Re: WARNING: debian11 + bind-9.16.15 + dnssec-policy in options{} = crashes

On Mon, 16 Aug 2021, raf wrote: > If like me, you've been eagerly awaiting debian11 to > get bind-9.16.15, which finally lets you implement > DNSSEC extremely easily on debian stable, I have a > warning. And I have another: make sure your system clock is correct. DNSSEC will fail if system time i

Re: Warning of packages that cant be authenticated during dist-upgrade

Quoting aprekates (2019-05-01 01:21:13) > deb http://debian-mirrors.sdinet.de/deb-multimedia stable main Above line caused the problem: You are not running Debian but a mixture of Debian and something else. It is your system, and you are free to do as you like with it. But if you want your sys

Re: Warning of packages that cant be authenticated during dist-upgrade

chomwitt@enous:/etc/apt$ less sources.list #deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 9.5.0 _Stretch_ - Official amd64 NETINST 20180714-10:25]/ stretch main deb http://ftp.gr.debian.org/debian/ stretch main non-free contrib deb-src http://ftp.gr.debian.org/debian/ stretch main non-free contrib deb http://

Re: Warning of packages that cant be authenticated during dist-upgrade

On Tue 30 Apr 2019 at 22:09:16 +0300, aprekates wrote: > Trying to upgrade from 9.6 i get: > > $ LANG=en sudo apt-get dist-upgrade > > > WARNING: The following packages cannot be authenticated! >   libbasicusageenvironment1 libgroupsock8 liblivemedia58 > libusageenvironment3 libvlccore9 vlc-plu

Re: Warning of packages that cant be authenticated during dist-upgrade

Quoting aprekates (2019-04-30 21:09:16) > Trying to upgrade from 9.6 i get: > > $ LANG=en sudo apt-get dist-upgrade > > > WARNING: The following packages cannot be authenticated! >   libbasicusageenvironment1 libgroupsock8 liblivemedia58 > libusageenvironment3 libvlccore9 vlc-plugin-skins2 vlc

Re: Warning: Debian/testing full-upgrade removes security packages!

Hi. On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 01:02:48PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 06:07:32PM +0200, Hans wrote: > > Am Sonntag, 15. Juli 2018, 17:43:47 CEST schrieb Henrique de Moraes > > Holschuh: > > > > Maybe I was not clear enough. I did not mourn,. that packages are

Re: Warning: Debian/testing full-upgrade removes security packages!

Henrique de Moraes Hols writes: > Same goes for dist-upgrade. dist-upgrade/full-upgrade will more > aggressively attempt to remove packages than the alternatives > safe-upgrade and upgrade. I always do "upgrade" and look at what did not get upgraded and why. I then sometimes follow with "full-up

Re: Warning: Debian/testing full-upgrade removes security packages!

On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 06:07:32PM +0200, Hans wrote: > Am Sonntag, 15. Juli 2018, 17:43:47 CEST schrieb Henrique de Moraes Holschuh: > > Maybe I was not clear enough. I did not mourn,. that packages are > dienstalled, > this may happen in testing. I mourned,m that almost ALL SECURITY related >

Re: Warning: Debian/testing full-upgrade removes security packages!

Am Sonntag, 15. Juli 2018, 17:43:47 CEST schrieb Henrique de Moraes Holschuh: Maybe I was not clear enough. I did not mourn,. that packages are dienstalled, this may happen in testing. I mourned,m that almost ALL SECURITY related packages are deinstalled. And I would have nothing said, if it wou

Re: Warning: Debian/testing full-upgrade removes security packages!

On Sun, 15 Jul 2018, The Wanderer wrote: > >> be warned: Wheh you do apt full-upgrade, > > > > You're in testing: what are you "full-upgrade"-ing to and why? > > To testing, of course. Eh, I believe the meant that as "why are you using full-upgrade instead of safe-upgrade or upgrade" (depending

Re: Warning: Debian/testing full-upgrade removes security packages!

On 2018-07-15 at 10:09, David Wright wrote: > On Sun 15 Jul 2018 at 07:49:36 (+0200), Hans wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> be warned: Wheh you do apt full-upgrade, > > You're in testing: what are you "full-upgrade"-ing to and why? To testing, of course. Just because you're running testing doesn't

Re: Warning: Debian/testing full-upgrade removes security packages!

On Sun 15 Jul 2018 at 07:49:36 (+0200), Hans wrote: > Hi folks, > > be warned: Wheh you do apt full-upgrade, You're in testing: what are you "full-upgrade"-ing to and why? > then most security tools, we rely on, > are deinstallesd. These are rkhunter, chrootkit, autopsy, tripwire, > needrestar

Re: Warning: Debian/testing full-upgrade removes security packages!

On 07/15/2018 02:49 PM, Hans wrote: > be warned: Wheh you do apt full-upgrade, then most security tools, we rely > on, > are deinstallesd. These are rkhunter, chrootkit, autopsy, tripwire, > needrestart and tiger. Also forensics-full and forensics-all are deinstalled > (however, this might have

Re: [WARNING] Intel Skylake/Kaby Lake processors: broken hyper-threading

On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, none wrote: So is there an example ocaml code that can trigger the bug ? Read the first referece (the INRIA ocaml bug report) throughoutly. It has been public since day one. And read all references in the updates I sent to that thread too, for good measure. It is not

Re: [WARNING] Intel Skylake/Kaby Lake processors: broken hyper-threading

On 10/29/2017 01:17 AM, none wrote: So is there an example ocaml code that can trigger the bug ? Debian Linux reveals Intel Skylake and Kaby Lake processors have broken hyper-threading http://www.zdnet.com/article/debian-linux-reveals-intel-skylake-kaby-lake-processors-have-broken-hyper-thre

Re: [WARNING] Intel Skylake/Kaby Lake processors: broken hyper-threading

On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, none wrote: > So is there an example ocaml code that can trigger the bug ? Read the first referece (the INRIA ocaml bug report) throughoutly. It has been public since day one. And read all references in the updates I sent to that thread too, for good measure. It is not like

Re: [WARNING] Intel Skylake/Kaby Lake processors: broken hyper-threading

So is there an example ocaml code that can trigger the bug ?

Re: WARNING: Libreoffice - Do not remove ~/.config/libreoffice

Hi folks, during the last days I did some upgrades on my debian/testing 32-bit. It looks like libreoffice is working again, although I can not find out, why. I did this: 1. removed ~/.libreoffice 2. started libreoffice = worked 3. reboot 4. started libreoffice = worked Looks like the bug is go

Re: WARNING: Libreoffice - Do not remove ~/.config/libreoffice

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, Rene Engelhard wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:47:09AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > On seg, 10 jul 2017, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 01:28:54PM +0200, Hans wrote: > > > > only once! After stopping and restarting LO again, it will not

Re: WARNING: Libreoffice - Do not remove ~/.config/libreoffice

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:47:09AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On seg, 10 jul 2017, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 01:28:54PM +0200, Hans wrote: > > > only once! After stopping and restarting LO again, it will not start > > > again. > > > > bt? Is that the same

Re: WARNING: Libreoffice - Do not remove ~/.config/libreoffice

> bt? Is that the same Java crash? See > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=865303 > and > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=865866 > No, it is not the same. Strace output differs from the one in the bugreport. > Anyway, I marked those bugs as also found in linux 4

Re: WARNING: Libreoffice - Do not remove ~/.config/libreoffice

On seg, 10 jul 2017, Rene Engelhard wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 01:28:54PM +0200, Hans wrote: > > only once! After stopping and restarting LO again, it will not start again. > > bt? Is that the same Java crash? See > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=865303 > and > https://bu

Re: WARNING: Libreoffice - Do not remove ~/.config/libreoffice

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 01:28:54PM +0200, Hans wrote: > only once! After stopping and restarting LO again, it will not start again. bt? Is that the same Java crash? See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=865303 and https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=865866 > Sorry,

Re: WARNING: Libreoffice - Do not remove ~/.config/libreoffice

Hi, On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 01:12:56PM +0200, Hans wrote: > Am Montag, 10. Juli 2017, 12:57:44 CEST schrieben Sie: > Ahem, maybe you misunderstood my mail. What I wanted to express, is, if > people > do just an upgrade and never delete their ~/.config/libreoffice, they will > never > notice th

Re: WARNING: Libreoffice - Do not remove ~/.config/libreoffice

Huh, first mail went accidently private! I now installed kernel 4.11 now, removed ~/.config/libreoffice and - worked only once! After stopping and restarting LO again, it will not start again. Sorry, the problem is not fixed with a newer kernel - as I thought before! I will watch this. Be

Re: WARNING: Libreoffice - Do not remove ~/.config/libreoffice

Am Montag, 10. Juli 2017, 12:57:44 CEST schrieben Sie: Ahem, maybe you misunderstood my mail. What I wanted to express, is, if people do just an upgrade and never delete their ~/.config/libreoffice, they will never notice that bug. This is, what I meant, that only few people will notice this, m

Re: WARNING: Libreoffice - Do not remove ~/.config/libreoffice

{ and what is so private here that this can't be on-list so that peole except you know? } Hi, Fullquoting: On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:51:32PM +0200, Hans wrote: > I now installed kernel 4.11 now, removed ~/.config/libreoffice and - > worked! > Thanks for the hint with related to the kernel.

Re: WARNING: Libreoffice - Do not remove ~/.config/libreoffice

Hi, On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:00:01AM +0200, Hans wrote: > Hi Rene, > > LO on i386 is broken when starting. What I'd bet here is that your config > > contains "disable Java". Wheres a clean config of course would not. > > > yes, I am running i386 at the moment only, as my other notebook has died

Re: WARNING: Libreoffice - Do not remove ~/.config/libreoffice

Am Montag, 10. Juli 2017, 09:33:32 CEST schrieb Rene Engelhard: Hi Rene, > LO on i386 is broken when starting. What I'd bet here is that your config > contains "disable Java". Wheres a clean config of course would not. > yes, I am running i386 at the moment only, as my other notebook has died some

Re: WARNING: Libreoffice - Do not remove ~/.config/libreoffice

On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 09:35:53PM +0200, Hans wrote: > Sounds weired. I am running debian/testing , i386. It is an EEEPC. Maybe this > is the difference. Let's see, if others can confirm or deny this. LO on i386 is broken when starting. What I'd bet here is that your config contains "disable Jav

Re: WARNING: Libreoffice - Do not remove ~/.config/libreoffice

Hi. On Fri, 07 Jul 2017 21:35:53 +0200 Hans wrote: > Sounds weired. I am running debian/testing , i386. This. It's amd64 for me. Recent kernel fix to Stack Clash aka CVE-2017-1000364 broke a lot of stuff, including, but not limited to Java, Libreoffice and Nagios. Debian got the long en

Re: WARNING: Libreoffice - Do not remove ~/.config/libreoffice

Sounds weired. I am running debian/testing , i386. It is an EEEPC. Maybe this is the difference. Let's see, if others can confirm or deny this. Hans > Thanks for the heads up, but it does not reproduce here. > > Just removed ~/.config/libreoffice, invoked lowriter, and … lo and > behold - got Li

Re: WARNING: Libreoffice - Do not remove ~/.config/libreoffice

Hi. On Fri, 07 Jul 2017 19:08:20 +0200 Hans wrote: > Hi folks, > > due to another problem in libreoffice (no gallery, when dmaths is installed), > I > moved ~/.config/libreoffice out of the way, to get a fresh configuration. > DO NOT DO THIS except you have a backup available! > >

Re: WARNING: Libreoffice - Do not remove ~/.config/libreoffice

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Hans wrote: > Hi folks, > > due to another problem in libreoffice (no gallery, when dmaths is > installed), I > moved ~/.config/libreoffice out of the way, to get a fresh configuration. > DO NOT DO THIS except you have a backup available! Actually there are tim

Re: Sound issue WAS: Re: [WARNING] Intel Skylake/Kaby Lake processors: broken hyper-threading

John Elliot V wrote: > KDE -> System Settings -> Multimedia (Hardware) -> Audio and Video -> > Audio Hardware Setup I was going to say - it is just KDE :D - crap

Re: [WARNING] Intel Skylake/Kaby Lake processors: broken hyper-threading

(updated perl script, it now needs the "liblist-moreutils-perl" package) On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > This warning advisory is relevant for users of systems with the Intel > > processors code-named "Skylake" a

Re: [WARNING] Intel Skylake/Kaby Lake processors: broken hyper-threading

(updated perl script, it now needs the "liblist-moreutils-perl" package) On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > This warning advisory is relevant for users of systems with the Intel > > processors code-named "Skylake" a

Re: [WARNING] Intel Skylake/Kaby Lake processors: broken hyper-threading

(updates, hopefully the last ones...) On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > Fast-forward a few months, and Mark Shinwell noticed the mention of a > possible fix for a microcode defect with unknown hit-ratio in the > intel-microcode package changelog. He matched it to the issue

Sound issue WAS: Re: [WARNING] Intel Skylake/Kaby Lake processors: broken hyper-threading

On 27/06/17 03:16, John Elliot V wrote: > Hmm. I re-enabled hyper-threading (to test) and sound didn't come back. After a number of false starts I was able to restore audio by: KDE -> System Settings -> Multimedia (Hardware) -> Audio and Video -> Audio Hardware Setup Then in the Hardware sect

Re: [WARNING] Intel Skylake/Kaby Lake processors: broken hyper-threading

On 06/25/2017 05:19 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: This warning advisory is relevant for users of systems with the Intel processors code-named "Skylake" and "Kaby Lake". These are: the 6th and 7th generation Intel Core processors (desktop, embedded, mobile and HEDT), their related server

Re: [WARNING] Intel Skylake/Kaby Lake processors: broken hyper-threading

On 27/06/17 02:47, John Elliot V wrote: > I disabled hyper-threading in my BIOS in response to this advisory (I > have an i7-7700K). Now I get weird graphical artifacts in drop-down > lists in KDE (they flash between black and white background) and sound > has stopped working on my system. Can anyo

Re: [WARNING] Intel Skylake/Kaby Lake processors: broken hyper-threading

I disabled hyper-threading in my BIOS in response to this advisory (I have an i7-7700K). Now I get weird graphical artifacts in drop-down lists in KDE (they flash between black and white background) and sound has stopped working on my system. Can anyone guess why that might be happening? I might tr

Re: [WARNING] Intel Skylake/Kaby Lake processors: broken hyper-threading

Minor update on the issue: The check command provided in the advisory to test for hyper-threading doesn't work: it will always report hyper-theading as enabled. A better command is provided below. Note: this also means the perl script will give some false-positives. I apologise for the inconveni

Re: [WARNING] Intel Skylake/Kaby Lake processors: broken hyper-threading

For the record: the email with the perl script doesn't contain malware. The "malware" alert came from an extremely badly configured system that violates every best practice in the field: it sends email to every original recipient (and not just to local users), and it FORGES its headers to look lik

Re: [WARNING] Intel Skylake/Kaby Lake processors: broken hyper-threading

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > This warning advisory is relevant for users of systems with the Intel > processors code-named "Skylake" and "Kaby Lake". These are: the 6th and > 7th generation Intel Core processors (desktop, embedded, mobile and > HEDT), their related ser

Re: [WARNING] Intel Skylake/Kaby Lake processors: broken hyper-threading

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > This warning advisory is relevant for users of systems with the Intel > processors code-named "Skylake" and "Kaby Lake". These are: the 6th and > 7th generation Intel Core processors (desktop, embedded, mobile and > HEDT), their related ser

Re: Warning ---- Re: debian-user@lists.debian.org: Upgrading MailBox in Progress Verify Password

Next time, try to replace http with xxx or something. Dnia 2017-04-20, czw o godzinie 19:45 +0100, Mr Smiley pisze: > Well the xxx's didn't disable highlighted links :o( so don't click on > them > > > On 20/04/17 19:41, Mr Smiley wrote: > > > I hope none of you are falling for this crap > >

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 19:00:06 + Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Monday 19 December 2016 18:58:43 Joe wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:38:51 +0100 > > > > Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On 2016-12-16 18:06:26 +, Joe wrote: > > > > Do you have X running? > > > > > > Not always. > > > > > > >

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Monday 19 December 2016 18:58:43 Joe wrote: > On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:38:51 +0100 > > Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2016-12-16 18:06:26 +, Joe wrote: > > > Do you have X running? > > > > Not always. > > > > > I use Synaptic in these situations, where it is easy to try packages > > > to see w

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On 2016-12-19 18:58:43 +, Joe wrote: > On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:38:51 +0100 > Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > But that's not automatic (aptitude can also do that, and one can > > undo a choice if it yields removals). > > Difficult to see how it could be automated, as sometimes it's a value > judgeme

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:38:51 +0100 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-12-16 18:06:26 +, Joe wrote: > > Do you have X running? > > Not always. > > > I use Synaptic in these situations, where it is easy to try packages > > to see what can be upgraded without removals I'm not willing to > > ac

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On 2016-12-16 18:06:26 +, Joe wrote: > Do you have X running? Not always. > I use Synaptic in these situations, where it is easy to try packages > to see what can be upgraded without removals I'm not willing to > accept. But that's not automatic (aptitude can also do that, and one can undo a

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Fri 16 Dec 2016 at 12:40:29 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-12-07 23:45:24 +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Wednesday 07 December 2016 14:55:40 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On 2016-10-13 00:09:02 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > On Friday 07 October 2016 15:43:17 Vincent Lefevre wrote:

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 12:40:29 +0100 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-12-07 23:45:24 +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Wednesday 07 December 2016 14:55:40 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On 2016-10-13 00:09:02 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > On Friday 07 October 2016 15:43:17 Vincent Lefevre wrote:

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On 2016-12-07 23:45:24 +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Wednesday 07 December 2016 14:55:40 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2016-10-13 00:09:02 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > On Friday 07 October 2016 15:43:17 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > On 2016-10-04 22:51:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > > On Tu

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Wednesday 07 December 2016 14:55:40 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-10-13 00:09:02 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Friday 07 October 2016 15:43:17 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On 2016-10-04 22:51:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > >

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On 2016-10-13 00:09:02 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 07 October 2016 15:43:17 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2016-10-04 22:51:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > my position remains the same: > > > > aptitude is poorly designed.

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On 13/10/16 12:09, Lisi Reisz wrote: I don't use Sid, so haven't tested out which package managers are good for it when there are problems, but how about looking at apt or apt-get? Ben says that he has great success with apt-get. Apt-get is much less aggressive than aptitude - but less fully fe

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Friday 07 October 2016 15:43:17 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-10-04 22:51:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > my position remains the same: > > > aptitude is poorly designed. > > > > Fine. So don't use it. But moaning won't help a

Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Monday 10 October 2016 19:04:22 Joe wrote: > On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:20:22 +0100 > > Lisi Reisz wrote: > > I accepted that analogy too easily. In this case, the wheel isn't > > squeaking. He dislikes the colour and design of the wheel. > > Or perhaps it has been squeaking for so long that nobod

Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:20:22 +0100 Lisi Reisz wrote: > > I accepted that analogy too easily. In this case, the wheel isn't > squeaking. He dislikes the colour and design of the wheel. > Or perhaps it has been squeaking for so long that nobody hears it any more. Aptitude does a great job of r

Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Monday 10 October 2016 09:07:14 Joe wrote: > On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:11:07 -0400 (EDT) > > Bob Bernstein wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > Why not just killfile me and go on reading everyone else? > > > > Umm...cuz he doesn't know how to do that? Perhaps? > > > > One thing's

Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Monday 10 October 2016 09:07:14 Joe wrote: > On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:11:07 -0400 (EDT) > > Bob Bernstein wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > Why not just killfile me and go on reading everyone else? > > > > Umm...cuz he doesn't know how to do that? Perhaps? > > > > One thing's

Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:11:07 -0400 (EDT) Bob Bernstein wrote: > On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > Why not just killfile me and go on reading everyone else? > > Umm...cuz he doesn't know how to do that? Perhaps? > > One thing's fer sure, he's giving the time-honored tradition of >

Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Lisi Reisz wrote: Why not just killfile me and go on reading everyone else? Umm...cuz he doesn't know how to do that? Perhaps? One thing's fer sure, he's giving the time-honored tradition of killfiles a bad name! -- IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the

Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Sunday 09 October 2016 17:22:07 claude juif wrote: > 2016-10-09 17:57 GMT+02:00 Lisi Reisz : > > On Sunday 09 October 2016 06:23:49 claude juif wrote: > > > This way of answering is really bad. If you have nothing to say, don't > > > write a mail. > > > > I hope that in future you intend to foll

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

2016-10-09 17:57 GMT+02:00 Lisi Reisz : > On Sunday 09 October 2016 06:23:49 claude juif wrote: > > This way of answering is really bad. If you have nothing to say, don't > > write a mail. > > I hope that in future you intend to follow your own advice! > > Yep for sure. I unsubscribe in a second a

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Sunday 09 October 2016 06:23:49 claude juif wrote: > This way of answering is really bad. If you have nothing to say, don't > write a mail. I hope that in future you intend to follow your own advice! Lisi

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

2016-10-04 16:12 GMT+02:00 Mark Fletcher : > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:25:46AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2016-09-30 14:32:49 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > For goodness sake!!! This is Debian. Open Source. Choice. Your > call. > > > Either rewrite Aptitude and publish a fork; use i

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

2016-10-04 23:51 GMT+02:00 Lisi Reisz : > On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > my position remains the same: > > aptitude is poorly designed. > > Fine. So don't use it. But moaning won't help anyone, not even you. You > don't like Aptitude. We get the message. So don

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On 08/10/16 03:43, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2016-10-04 22:51:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote: my position remains the same: aptitude is poorly designed. Fine. So don't use it. But moaning won't help anyone, not even you. You don't like

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On 2016-10-04 22:51:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > my position remains the same: > > aptitude is poorly designed. > > Fine. So don't use it. But moaning won't help anyone, not even you. You > don't like Aptitude. We get the message

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Oct 4, 2016, at 2:53 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > Much Open Source software has poor or non-existent > documentation - documentation is the boring bit to write!! Don’t know about boring, but documentation is much harder to write than programs. The development/testing cycle is *much* longer with

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Tuesday 04 October 2016 10:48:01 rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, October 04, 2016 03:03:45 AM Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > It's poorly designed because bugs[*] are not fixable. > > > > [*] behavior that doesn't match the documentation. > > If the program has behavior that doesn't match the

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > my position remains the same: > aptitude is poorly designed. Fine. So don't use it. But moaning won't help anyone, not even you. You don't like Aptitude. We get the message. So don't use Aptitude. Lisi

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:25:46AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-09-30 14:32:49 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > For goodness sake!!! This is Debian. Open Source. Choice. Your call. > > Either rewrite Aptitude and publish a fork; use it; or don't use it. I > > like > > it. Many like

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Tuesday, October 04, 2016 03:03:45 AM Vincent Lefevre wrote: > It's poorly designed because bugs[*] are not fixable. > > [*] behavior that doesn't match the documentation. If the program has behavior that doesn't match the documentation, that sounds more like poor implementation than poor des

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On 2016-10-01 14:58:05 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On that note, I wonder if it would be easier to give aptitude some > "resolver profiles" that are selectable on the UI and behave more like > dist-upgrade, safe-upgrade, and the "should work for everything, but > might offer rather

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On 2016-09-30 14:32:49 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > For goodness sake!!! This is Debian. Open Source. Choice. Your call. > Either rewrite Aptitude and publish a fork; use it; or don't use it. I like > it. Many like it. No-one is making you use it. Use your package manager of > choice, or

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On 2016-09-30 09:31:39 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> > It's a pity that Aptitude is so poorly designed. > >> Just because it doesn't always work the way you want it doesn't mean it > >> should labeled "poorly designed". > > I'm not the only one to complain. > > My point is that saying it's "po

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Friday 30 September 2016 15:20:07 Ric Moore wrote: > Suppose I don't want Firefox at all?? There is the probable, the possible, the impossible, the unheard of - and then there is not wanting Firefox. ;-) Lisi

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Fri, 30 Sep 2016, Andre Majorel wrote: > And that getting some people to acknowledge that there even is a > problem, let alone fix it, should be so difficult. This is a well-known limitation of aptitude (at least among DDs), and given the number of threads about it in d-user, it should be well-

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Sep 28, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Andre Majorel wrote: > On 2016-09-28 10:46 -0500, John Hasler wrote: >> Vincent Lefevre writes: >>> Things like that should not happen. But this is not a bug in the perl >>> packages. This is a misfeature of apt / aptitude, which want to remove >>> packages instead

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On 2016-09-30 14:32 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 30 September 2016 10:31:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > I'm not the only one to complain. > > For goodness sake!!! This is Debian. Open Source. Choice. > Your call. Either rewrite Aptitude and publish a fork; use > it; or don't use it.

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Fri, 30 Sep 2016, John Hasler wrote: > Vincent Lefevre writes: > > It's a pity that Aptitude is so poorly designed. > > Aptitude was designed to be used with *Stable*. People who use Unstable I didn't get that memo... as far as I am concerned, aptitude is the only interactive apt frontend tha

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

Vincent Lefevre writes: > It's a pity that Aptitude is so poorly designed. Aptitude was designed to be used with *Stable*. People who use Unstable are expected to know what they are doing and be able to deal with problems. Trying to make Aptitude so intelligent that it could buffer naive users f

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On 09/30/2016 09:32 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: You COULD even change to an rpm distro and have a completely different moan available to you. ;-) Who says Linux isn't sexy to use?? I think that the biggest beef is not the package manager, but the packages that depended on everything else installed

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

>> > It's a pity that Aptitude is so poorly designed. >> Just because it doesn't always work the way you want it doesn't mean it >> should labeled "poorly designed". > I'm not the only one to complain. My point is that saying it's "poorly designed" is like calling the author an idiot. So it's ver

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Friday 30 September 2016 10:31:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-09-29 19:04:20 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > It's a pity that Aptitude is so poorly designed. > > > > Just because it doesn't always work the way you want it doesn't mean it > > should labeled "poorly designed". > > I'm not

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On 2016-09-29 19:04:20 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > It's a pity that Aptitude is so poorly designed. > > Just because it doesn't always work the way you want it doesn't mean it > should labeled "poorly designed". I'm not the only one to complain. -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web:

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:33:58AM -0400, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote: > YES, I know this is Unstable. That's why I specifically made that > declaration in the email's subject line and other (i.e. "the bug > report", grin). I'm one of the ones who issues that statement herself > on regular occasion. Wo

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

> It's a pity that Aptitude is so poorly designed. Just because it doesn't always work the way you want it doesn't mean it should labeled "poorly designed". Stefan

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On 2016-09-29 10:50:39 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-09-28 23:05:31 +0200, Sven Hartge wrote: > > There is an option to tune the resolver. I have got the following in my > > /etc/apt/apt.conf: > > > > , > > | // tweak Aptitude to not suggest removals as first option > > | Aptitude::P

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On 2016-09-29 13:28:48 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-09-29 10:17:57 +0100, Darac Marjal wrote: > > But what if PackageA is something like libc? A hundred packages are to be > > upgraded but PackageB is old and incompatible. Clearly, even though you've > > boosted the cost of removals, it'

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On 2016-09-29 10:17:57 +0100, Darac Marjal wrote: > Looking at the documentation for SolutionCost, it only makes removals more > costly. There is no way to say "never remove any packages". Actually, the problem doesn't seem to be a cost one, but the fact that Aptitude *skips* solutions where some

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:00:30AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2016-09-28 19:30:07 +0100, Brad Rogers wrote: On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 19:55:49 +0200 Vincent Lefevre wrote: Hello Vincent, >I'm not asking it to read my mind. I just want it not to >remove any package I have manually installed.

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 05:03:26PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote: > As a general rule, I find that using Debian packaging for perl makes > absolutely no sense - and often problematic. It's more complicated than this. There are other (non-Perl, non-CPAN)

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On 2016-09-28 14:50:50 -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Vincent Lefevre writes: > > I'm not asking it to read my mind. I just want it not to remove any > > package I have manually installed. > > It doesn't remove anything without your permission. It proposes > a solution to the problem you present it

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On 2016-09-28 21:37:54 +0200, Sven Hartge wrote: > Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2016-09-28 10:46:31 -0500, John Hasler wrote: > >> Vincent Lefevre writes: > > >>> Things like that should not happen. But this is not a bug in the > >>> perl packages. This is a misfeature of apt / aptitude, which w

Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages

On 2016-09-28 19:30:07 +0100, Brad Rogers wrote: > On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 19:55:49 +0200 > Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > Hello Vincent, > > >I'm not asking it to read my mind. I just want it not to > >remove any package I have manually installed. > > I don't use aptitude, but if I understand things c

  1   2   3   4   5   >