Re: Enlightenment 0.27 in new Debian release

On Wed Jan 15, 2025 at 5:31 PM GMT, Paulo Igor Barra Nascimento wrote: Any chances to see E27 in Trixie release? Reasonable chance I think, unless the changes in E27 are contrary to the DFSG or something (unlikely). The enlightenment package appears to be currently maintained. You would get a

Enlightenment 0.27 in new Debian release

Any chances to see E27 in Trixie release?

Re: Web page management. Was: Re: Debian release criteria.

On 30/01/2023 10:32, Celejar wrote: For those who may not be aware, the developer of uBlock Origin and uMatrix, Raymond Hill, has ceased work on uMatrix: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uMatrix-issues/issues/291#issuecomment-694988696 It is really sour. On a lot of sites, including github, hig

Re: Web page management. Was: Re: Debian release criteria.

On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 14:14:22 -0500 Dan Ritter wrote: > pe...@easthope.ca wrote: > > Unwieldly References list truncated. > > > > From: Stefan Monnier > > Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2023 12:45:52 -0500 > > > I use uMatrix, which I find strikes a fairly good balance between > > > keeping sites wo

Re: Software usage. Was Re: Debian release criteria.

On Sat 21 Jan 2023 at 08:20:00 (-0800), pe...@easthope.ca wrote: > From: > Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2023 20:09:20 +0100 > > Know what? Those "resources" to be "allocated" are you and me. > > Documentation? The Web? Most of the front page, > https://www.debian.org , is occupied with graphics.

Software usage. Was Re: Debian release criteria.

From: Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2023 20:09:20 +0100 > Know what? Those "resources" to be "allocated" are you and me. Documentation? The Web? Most of the front page, https://www.debian.org , is occupied with graphics. =8~/ A link directly to https://wiki.debian.org would make sense. "User su

Re: Web page management. Was: Re: Debian release criteria.

pe...@easthope.ca wrote: > Unwieldly References list truncated. > > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2023 12:45:52 -0500 > > I use uMatrix, which I find strikes a fairly good balance between > > keeping sites working and letting me control how much crap is loaded. > > Another he

Web page management. Was: Re: Debian release criteria.

Unwieldly References list truncated. From: Stefan Monnier Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2023 12:45:52 -0500 > I use uMatrix, which I find strikes a fairly good balance between > keeping sites working and letting me control how much crap is loaded. Another helpful add-on. Thanks! A feature (gingerb

Re: [OT] coo, was Re: Debian release criteria.

On 2023-01-08, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > To heck with it, let's just fall back on Allan Sherman's > description of a dejected man from Mars searching for his > girlfriend, who's... > > Eight foot two, solid blue > Five transistors in each shoe > Has anybody seen my gal? > > Luci

Re: Web functionality; was Re: Debian release criteria.

On Sun, Jan 08, 2023 at 07:53:11AM -0800, pe...@easthope.ca wrote: > David & all, > > Earlier from peter, > > > Bulk of the software and frequent updates are evident but what changes > > > in functionality? The Web site of my credit union works as it did > > > five years ago. > > From: David W

Re: [OT] coo, was Re: Debian release criteria.

On Sat 07 Jan 2023 at 17:52:43 (-), Curt wrote: > On 2023-01-07, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > > To an American audience, the meaning is quite different. We only use > > "coo" to describe the noise made by a dove, or as an (urban) slang > > term which is a shortened form of "cool". > > > > I ha

Re: [OT] coo, was Re: Debian release criteria.

On Fri 06 Jan 2023 at 23:41:25 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 01:26:54PM -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > Rather, > > > > > > > > coo² (slang) interjection, expressive of surprise. (Chambers) > > > > > > > > and this has been around far longer than my lifetime. >

Re: Web functionality; was Re: Debian release criteria.

On Sun 08 Jan 2023 at 07:53:11 (-0800), pe...@easthope.ca wrote: > My primary interest: if many Web sites appear and perform as five > years ago, what is the need for the frequent updates? A bug needs > repair a.s.a.p. A bug compromising security needs repair sooner. > Are most Firefox updat

Web functionality; was Re: Debian release criteria.

David & all, Earlier from peter, > > Bulk of the software and frequent updates are evident but what changes > > in functionality? The Web site of my credit union works as it did > > five years ago. From: David Wright Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 21:46:39 -0600 > What's that got to do with Firefox? O

Re: [OT] coo, was Re: Debian release criteria.

Re: [OT] coo, was Re: Debian release criteria. On Sat Jan 7 13:37:31 2023 cu...@free.fr wrote: > On 2023-01-07, Greg Wooledge wrote: > >> To an American audience, the meaning is quite different. >> We only use "coo" to describe the noise made by a dove, >> or

Re: Debian release criteria.

On Sat, Jan 07, 2023 at 12:45:52PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > That said, my way to cope with it: my main browsing profile > > is one where I have excised javascript capabilities by "tuning" > > (read: fat-fingering) about:config. Some pages won't work, but > > for those I get to think twice w

Re: [OT] coo, was Re: Debian release criteria.

On 2023-01-07, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > To an American audience, the meaning is quite different. We only use > "coo" to describe the noise made by a dove, or as an (urban) slang > term which is a shortened form of "cool". > I haven't been following, but coo to me is the sound a pigeon makes, or

Re: Debian release criteria.

> That said, my way to cope with it: my main browsing profile > is one where I have excised javascript capabilities by "tuning" > (read: fat-fingering) about:config. Some pages won't work, but > for those I get to think twice whether I'm interested or not. > Most of the time I am not. I use uMatri

Re: Debian release criteria.

On Sat, Jan 07, 2023 at 12:50:37PM +, Joe wrote: > On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 07:39:41 +0100 > wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 07:41:16PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > [...] hope that Firefox gets a bit more memory-efficient, > > > > Stefan, I *love* your dry humour :

Re: Debian release criteria.

On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 07:41:16PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: [...] > [...] hope that Firefox gets a bit more memory-efficient, Stefan, I *love* your dry humour :-) That said, my way to cope with it: my main browsing profile is one where I have excised javascript capabilities by "tuning" (rea

Re: [OT] coo, was Re: Debian release criteria.

> > On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 01:26:54PM -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > Rather, > > > > > > coo² (slang) interjection, expressive of surprise. (Chambers) > > > > > > and this has been around far longer than my lifetime. > > When using slang, the current meaning is the one that will be understo

[OT] coo, was Re: Debian release criteria.

I'm only replying because I've got nothing better to do. (Recuperating.) On Fri 06 Jan 2023 at 15:18:44 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 01:26:54PM -0600, David Wright wrote: > > And cool in this modern sense (and words like awesome, wicked, and so > > on) is quite recent. >

Re: Debian release criteria.

>> What, you expect someone to obtain an i386 machine just to replicate >> that it's slow? And make it crash in some unspecified manner? > Definitely not for the problems with Firefox. BTW, regarding the problem with Firefox, a cause of crashes of Firefox for me is running out of memory. So there

Re: Debian release criteria.

On 1/6/23 15:19, Greg Wooledge wrote: [...] I know that's going to be an obstacle for many of the people here, since we're generally a mature bunch, but that's the nature of a living language. If you want to use a slang term that you know is pretty old, and you aren't sure whether its meaning is

Re: Debian release criteria.

On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 01:26:54PM -0600, David Wright wrote: > And cool in this modern sense (and words like awesome, wicked, and so > on) is quite recent. > > Rather, > > coo² (slang) interjection, expressive of surprise. (Chambers) > > and this has been around far longer than my lifetime. >

Re: Debian release criteria.

On Thu 05 Jan 2023 at 23:34:12 (-0500), Timothy M Butterworth wrote: > On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 1:57 PM wrote: > > David Wright wrote on Wed, 4 Jan 2023 21:46:39 -0600 For clarification … > > > I ran FF on a 500MB i386 laptop to the end of buster, ... > > > > Debian dropped support for i386, i486

Re: Debian release criteria.

On Thu 05 Jan 2023 at 10:40:59 (-0800), pe...@easthope.ca wrote: > From: David Wright > Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 21:46:39 -0600 > > What, you expect someone to obtain an i386 machine just to replicate > > that it's slow? And make it crash in some unspecified manner? > > Definitely not for th

Re: Debian release criteria.

On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 1:57 PM wrote: > David, > > Thanks for replying. > > From: David Wright > Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 21:46:39 -0600 > > What, you expect someone to obtain an i386 machine just to replicate > > that it's slow? And make it crash in some unspecified manner? > > Definitely

Re: Debian release criteria.

On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 10:40:59AM -0800, pe...@easthope.ca wrote: [...] > [...] Debian can't fix it. No single > entity can fix it. At least Debian can acknowledge the problem and > allocate some attention and resources to mitigation. You sound a bit like Napoléon on his horse. Know what? T

Re: Debian release criteria.

David, Thanks for replying. From: David Wright Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 21:46:39 -0600 > What, you expect someone to obtain an i386 machine just to replicate > that it's slow? And make it crash in some unspecified manner? Definitely not for the problems with Firefox. Yes, I'd hope that at

Re: Debian release criteria.

>> From: "Andrew M.A. Cater" >> Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 16:32:37 + >> > All software is buggy: it is a matter of luck whether bugs hit you. >> =8~/ A hacker might be satisfied with luck. An engineer should not >> be. If I claim to be a package maintainer, I test as broadly as >> f

Re: Debian release criteria.

On Wed 04 Jan 2023 at 14:26:47 (-0800), pe...@easthope.ca wrote: > Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > dpkg -l | grep fire > ii firefox-esr 102.6.0esr-1~deb11u1 > i386 Mozilla Firefox web browser - Extended Support Release (ESR) > > > All software is buggy: it is a mat

Re: Debian release criteria.

On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 02:26:47PM -0800, pe...@easthope.ca wrote: > From: "Andrew M.A. Cater" > Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 16:32:37 + > > > All software is buggy: it is a matter of luck whether bugs hit you. > > =8~/ A hacker might be satisfied with luck. An engineer should not > be

Re: Debian release criteria.

From: "Andrew M.A. Cater" Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 16:32:37 + > Is this a bug that you are experiencing? Yes. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=562765#55 > This is only the case for IPv6 - is this something that affects you? I don't need IPv6 but need 4. This is the pe

Re: Debian release criteria.

From: Eric S Fraga Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2023 09:25:02 + > According to that bug report, the problem is on sid. Was on sid. The report originated in 2009 when sid = squeeze = Debian 6. sid is a floating codename. Helps to confuse us. =8~) https://www.debian.org/releases/ 'The "unst

Re: Debian release criteria.

On 03/01/2023 21:36, pe...@easthope.ca wrote: Can't comment on Cheese camera software or Qemu bridge, I don't use that. Firefox has become slow and crashes frequently. Firefox works perfectly well for me, on both Debian Stable and Debian Testing systems. I don't restart Firefox for days and

Re: Debian release criteria.

On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 01:36:31PM -0800, pe...@easthope.ca wrote: > Hi, > > A few years ago a USB camera worked with Cheese, a bridge interface > worked as documented and Firefox was fairly stable. > > Now Cheese cashes immediately upon startup. > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?b

Re: Debian release criteria.

On Tuesday, 3 Jan 2023 at 13:36, pe...@easthope.ca wrote: > A few years ago a USB camera worked with Cheese, a bridge interface > worked as documented and Firefox was fairly stable. > > Now Cheese cashes immediately upon startup. > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=562765 Accordi

Debian release criteria.

Hi, A few years ago a USB camera worked with Cheese, a bridge interface worked as documented and Firefox was fairly stable. Now Cheese cashes immediately upon startup. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=562765 QEMU documents a bridge for connecting the guest, https://wiki.qemu.o

Re: Impossible to verify GPG signature on Debian Release file

On 11/23/2021 4:16 PM, john doe wrote: On 11/23/2021 1:49 PM, deloptes wrote: john doe wrote: What am I missing? this specific key seems not to be available on the debian keyserver try keyserver.ubuntu.com, you can find the key there Thank you. The Ubuntu keyring is: keyserver.ubuntu.c

Re: Impossible to verify GPG signature on Debian Release file

On 11/23/2021 1:49 PM, deloptes wrote: john doe wrote: What am I missing? this specific key seems not to be available on the debian keyserver try keyserver.ubuntu.com, you can find the key there Thank you. -- John Doe

Re: Impossible to verify GPG signature on Debian Release file

john doe wrote: > What am I missing? this specific key seems not to be available on the debian keyserver try keyserver.ubuntu.com, you can find the key there -- FCD6 3719 0FFB F1BF 38EA 4727 5348 5F1F DCFE BCB0

Impossible to verify GPG signature on Debian Release file

heck signature: No public key $ gpg --locate-keys debian-release@lists.debian .org gpg: error retrieving 'debian-rele...@lists.debian.org' via WKD: Certificate exp ired gpg: error reading key: Certificate expired The Release file and signature file are downloaded from (1) and (2). What am

Re: PSA: 'apt-get update' new-Debian-release error fix

On 8/14/21, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2021-08-14 at 19:06, Greg Wooledge wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 06:26:07PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: >> >>> I had enough trouble with this at the last Debian release, >> >> ... but not this time, right? > >

Re: PSA: 'apt-get update' new-Debian-release error fix

The Wanderer wrote: ... > I had enough trouble with this at the last Debian release, and came > close enough to having trouble with it again this time, that I want to > make sure the solution is available and findable for anyone else who may > need it. ... considering i use only t

Re: PSA: 'apt-get update' new-Debian-release error fix

On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 04:40:31PM +0300, ellanios82 wrote: > >  - bewildered , am getting stuff like this : > > >    GPG error: http://mxrepo.com/mx/repo bullseye InRelease: The following > signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: > NO_PUBKEY F942E0D4E1C726CD >

Re: PSA: 'apt-get update' new-Debian-release error fix

 - bewildered , am getting stuff like this :    GPG error: http://mxrepo.com/mx/repo bullseye InRelease: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY F942E0D4E1C726CD .  what to try please ?? thanks .

Re: PSA: 'apt-get update' new-Debian-release error fix

On 8/15/21 4:08 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote: Why not simply "apt update"?   : i have myself muddled : am getting "NO_PUBKEY"  - what to try, please ?   thank you  regards .

Re: PSA: 'apt-get update' new-Debian-release error fix

On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 20:02:51 -0400 The Wanderer wrote: Hello The, >As do I. It may be possible that this is what makes the difference. I'm almost certain that is the root of it. I recall having to do this at the previous Debian release. I forgot that I'm now using a new machin

Re: PSA: 'apt-get update' new-Debian-release error fix

On 2021-08-14 9:08 p.m., Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 08:52:19PM -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside > wrote: >> I got a series of line saying N and one saying E: >> >> N: Repository 'http://security.debian.org buster/updates InRelease' >> changed its 'Suite' value from 'st

Re: PSA: 'apt-get update' new-Debian-release error fix

On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 08:52:19PM -0400, Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside wrote: > I got a series of line saying N and one saying E: > > N: Repository 'http://security.debian.org buster/updates InRelease' > changed its 'Suite' value from 'stable' to 'oldstable' > N: Repository 'http://security.de

Re: PSA: 'apt-get update' new-Debian-release error fix

On 2021-08-14 7:45 p.m., The Wanderer wrote: > On 2021-08-14 at 19:41, Greg Wooledge wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 07:26:44PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > >>> The warnings I'd be OK with; I might even be OK with the errors, >>> except for the fact that they point not to anything with usef

Re: PSA: 'apt-get update' new-Debian-release error fix

On 2021-08-14 7:06 p.m., Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 06:26:07PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: >> I had enough trouble with this at the last Debian release, > > ... but not this time, right? > >> For anyone who uses 'apt-get update' - and, I su

Re: PSA: 'apt-get update' new-Debian-release error fix

On 15-08-2021 10:02, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2021-08-14 at 19:49, Brad Rogers wrote: > >> On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 19:28:32 -0400 Greg Wooledge >> wrote: >> >> Hello Greg, >> >>> It will be interesting to see if anyone else reports the same >>> problem you're seeing. >> >> I experienced it here. >> >

Re: PSA: 'apt-get update' new-Debian-release error fix

On 2021-08-14 at 19:49, Brad Rogers wrote: > On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 19:28:32 -0400 Greg Wooledge > wrote: > > Hello Greg, > >> It will be interesting to see if anyone else reports the same >> problem you're seeing. > > I experienced it here. > > I usually use Synaptic to perform updates. Synapt

Re: PSA: 'apt-get update' new-Debian-release error fix

On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 19:28:32 -0400 Greg Wooledge wrote: Hello Greg, >It will be interesting to see if anyone else reports the same problem >you're seeing. I experienced it here. I usually use Synaptic to perform updates. Synaptic put up the warning message about the codename change, but I cou

Re: PSA: 'apt-get update' new-Debian-release error fix

On 2021-08-14 at 19:41, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 07:26:44PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: >> The warnings I'd be OK with; I might even be OK with the errors, >> except for the fact that they point not to anything with useful >> information but to a place which doesn't actually

Re: PSA: 'apt-get update' new-Debian-release error fix

On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 07:26:44PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > See bug #879786, and the various bugs that have been merged into it > (listed near the very bottom, IIRC). Man, some people have the most *bizarre* setups. And then when someone points it out, they act all confused. :-/ Most of the

Re: PSA: 'apt-get update' new-Debian-release error fix

On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 07:12:30PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > Maybe somehow I'm running an older apt-get version than what has the > fix(es)? But as far as I know that's shipped in the 'apt' package, and I > have that at version 2.2.4, which is what's currently in both stable and > testing (unsur

Re: PSA: 'apt-get update' new-Debian-release error fix

On 2021-08-14 at 19:15, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 06:26:07PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > >> > E: Repository 'http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian stable InRelease' changed >> > its 'Codename' value from 'buster' to 'bullseye' >> > N: This must be accepted explicitly before update

Re: PSA: 'apt-get update' new-Debian-release error fix

On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 06:26:07PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > > E: Repository 'http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian stable InRelease' changed > > its 'Codename' value from 'buster' to 'bullseye' > > N: This must be accepted explicitly before updates for this repository can > > be applied. See apt-se

Re: PSA: 'apt-get update' new-Debian-release error fix

On 2021-08-14 at 19:06, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 06:26:07PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > >> I had enough trouble with this at the last Debian release, > > ... but not this time, right? Yes, this time; in fact... >> For anyone who uses 'apt

Re: PSA: 'apt-get update' new-Debian-release error fix

On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 06:26:07PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > I had enough trouble with this at the last Debian release, ... but not this time, right? > For anyone who uses 'apt-get update' - and, I suspect, any other tool > than 'apt' itself - to update the list o

PSA: 'apt-get update' new-Debian-release error fix

I had enough trouble with this at the last Debian release, and came close enough to having trouble with it again this time, that I want to make sure the solution is available and findable for anyone else who may need it. For anyone who uses 'apt-get update' - and, I suspect, any other

Re: Wiki Debian "Release page" should have template (Was Re: Buster no release file)

Wiki. p/s: Wiki Debian "Release page" == https://wiki.debian.org/Debian Here the bug report https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=991322 -- Robbi Nespu D311 B5FF EEE6 0BE8 9C91 FA9E 0C81 FA30 3B3A 80BA https://robbinespu.gitlab.io | https://mstdn.social/@robbinespu

Wiki Debian "Release page" should have template (Was Re: Buster no release file)

es https://wiki.debian.org/DebianBuster?action=diff&rev1=21&rev2=23 On timeline 1 and 2, The class issue are Greg added useful information and PaulWise remove it / revert it (to me it likely want to tidy up and make it uniform like others "Debian Release" pages) Both have own per

debian release structure: Sources file

Hi, it seems I found a reason for my reprepro error. aptmethod error receiving '.../dists/experimental/main/source/Sources' The file main/source/Sources is absent in the repostory yet listed in Release index file $ grep 'main/source/Sources$' /srv/mirrors/debian-updating/dists/experimental/Releas

Re: Debian release not opening

Hi, Dave wrote: > i have downloaded debian-9.4.0-amd64-DVD-1.iso > when i double click on it, it says cannot open. the iso > debian-9.4.0-amd64-DVD-2 and iso debian-9.4.0-amd64-DVD-3 > i can open and read. the same thing happened with debian 9.0.0. > i am using mac pro 10.10.5  to download / open

Re: Debian release not opening

Dave wrote: > i have downloaded debian-9.4.0-amd64-DVD-1.iso > > when i double click on it, it says cannot open. the iso > debian-9.4.0-amd64-DVD-2 and iso debian-9.4.0-amd64-DVD-3 It's a disc image, you should just be burning it with whatever disc mastering software your mac has ... -- |_|O|

Debian release not opening

i have downloaded debian-9.4.0-amd64-DVD-1.iso when i double click on it, it says cannot open. the iso debian-9.4.0-amd64-DVD-2 and iso debian-9.4.0-amd64-DVD-3 i can open and read. the same thing happened with debian 9.0.0. i am using mac pro 10.10.5  to download / open / and hopefully burn.

Re: does anybody remember which debian release was it that asked for the MAC ID details at the end ?

On 2016-07-19 16:13, Lennart Sorensen wrote: I don't think so. I can't think of a reason the installer would ever ask for the MAC, unless you are talking some odd ball ARM hardware that didn't have a MAC in hardware and required the user to provide one. But would Debian have even had an installe

Re: does anybody remember which debian release was it that asked for the MAC ID details at the end ?

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 01:45:58AM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote: > Not me. > And I think there was never such bug as asking for MAC details from the User. I have certainly never seen it, and don't recall any such thing in any installer I have used since 2.0. > In https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bu

Re: does anybody remember which debian release was it that asked for the MAC ID details at the end ?

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 10:08:47PM +, shirish ??? wrote: > Hi all, > > Does anybody remember which release of Debian was it that had the bug > where d-i used to ask for MAC ID details during the end phase > (networking phase) to the user and if s/he didn't know the MAC ID > details

Re: does anybody remember which debian release was it that asked for the MAC ID details at the end ?

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016, at 18:08, shirish शिरीष wrote: > Hi all, > > Does anybody remember which release of Debian was it that had the bug > where d-i used to ask for MAC ID details during the end phase > (networking phase) to the user and if s/he didn't know the MAC ID > details the installation co

does anybody remember which debian release was it that asked for the MAC ID details at the end ?

Hi all, Does anybody remember which release of Debian was it that had the bug where d-i used to ask for MAC ID details during the end phase (networking phase) to the user and if s/he didn't know the MAC ID details the installation couldn't move further (unless one knew some tricks). I know for a

Debian release policy?

I heard that because Etch has been released, and because Debian has got a new Project Leader, the Debian release policy might be changed <http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseProposals>. Is the release policy being discussed? If so, where? -- Masatran, R. Deepak <http://research.iiit.ac.in/

Fw: [Semi-OT] Funding for speeding up debian release cycle

> From: "Alvin Oga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 5:24 AM > > > On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Shriram Shrikumar wrote: > > > Would it be feasible to hire one or more full time developer to spend > > all their time ironing out the release critical bugs? > > buggs are fixed daily ...

Re: [Semi-OT] Funding for speeding up debian release cycle

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Shriram Shrikumar wrote: > Would it be feasible to hire one or more full time developer to spend > all their time ironing out the release critical bugs? buggs are fixed daily ... let the resumes flow in :-) > How much would this developer need to get paid? in silly con v

[Semi-OT] Funding for speeding up debian release cycle

Hi, Would it be feasible to hire one or more full time developer to spend all their time ironing out the release critical bugs? How much would this developer need to get paid? Any ideas as to whether people would be willing to commit a certain amount of annual donations to this etc. would also b

Re: Debian release archive (was: One More time.)

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:52:16 +0200, Florian Ernst writes: >You mean the list of mirrors from >? The first one I tried >(ftp.de.debian.org, closest to me) seems to work fine, same applies to >others, but admittedly not all of them. Some of those don't actuall

Debian release archive (was: One More time.)

Hello! On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 06:47:49AM -0500, Bradley Pursley wrote: > I will ask this again (for the 3rd time) and then am going to drop it > assuming that no one knows the answer. Does anyone know what has happened > to all of the older versions like Potato or Slink, previous to Wood

Re: [DEB-USER] Re: Versions by Debian release

On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 07:45:42PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 12:03:28AM -0500, Paul M Foster wrote: > > Now the question is: If I could do this, then why haven't we backported > > X (version 4.3) to stable? > > If you

Re: Versions by Debian release

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 12:03:28AM -0500, Paul M Foster wrote: > Now the question is: If I could do this, then why haven't we backported > X (version 4.3) to stable? If you had googled, you would have found apt-get.org, which has sources for backporte

Re: Versions by Debian release

On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 12:03:28AM -0500, Paul M Foster wrote: > I had a problem with X that I posted earlier this week to this list. I > didn't receive any replies, and I had a feeling that the only answer was > going to be upgrading xserver-xfree86 from the version I was running > under stable. I

Versions by Debian release

I had a problem with X that I posted earlier this week to this list. I didn't receive any replies, and I had a feeling that the only answer was going to be upgrading xserver-xfree86 from the version I was running under stable. I did an apt-get update and apt-get --dry-run install xserver-xfree86. F

Re: New Debian release

Hello Massimiliano Zagaglia (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote: > I'm reading that an update for Woody is online... will be new iso or I > have to download all the packages to upgrade my Debian machine at > home? There will be a complete set of new ISOs for Woody r2 as well as an update CD ISO. However

Re: New Debian release

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 05:51:44PM +, Massimiliano Zagaglia wrote: > I'm reading that an update for Woody is online... will be new iso or I > have to download all the packages to upgrade my Debian machine at home? As always, you can just apt it.

Re: New Debian release

Hello Massimiliano! On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 05:51:44PM +, Massimiliano Zagaglia wrote: I'm reading that an update for Woody is online... will be new iso or I have to download all the packages to upgrade my Debian machine at home? Well, yes, you will have to get /download the packages, one way

New Debian release

Hi, I'm reading that an update for Woody is online... will be new iso or I have to download all the packages to upgrade my Debian machine at home? Thanks Massimiliano -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian release schedule

On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 01:02:34PM -0700, Joseph Phillips wrote: > What is a "non-official apt repository"? If it's "non-official", then > how could it be in "stable"? There is in English a difference between "in" and "for". One can create a .deb package that is meant to be used on a computer r

Re: Debian release schedule

On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 11:41:30AM -0700, Joseph Phillips wrote: > Anyone know when the next release of Debian is scheduled? "Bits from the RM" said So, it's time we start doing more than think about the next release. Since I'm all for aggressive goals, let's aim for sometime in December -- how

Re: Debian release schedule

On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 11:41:30AM -0700, Joseph Phillips wrote: > Anyone know when the next release of Debian is scheduled? Here's the schedule: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce-0308/msg00010.html As ever, though, we'll release when we're ready. Cheers, -- Colin Watson

Re: Debian release schedule

> What is a "non-official apt repository"? If it's "non-official", then > how could it be in "stable"? > > How does "non-official" differ from "official"? I'm not an expert but this is my view: A non-official apt repository is a internet site which have packages that for one or other reason a

Re: Debian release schedule

* Alfredo Valles ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030919 13:14]: > On Friday 19 September 2003 2:41 pm, Joseph Phillips wrote: > > Anyone know when Gnome 2.4 will become a stable Debian package? > But I thing there are lots of non-offitial apt repositories for gnome in > stable. > Why don't you check in ww

Re: Debian release schedule

On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 13:03, Alfredo Valles wrote: > On Friday 19 September 2003 2:41 pm, Joseph Phillips wrote: > > Anyone know when the next release of Debian is scheduled? > > > > Anyone know when Gnome 2.4 will become a stable Debian package? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Hi. > > I don't know the

Re: Debian release schedule

On Friday 19 September 2003 2:41 pm, Joseph Phillips wrote: > Anyone know when the next release of Debian is scheduled? > > Anyone know when Gnome 2.4 will become a stable Debian package? > > Thanks. Hi. I don't know the release date. Sorry. But I thing there are lots of non-offitial apt repos

Debian release schedule

Anyone know when the next release of Debian is scheduled? Anyone know when Gnome 2.4 will become a stable Debian package? Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Two Debian Release Cycle Issues

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 09:24:00PM -0500, Abdul Latip wrote: > * The Multiple Architecture Support Issue > > Each additional architecture support will significantly increase > the Debian release cycle, including security update, as well as > moving from "unstable" to &q

Re: Two Debian Release Cycle Issues

00 or 1) has very little > relation to the Debian release cycle. yes, i would call this correct. it is actually about RC bugs, so-called release-critical bugs. If there is one of those, then the frozen testing release is not ready for rollout. > Each additional architecture support will s

Two Debian Release Cycle Issues

Hi, First of all, apology for my poor English. This following is *NOT* a complaint, but I would like to know if I have got the picture correctly in regard of the Debian release cycle (e.g. from Woody to Sarge). Please let my know the URL if this issue has been discussed before. * The Essential

  1   2   >