stalled the keys you have to
run 'apt-get update' or 'aptitude update' again, but I think you already
mentioned that you did that.
No, actually that appears to be the step that I missed. I did the key
installs with aptitude then tried the firefox install. I did not do an
&#x
> So, having installed the key, should I still be getting messages from
> aptitude that firefox is untrusted? Or have I missed a step somewhere?
depends on your repo setup, which is noch completely clear. You could post the
output of:
apt-cache policy firefox{,-esr}
which shows all candidates
On Thursday 14 April 2016 09:22:59 Liam O'Toole wrote:
> On 2016-04-14, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> > On 04/13/2016 12:04 PM, Liam O'Toole wrote:
> >> On 2016-04-13, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday 13 April 2016 10:30:46 arian wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> firefox is not in jessie-backports
On 2016-04-14, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> On 04/13/2016 12:04 PM, Liam O'Toole wrote:
>> On 2016-04-13, Lisi Reisz wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 13 April 2016 10:30:46 arian wrote:
Hi Marc,
firefox is not in jessie-backports, but in unstable.
>>> ??
>>>
>>> And I have installed it from Jessie
On Thursday 14 April 2016 05:24:34 Marc Shapiro wrote:
> On 04/13/2016 11:47 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 April 2016 10:30:46 arian wrote:
> >> Hi Marc,
> >>
> >> firefox is not in jessie-backports, but in unstable.
> >
> > ??
> >
> > And I have installed it from Jessie backports. Also
On 04/13/2016 11:47 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Wednesday 13 April 2016 10:30:46 arian wrote:
Hi Marc,
firefox is not in jessie-backports, but in unstable.
??
And I have installed it from Jessie backports. Also from wheezy backports.
Lisi
So, having installed the key, should I still be getting
On 04/13/2016 12:04 PM, Liam O'Toole wrote:
On 2016-04-13, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Wednesday 13 April 2016 10:30:46 arian wrote:
Hi Marc,
firefox is not in jessie-backports, but in unstable.
??
And I have installed it from Jessie backports. Also from wheezy backports.
Lisi
I take it you're
On 2016-04-13, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 April 2016 10:30:46 arian wrote:
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> firefox is not in jessie-backports, but in unstable.
>
> ??
>
> And I have installed it from Jessie backports. Also from wheezy backports.
>
> Lisi
>
I take it you're using the mozilla.debian.n
On Wednesday 13 April 2016 10:30:46 arian wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> firefox is not in jessie-backports, but in unstable.
??
And I have installed it from Jessie backports. Also from wheezy backports.
Lisi
>The package which you
> may find there in the future is firefox-esr, which is in testing at
On 04/13/2016 02:30 AM, arian wrote:
Hi Marc,
firefox is not in jessie-backports, but in unstable. The package which you may
find there in the future is firefox-esr, which is in testing atm. For
desktop-installations it's IMO better to just run testing or unstable if you're
somewhat knowledge
Hi Marc,
firefox is not in jessie-backports, but in unstable. The package which you may
find there in the future is firefox-esr, which is in testing atm. For
desktop-installations it's IMO better to just run testing or unstable if you're
somewhat knowledgeable. You know, they say there are thre
I have been using the Firefox and Thunderbird packages from Mozilla for
quite a while. Now that Firefox is available directly from the Debian
repository I am thinking of installing from there. (I may wait until
Thunderbird is also available, however.)
I figure that even if I am going to wait
Hello!!
My apt source list points to unstable currently. As much I don't want
to admit it, I guess I will reinstall Windows 98 on it (the original
OS). The current state of affairs is way too much trouble and time
consuming for me as of right now. As much as I like Linux, I am still
too much of a
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 12:36:35PM -0400, Will Ness wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Here is the breakdown, yes I am using 2.2 idepci kernel on my laptop.
> However when I do the apt-get command, it claims that the newer kernel
> image is not been found.
Have you done apt-get update?
If you are using a 2.2 ke
Hello!
Here is the breakdown, yes I am using 2.2 idepci kernel on my laptop.
However when I do the apt-get command, it claims that the newer kernel
image is not been found. Not sure what to do next. Perhaps at this
point, should I consider a reinstall? I know that x-windows worked the
first time a
You are probably using 2.2, which I have no experience with. Try upgrading to 2.4 if possible, with the following command:
apt-get install kernel-image-2.4.18-1-386
(You will need to reboot.)
That will bring you up to 2.4, and then you may want to upgrade to
sarge, the latest stable, and get 2.6.
Hello!
I am using the standard 'safe' kernal installation on the woody cds.
No customization invovled. I believe the kernal is 2.2 or 2.4 but I
will get back to you on that. What other modules should I try?
-Will
That's alright, try the other modules, and then ty starting x.
Are using the stock kernel, or are you using custom kernel? And what kernel.On 7/21/05, Will Ness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:Hello!Thank you again for the help! Please know that I truly appreciate it!
Anyways,I tried what you suggeste
Hello!
Thank you again for the help! Please know that I truly appreciate it!
Anyways,I tried what you suggested and all I got for each input was :
"Can't locate module (input)"
What happens now?
-Will
First of all, this isn't a pain. This is what mailing lists are for.
Second, to see if it works, in a console run:
modprobe input
modprobe psmouse
modprobe usbhid
modprobe mousedev.
Then start x.
If that works, then add input, psmouse, usbhid, and mousedev to /etc/modules. That will load them on
Hello!
Cool, so now I know for sure its the mouse driver. How do I go about
adding the psmouse or event modules? Do I go in and edit the x-config
file to say "psmouse/usbhid/mousedev" in the device or Protocol
section? Or not that at all? I am very much a newbie when it comes to
installing/modify
Hello List!
I have an old laptop that I installed debian on. After I got help to
fix my previous apt problem, I went ahead and installed firefox. Now
my X-windows will not work, and I am hopelessly over my head as to
why. I have tried remaking the XF86config-4 file, and the end result
is that i get
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:48:14 -0400, Carlos Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do I know what backports that I need? I went to apt-get.org and
> typed in firefox. I got some hits, but I did not see the version of
> Firefox that I downloaded (firefox-1). Will they work anyway? Does it
> matt
How do I know what backports that I need? I went to apt-get.org and
typed in firefox. I got some hits, but I did not see the version of
Firefox that I downloaded (firefox-1). Will they work anyway? Does it
matter that I have Firefox-1? Also, how do I install the backports?
Thanks everyone...
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 22:33:15 +0200, Agustin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:20:13 +0200, Andrea Vettorello wrote:
>
> > I doubt firefox from firefox.org will run on Woody (different glibc,
> > gtk2..), anyway i will start running "firefox-installer", something
> > like "sh fire
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:05:29 -0500, Jacob S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 22:42:44 +0200
> Andrea Vettorello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 22:33:54 +0200, Joost Witteveen
>
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:14:12 -0500
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 22:42:44 +0200
Andrea Vettorello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 22:33:54 +0200, Joost Witteveen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:14:12 -0500, Jacob S
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >>As root, run firefox-installer. This
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:20:13 +0200, Andrea Vettorello wrote:
> I doubt firefox from firefox.org will run on Woody (different glibc,
> gtk2..), anyway i will start running "firefox-installer", something
> like "sh firefox-installer" or chmod it +x and the running it...
>
>
> Andrea
>
> P.S. you
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:14:12 -0500, Jacob S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As root, run firefox-installer. This will be easiest if you are logged
into X as root.
IMNSHO this is not wise, doing this will only create havoc behind the
back of your package manager (dpkg), the only place you can safely
i
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 22:33:54 +0200, Joost Witteveen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:14:12 -0500, Jacob S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>As root, run firefox-installer. This will be easiest if you are logged
> >>into X as root.
> >>
> >
> >
> > IMNSHO this is not wise, do
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:14:12 -0500, Jacob S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:51:05 -0400 (EDT)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > What do I do from here?
> >
> > 1. Downloaded firefox.
> >
> > 2. tar zxvf firefox-1.0PR-i686-linux-gtk2+xft-installer.tar.gz
> >
> > My directory has
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:51:05 -0400 (EDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What do I do from here?
>
> 1. Downloaded firefox.
>
> 2. tar zxvf firefox-1.0PR-i686-linux-gtk2+xft-installer.tar.gz
>
> My directory has the following files/dirs in it:
> config.ini
> firefox-installer
> firefox-installer.bin
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:51:05 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do I do from here?
>
> 1. Downloaded firefox.
>
> 2. tar zxvf firefox-1.0PR-i686-linux-gtk2+xft-installer.tar.gz
>
> My directory has the following files/dirs in it:
> config.ini
> firefox-installer
> f
What do I do from here?
1. Downloaded firefox.
2. tar zxvf firefox-1.0PR-i686-linux-gtk2+xft-installer.tar.gz
My directory has the following files/dirs in it:
config.ini
firefox-installer
firefox-installer.bin
header.xpm
install.ini
license.txt
watermark.xpm
xpi
What do I do from here? ... ./co
34 matches
Mail list logo
