El 2021-01-03 15:45, David Wright escribió:
On Sun 03 Jan 2021 at 14:56:26 (+), shadowma...@logorroici.org
wrote:
I have no idea how to solve this problem: I installed a Debian 10 in
my computer.
Recently? If so, you might be best off by reinstalling 10 from scratch.
The GPU was only sup
On Sun 03 Jan 2021 at 11:56:49 (-0500), Cindy Sue Causey wrote:
> On 1/3/21, David Wright wrote:
> > On Sun 03 Jan 2021 at 14:56:26 (+), shadowma...@logorroici.org wrote:
> >> I have no idea how to solve this problem: I installed a Debian 10 in
> >> my computer.
> >
> >> I don't know how to co
On 1/3/21, David Wright wrote:
> On Sun 03 Jan 2021 at 14:56:26 (+), shadowma...@logorroici.org wrote:
>> I have no idea how to solve this problem: I installed a Debian 10 in
>> my computer.
>
>
>> I don't know how to configure correctly the sources.list
>> file so I just changed all the 'bust
On Sun 03 Jan 2021 at 14:56:26 (+), shadowma...@logorroici.org wrote:
> I have no idea how to solve this problem: I installed a Debian 10 in
> my computer.
Recently? If so, you might be best off by reinstalling 10 from scratch.
> The GPU was only supported with linux 5.8 so I updated to
> bul
I have no idea how to solve this problem: I installed a Debian 10 in my
computer. The GPU was only supported with linux 5.8 so I updated to
bullseye. I don't know how to configure correctly the sources.list file
so I just changed all the 'buster' for 'bullseye' and it upgraded well
(but the Deb
Quoting Martin T (m4rtn...@gmail.com):
> On 8/27/15, David Wright wrote:
> > So what depends on python2.6 that won't be satisfied with 2.7?
> >
> > My wheezy shows libdb5.1:i386 5.1.29-5 and jessie has libdb5.3:i386
> > 5.3.28-9
> > (assuming they're related). Neither has python2.6.
> How would
On 8/27/15, David Wright wrote:
> Quoting Martin T (m4rtn...@gmail.com):
>> Hi,
>>
>> as far as I know, kept back packages in Debian are shown in case
>> package can not be upgraded with "apt-get upgrade" because upgrade
>> requires to install new pack
Quoting Martin T (m4rtn...@gmail.com):
> Hi,
>
> as far as I know, kept back packages in Debian are shown in case
> package can not be upgraded with "apt-get upgrade" because upgrade
> requires to install new packages. Usually this can be fixed with
> apt-get di
Martin T wrote on 08/27/2015 08:08 AM:
>
> Now for some reason "db5.1-util" package is kept back despite the fact
> that I execute "apt-get dist-upgrade":
>
I did an upgrade yesterday, and saw the same thing.
Experience suggests to me that it's a packaging dependency inconsistency
somewhere an
Hi,
as far as I know, kept back packages in Debian are shown in case
package can not be upgraded with "apt-get upgrade" because upgrade
requires to install new packages. Usually this can be fixed with
apt-get dist-upgrade because this will install new packages if needed.
Now for s
Beco wrote:
> Just to report back:
Good stuff! Looks like you are in good shape now.
> I think I got. I needed to downgrade everything in the same command
> line. Look:
> # apt-get install vlc-data=2.0.3-5 libmp3lame0=3.99.5+repack1-3
Yes, that will do it. If you can determine all of the versi
Hi guys,
Just to report back:
To remove kdebase dummy, first:
# apt-get install kde-plasma-desktop
And to remove kde dummy, first:
# apt-get install kde-full
Then just remove kde and kdebase. Now:
# apt-show-versions | grep -v uptodate
epson-inkjet-printer-201215w 1.0.0-1lsb3.2 installed: No a
On 10 November 2013 18:14, Beco wrote:
>
>
> Now, guys, how come KDE and KDEBASE does not have archive candidates?
>
> Where are they?
>
> Thanks,
> Beco.
It seems KDE is just a dummy package. Is the correct package kde-full?
# apt-cache policy kde-full
kde-full:
Installed: 5:77+deb7u1
Candi
On 10 November 2013 16:17, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Beco wrote:
>> Bob Proulx wrote:
>> > First verify your sources.list file. I didn't see where you said what
>> > version of Debian you were using. Stable Wheezy, Testing Jessie, or
>> > Unstable Sid. Whatever. Make sure it is consistent.
>
> I sho
On 10 November 2013 15:39, Rob Owens wrote:
> find all packages from deb-multimedia.org:
> aptitude search '~i ?origin(Unofficial Multimedia Packages)'
>
> purge all packages from deb-multimedia.org:
> aptitude purge '~i ?origin(Unofficial Multimedia Packages)'
>
Hi Rob,
Maybe I'm doing somethi
On 10 November 2013 17:06, Beco wrote:
> On 10 November 2013 16:17, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Im removing all that does not comply with the Debian packages. But
> still, I'm having trouble trying to remove specific packages that
> insist that I need to get rid of KDE or other big stuffs.
>
apt-get r
On 10 November 2013 16:17, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Beco wrote:
>> Bob Proulx wrote:
> Make sense? Hopefully. Good luck! Please report back on your
> progress so that we (I!) can learn from it!
>
> Bob
Okey Bob! Thanks a lot. You gave me a LOT of food for thought now.
I'll try some paths here an
Beco wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > First verify your sources.list file. I didn't see where you said what
> > version of Debian you were using. Stable Wheezy, Testing Jessie, or
> > Unstable Sid. Whatever. Make sure it is consistent.
I should have asked, can you post your sources.list file? I
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 03:05:34PM -0200, Beco wrote:
> Hi guys/gals,
>
>
> I tried to upgrade one of my systems, and it "kept back" some
> packages. As I want to upgrade all, I did the following:
>
>
>
> # apt-get upgrade
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading st
Hi Bob,
On 10 November 2013 14:26, Bob Proulx wrote:
> First verify your sources.list file. I didn't see where you said what
> version of Debian you were using. Stable Wheezy, Testing Jessie, or
> Unstable Sid. Whatever. Make sure it is consistent. Then:
>
> # apt-get install apt-show-ver
On 10 November 2013 14:21, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> I would restore the install from a backup and then run
> apt-get dist-upgrade instead of apt-get upgrade. If you don't have a
> backup, then backup your Debian now and try a dist-upgrade, perhaps with
> the option -s, --simulate, --just-print, --dry
Beco wrote:
> I tried to upgrade one of my systems, and it "kept back" some
> packages. As I want to upgrade all, I did the following:
Since these are many multimedia packages and many mentions of ffmpeg I
think it likely that you have mixed sources. Did you install those
from Merillat's archive?
I would restore the install from a backup and then run
apt-get dist-upgrade instead of apt-get upgrade. If you don't have a
backup, then backup your Debian now and try a dist-upgrade, perhaps with
the option -s, --simulate, --just-print, --dry-run, --recon, --no-act
for a dry run.
--
To UNSUBSCR
On 10 November 2013 14:05, Beco wrote:
> And here I tried remove again the previous command, with the same
> result: apt-get wants to remove and strip naked my system.
>
> How can I eliminate the message "The following packages have been kept
> back: mplayer transcode vlc vlc-nox vlc-plugin-notif
Hi guys/gals,
I tried to upgrade one of my systems, and it "kept back" some
packages. As I want to upgrade all, I did the following:
# apt-get upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
avidemux
If running unstable yes by all means; otherwise no.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/06/08 05:55, Samuel Bächler wrote:
> Dear All
>
> I did
> # aptitude update
> # aptitude upgrade
> [...snip...]
> The following packages have been kept back:
> ipw3945-modules-2.6-686 linux-image-2.6-686
> [...snip...]
>
> Shall I do a
> # apt
Dear All
I did
# aptitude update
# aptitude upgrade
[...snip...]
The following packages have been kept back:
ipw3945-modules-2.6-686 linux-image-2.6-686
[...snip...]
Shall I do a
# aptitude dist-upgrade
to install the packages mentioned above?
Regards
Sam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Francois Chenais wrote:
Hello,
I have many kept back packages because there upgrade needs libfam0c102 to be
installed implying e17 efsd libfam0 to be removed !!!
But I don't want removing e17 !:-|
Must I have to do this ??
e17 and efsd aren't in the main archives, where are y
Hello,
I have many kept back packages because there upgrade needs libfam0c102 to be
installed implying e17 efsd libfam0 to be removed !!!
But I don't want removing e17 !:-|
Must I have to do this ??
Thanks a lot.
François
The following extra packages
w package would need to be installed to
upgrade them, or if a dependency is unavailable. apt-get dist-upgrade
will install the new dependencies, allowing the kept back packages to be
installed.
--
Seneca
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of &q
Hi,
I have a pre-woody installation:
# uname -a
Linux bigbird 2.4.18IP #1 Sat May 4 18:39:41 EDT 2002 i586 unknown
unknown GNU/Linux
# apt-get -v
apt 0.5.4 for linux i386 compiled on Aug 19 2001 01:02:26
When I do a "apt-get upgrade", there are a lot of packages "kept back".
How can I find o
I did 'apt-get update' and 'apt-get' upgrade and I got the kept back list
below. What is the best course of action? Would it be to do dist-upgrade or
wait for the potato CDROM (a few months away)?
thanks
lilypad:/etc/apt# apt-get upgrade
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree..
33 matches
Mail list logo
