be linked to market strategies.
>
> This history repeats for Intel o
Stefan Monnier wrote:
> From a purely technical perspective, it's hard to understand how Intel
> managed to pour so much energy into such an obviously bad idea. The
> only explanations seem all to be linked to market strategies.
This history repeats for Intel on several fronts:
Look at the Net
Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:34:42 +0100 Sven Hartge wrote:
>> Imagine a PC with 4GB adressable memory space in 1980.
> I can. It would have cost as much as a mainframe to make full use of it.
I don't say to put it in, only to have a flat 32bit address range.
Just like the current 64bi
>> No it wouldn't, and we had it by the late '80's with the advent of
>> 68040 abd 68060 accellerator boards for the Amiga's. But that flat
>> memory model and poor production QC doomed it. Any program could make
>> a missfire and write into another programs memory space, crashing the
>> whole Mar
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 01:35:42PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
Apparently POWER is having a bit of a resurgence lately due to its
openness and non-x86ness:
https://www.osnews.com/story/133093/review-blackbird-secure-desktop-a-fully-open-source-modern-power9-workstation-without-any-proprietary-code/
O
On Monday 15 March 2021 12:40:51 John Hasler wrote:
> Gene writes:
> > No it wouldn't, and we had it by the late '80's with the advent of
> > 68040 abd 68060 accellerator boards for the Amiga's. But that flat
> > memory model and poor production QC doomed it. Any program could
> > make a missfire
I guess I misremembered. After the merger they certainly *acted* as if
Compaq management was in charge.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:39:10 -0400
Michael Stone wrote:
...
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 09:15:10AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
> >Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> The IA64 architecture was a resounding success in one area tho: it
> >> killed most of the competition that was coming from "above" (at least
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:55:40AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
Michael Stone writes:
...HP bought Compaq.
Compaq bought HP and then renamed themselves HP. The name was all they
really wanted, of course.
That's a strange way to position it, since HP gave Compaq shareholders
HP shares (leading
Michael Stone writes:
> ...HP bought Compaq.
Compaq bought HP and then renamed themselves HP. The name was all they
really wanted, of course. HP had already spun off their instrumentation
division (the real HP) as Agilent.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:03:59AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
From a purely technical perspective, it's hard to understand how Intel
managed to pour so much energy into such an obviously bad idea.
The only explanations seem all to be linked to market strategies.
They just had too much easy mo
Gene writes:
> No it wouldn't, and we had it by the late '80's with the advent of
> 68040 abd 68060 accellerator boards for the Amiga's. But that flat
> memory model and poor production QC doomed it. Any program could make
> a missfire and write into another programs memory space, crashing the
> w
rst shape was PA-RISC--which is why HP had gone in
with Intel on ia-64 in the first place. (And, of course, the alpha had
no future once HP bought Compaq.) Also with hindsight, even if ia64 had
been successful this strategy would have destroyed the companies because
it was premised on the idea t
Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > There's already work in progress to port Linux mainline (and
> > consequently Debian) to the Apple M1 :)
>
> Since the M1 implements the ARM instruction set, I don't think there's
> much work to do here, indeed (most likely the hardest part is to fight
> Apple's opaquen
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 1:50 PM Stefan Monnier
wrote:
> > Well, nearly. Itanium Merced was 2001 [1] (althoug you wouldn't buy
> > /that/ as a private person), DEC Alpha was even 1992 [2];
>
> FWIW And MIPS was there even a bit earlier with their R4000 (tho the
> software support for it only appeare
>> The original plan/claims was that the support for legacy i386
>> application would be "just as fast". This never materialized
>> (unsurprisingly: it's easy to make a CPU that can run efficiency several
>> slightly different instruction sets (ISA), like your average amd64 CPU which
>> can run ap
>> Indeed. Also, they wanted to move away from the i386 instruction set
>> so as not to be bothered by pre-existing licensing agreements with
>> AMD, and thus making sure there'd be no competing implementation. The
>> IA64 architecture was quite complex, and there a
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:53:46PM +, Joe wrote:
On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:34:42 +0100 Sven Hartge wrote:
Imagine a PC with 4GB adressable memory space in 1980.
I can. It would have cost as much as a mainframe to make full use of it.
More. Memory was often the largest line item back then,
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:45:15AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM PC in
> >> 1980, opted to use the 8086/8088 CPU instead of the also availble M68k
> >> CPU because the Intel one was less pow
>> Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM PC in
>> 1980, opted to use the 8086/8088 CPU instead of the also availble M68k
>> CPU because the Intel one was less powerful so it would not be in
>> competition with the mainframes the PC was su
Gene writes:
> That, IIRC was a new, super shiny, thing from zilog. No experience
> with it, but if it was as unreliable as the z-80, was, I'm not sorry
> it failed. The Z-80 had an instruction that swapped the
> foregrund/background register sets. But it only worked on odd hours
> of the day. And
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:02:12AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
[...]
> Snerk. We all did that back in the day, Tomas. that and similar magazines
> were this 8th grade graduates electronics education. Do they still exist
> today? Retired now, so the subs expired.
Some of them: https://www.ee.com
[...]
> > >
> > > > Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM
> > > > PC in 1980, opted to use the 8086/8088 CPU instead of the also
> > > > availble M68k CPU because the Intel one was less powerful so it
> > > >
veloping the first IBM PC
> > > in 1980, opted to use the 8086/8088 CPU instead of the also availble
> > > M68k CPU because the Intel one was less powerful so it would not be
> > > in competition with the mainframes the PC was supposed to interface
> > > wi
e first IBM
> > >> PC in 1980, opted to use the 8086/8088 CPU instead of the also
> > >> availble M68k CPU because the Intel one was less powerful so it
> > >> would not be in competition with the mainframes the PC was
> > >> supposed to interfa
On Lu, 15 mar 21, 09:22:26, Susmita/Rajib wrote:
>
> Thank you very, very much for all your inputs. Please put this thread
> to rest and focus instead of helping seekers who need your support. I
> have had enough information already from the post of The Wanderer.
Lengthy, more or less offtopic t
On Monday 15 March 2021 07:05:02 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:09:35AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM PC
> > in 1980, opted to use the 8086/8088 CPU instead of the also avail
On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 12:34:42 +0100
Sven Hartge wrote:
> to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:09:35AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
>
> >> Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM PC
> >> in 1980, opted to use the 808
>
>
> No stupid memory segmentation,
>
IMHO segmentation was a good idea originally.
You could have separate segments for code and data and since 286 it is
possible to protect them (AFAIK segments were also used to separate
user-space and kernel-space)
But with the advent of virtual
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:34:42PM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
[...]
> Having had a 68k would have been awesome. No stupid memory segmentation,
So were Z8000, NS32K and many others. The horrible segmentation thing on
the '86 were the tribute to backward compatibility, which is the price
you pay fo
to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:09:35AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
>> Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM PC
>> in 1980, opted to use the 8086/8088 CPU instead of the also availble
>> M68k CPU because the Intel one was less pow
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:09:35AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
[...]
> Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM PC in
> 1980, opted to use the 8086/8088 CPU instead of the also availble M68k
> CPU because the Intel one was less powerful so it would not be in
>
has quite a good article at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64
which is also linked at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD64
-dsr-
that other hand, we wouldn't have ARM, and -- who knows, soon,
> Risc-V. And Linus Torvalds wouldn't have had this cool stint at
> Transmeta. But that is a totally different kettle of fish.
Another rumor I read was that IBM, when developing the first IBM PC in
1980, opted to use the 8
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 09:15:10AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
[...]
> For the others: they where either on board from the start (like HP),
> where already dead (like DEC/Compaq) or slipping into the embedded
> market (like MIPS).
MIPS had its chance to become the unified architecture for high-end
te well with the M1. Apparently it has a few
custom instructions to speed up x86 emulation. They also have the
benefit of controlling the software and now also the hardware stack.
There's already work in progress to port Linux mainline (and
consequently Debian) to the Apple M1 :)
Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Note: when IA64 was designed (starting in 1994 at HP) we where nowhere
>> near the limits of the 32bit i386 architecture with RAM and frequency,
>> so it made sense, somewhat.
> Indeed. Also, they wanted to move away from the i386 instruction
I return to thank Dr. Stefan Monnier, Mr. John Hasler, Mr. Sven
Hartge, Mr. Peter Ehlert and Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z, in addition to The
Wanderer, Mr. Roberto C. Sánchez, Mr. Andrei Popescu, Mr. Eduardo M
KalinovskI, Mr. Tomas and Mr. songbird, whom i have thanked already
(in this case, a second time T
2021-03-14 7:19 GMT-04:00, The Wanderer :
> On 2021-03-14 at 06:49, Susmita/Rajib wrote:
>
>> While Intel PCs are also 64bit processors?
>
> Because of the history of the processor microarchitectures involved.
>
> The x86 processor line (32-bit and older) was, to th
e 8086 ISA, more or less; but it's much harder to make a CPU that
can run efficiently very different ISAs).
> Also the CPU was designed so that many complexities where delegated into
> the compiler to create the most optimal code but the compilers at the
> time where not up to the tas
> Well, nearly. Itanium Merced was 2001 [1] (althoug you wouldn't buy
> /that/ as a private person), DEC Alpha was even 1992 [2];
FWIW And MIPS was there even a bit earlier with their R4000 (tho the
software support for it only appeared some years later: they first
wanted to have an installed base
The Wanderer wrote:
> It caught on, and became so successful that Intel abandoned its ia64
> approach and started making amd64 CPUs itself.
Which was unfortunate as the x86 architecture needed to die.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
hread a second time, i was pleasantly surprised
to find you all here.
Thank you for also acknowledging the excellent short article of The
Wanderer, directly or indirectly, and limiting yourselves to
complementary posts. Much appreciated.
Best
Rajib
US), but the industry chose amd64 instead.
IA64 (Itanium) was completely incompatible with the installed i386 base.
The first CPUs had a (very slow) compatibility layer, assisted by
software, so you could run your "legacy" 16bit/32bit applications.
Also the CPU was designed so that man
On 14/03/2021, The Wanderer wrote:
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: [?] Why should Distros be called as i386 for a 32-bit
> PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC, when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit
> systems
> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2021
Susmita/Rajib wrote:
> While Intel PCs are also 64bit processors?
>
> For instance, my current laptop is Lenovo IdeaPad 320-15ISK 80XH01FKIN
> 15.6-inch Laptop (6th Gen Core i3-6006U/4GB/2TB/Integrated Graphics),
> a 64bit processor.
>
> It can't be that intellectuals,
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 04:25:38AM -0700, Peter Ehlert wrote:
[...]
> AMD was the first on the market with 64bit hardware. (I was an early
> adopter)
Well, nearly. Itanium Merced was 2001 [1] (althoug you wouldn't buy
/that/ as a private person), DEC Alpha was even 1992 [2]; it was the
first 64
On Du, 14 mar 21, 07:19:25, The Wanderer wrote:
>
> When 64-bit came along, rather than extending the x86 line, Intel
> started from scratch and designed an entire new CPU architecture. That
> got called ia64, and it never caught on; it eventually failed in the
> marketplace, except possibly in ve
it's Historical
I'm old, I was there
I'm old, so I don't remember the details
On 3/14/21 3:49 AM, Susmita/Rajib wrote:
While Intel PCs are also 64bit processors?
For instance, my current laptop is Lenovo IdeaPad 320-15ISK 80XH01FKIN
15.6-inch Laptop (6th Gen Core i3-6006
As a direct response to your subject, I quote "Why should Distros
be called as i386 for a 32-bit PC, and as amd64 for a 64-bit PC,
when Intel Core PCs are also 64bit systems?"
Because the currently successful Intel architecture (core, etc)
is (more or less) a copy of AMD's.
T
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 07:19:25AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2021-03-14 at 06:49, Susmita/Rajib wrote:
>
> > While Intel PCs are also 64bit processors?
>
> Because of the history of the processor microarchitectures involved.
>
> The x86 processor line (32-bit and
On 14/03/2021 07:49, Susmita/Rajib wrote:
While Intel PCs are also 64bit processors?
For instance, my current laptop is Lenovo IdeaPad 320-15ISK 80XH01FKIN
15.6-inch Laptop (6th Gen Core i3-6006U/4GB/2TB/Integrated Graphics),
a 64bit processor.
It can't be that intellectuals, technocrat
On Du, 14 mar 21, 16:19:45, Susmita/Rajib wrote:
> While Intel PCs are also 64bit processors?
>
> For instance, my current laptop is Lenovo IdeaPad 320-15ISK 80XH01FKIN
> 15.6-inch Laptop (6th Gen Core i3-6006U/4GB/2TB/Integrated Graphics),
> a 64bit processor.
>
> It can&#x
On 2021-03-14 at 06:49, Susmita/Rajib wrote:
> While Intel PCs are also 64bit processors?
Because of the history of the processor microarchitectures involved.
The x86 processor line (32-bit and older) was, to the best of my
knowledge, originally an Intel thing. Before i386 (where the
While Intel PCs are also 64bit processors?
For instance, my current laptop is Lenovo IdeaPad 320-15ISK 80XH01FKIN
15.6-inch Laptop (6th Gen Core i3-6006U/4GB/2TB/Integrated Graphics),
a 64bit processor.
It can't be that intellectuals, technocrats and cognitive elites
involved in the develo
On 10/03/2021 07:23, "Felix Miata" wrote:
>
> Felix Miata composed on 2021-03-10 05:33 (UTC-0500):
>
> > Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z composed on 2021-03-09 19:00 (UTC-0400):
>
> >> I have been reading throughout the Web
> >> that Xfce4 is not so lightweight as it was before.
> >> Apparently, its performan
On 09/11/2018 20.40, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 06:59:48PM +0300, Reco wrote:
lxde-core depends on www-browser already (Suggests, actually, but that's
irrelevant). So it might as well depend on this to-be-done
x-www-browser.
Yes. That's exactly what I am advocating in the
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 11:12:29AM +0900, John Crawley wrote:
Can a package depend on a non-existant virtual package?
It can, but this is likely a bug if it happens.
Is x-www-browser due to be added to the official Debian virtual
package list?
I'm advocating for x-www-browser to exist, but
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 06:59:48PM +0300, Reco wrote:
lxde-core depends on www-browser already (Suggests, actually, but that's
irrelevant). So it might as well depend on this to-be-done
x-www-browser.
Yes. That's exactly what I am advocating in the bug I reported about
this (=833268, in 2016).
list which are also Debian alternatives should be marked
with a * but some have been missed. )
At the moment www-browser is a virtual package, but not a registered
Debian alternative, while x-www-browser is an alternative but not a VP. :|
I suppose a workaround for the LXDE package would be
Hi.
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:53:54PM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 10:53:01AM +0900, John Crawley wrote:
> > www-browser and x-www-browser being different things, this would be a bug
> > in the LXDE metapackage?
>
> It is indeed, yes,* but what's the fix: wha
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 10:53:01AM +0900, John Crawley wrote:
www-browser and x-www-browser being different things, this would be a
bug in the LXDE metapackage?
It is indeed, yes,* but what's the fix: what should the metapackage
actually depend upon, given x-www-browser virtual package does not
On 08/11/2018 00.47, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 05:50:02PM +0300, Reco wrote:
So it kind of makes sense for gnome-core to depend on gnome-www-browser,
isn't it? Or there's a reason why using gnome-www-browser is unsuitable
for GNOME DE?
Yeah that makes perfect sense in tha
On 11/5/18, David Parker wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm running Debian 9.5 (amd64) and attempting to uninstall firefox-esr.
> However, apt says that gnome and gnome-core are among the packages which
> will also be uninstalled. Does anyone know why Gnome apparently depends on
>
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 05:50:02PM +0300, Reco wrote:
So it kind of makes sense for gnome-core to depend on gnome-www-browser,
isn't it? Or there's a reason why using gnome-www-browser is unsuitable
for GNOME DE?
Yeah that makes perfect sense in that case. I think we need an
x-www-browser for s
Hi.
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 12:42:39PM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 02:24:22PM -0500, David Parker wrote:
> > Thanks for the information. I guess I'm just surprised that the
> > dependencies are limited to firefox/firefox-esr/chromium. Seems like other
> > bro
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 02:24:22PM -0500, David Parker wrote:
Thanks for the information. I guess I'm just surprised that the
dependencies are limited to firefox/firefox-esr/chromium. Seems like other
browsers like Iceweasel are just arbitrarily left out.
This is partially because we don't ha
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 11:55:48AM -0500, David Parker wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm running Debian 9.5 (amd64) and attempting to uninstall firefox-esr.
> However, apt says that gnome and gnome-core are among the packages which
> will also be uninstalled. Does anyone know why Gnom
On 06/11/2018 04.24, David Parker wrote:
Thanks for the information. I guess I'm just surprised that the
dependencies are limited to firefox/firefox-esr/chromium. Seems like
other browsers like Iceweasel are just arbitrarily left out.
https://www.debian.org/releases/stretch/amd64/release-note
1 - 100 of 417 matches
Mail list logo
