On 11/14/2012 05:53 PM, David Christensen wrote:
On 11/14/12 12:48, Gary Roach wrote:
I got home from vacation, fired up the systems and one of the hard
drives was trashed. Two days of recovery attempts didn't work so I
reformatted and reinstalled the Debian Squeeze system.
What do you mean by
On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 17:53 -0800, David Christensen wrote:
> On 11/14/12 12:48, Gary Roach wrote:
> > I got home from vacation, fired up the systems and one of the hard
> > drives was trashed. Two days of recovery attempts didn't work so I
> > reformatted and reinstalled the Debian Squeeze system.
On 11/14/12 12:48, Gary Roach wrote:
I got home from vacation, fired up the systems and one of the hard
drives was trashed. Two days of recovery attempts didn't work so I
reformatted and reinstalled the Debian Squeeze system.
What do you mean by "trashed"?
Have you run any hardware diagnostic
2012/6/27 Keith McKenzie :
> The system isn't backed up normally, as you would have installation
> media to restore it; you would just backup configuration. Having said
> that, if you do want to back it up, use a live media, not the running
> system.
>
> (Usually it is only your data that is irrep
The system isn't backed up normally, as you would have installation
media to restore it; you would just backup configuration. Having said
that, if you do want to back it up, use a live media, not the running
system.
(Usually it is only your data that is irreplaceable.)
HTH
--
Sent from FOSS (F
Brian writes:
> On Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 05:15:40 -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:
>
>> dpkg: unrecoverable fatal error, aborting:
>>syntax error: unknown user 'backuppc' in statoverride file
>>
>> Can the `stateoverride' file mentioned be edited? If so, where is it?
>>
>> Searches of /etc/ and /
Rob Owens writes:
> You could try:
>
> aptitude reinstall backuppc
>
> and see if that gets you anywhere.
Thanks, I did mention in OP that I could neither install nor remove.
Surely there is someway to get rid of the pesky stuff.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.o
On Wed 23 Nov 2011 at 05:15:40 -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:
> dpkg: unrecoverable fatal error, aborting:
>syntax error: unknown user 'backuppc' in statoverride file
>
> Can the `stateoverride' file mentioned be edited? If so, where is it?
>
> Searches of /etc/ and /var/ come up dry.
/var/l
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 04:59:27AM -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:
> I decided to try out backuppc and set it up for a trial... decided it
> way more complicated and overdone for my needs and uninstalled it.
>
> Only it didn't really get uninstalled. I don't remember now all the
> steps I took but do
>From atitude full-upgrade
[...]
dpkg: unrecoverable fatal error, aborting:
syntax error: unknown user 'backuppc' in statoverride file
Can the `stateoverride' file mentioned be edited? If so, where is it?
Searches of /etc/ and /var/ come up dry.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011, Harry Putnam wrote:
> On debian many of the things that would be done by user during an
> install from sources are done for you. I ended up with the main files
> at /var/lib/backuppc. which contains a whole pile of some kind of data
> files. I see them in places like cpool/
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
>
> So if I put /var/lib/backuppc (and everything under it) on an nfs share
> that resides on a solaris machine with zfs... it should work alright?
Yes, perhaps with a bit of performance loss compared to local storage.
--
Les Mikesell
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
>
> I haven't finished the docs yet, maybe it tell what this stuff
> is... but for purposes of this post I wondered if it would be wisest
> to let the directories and files under /var/lib/backuppc also reside
> on the nfs shared zfs filesystem.
On 10/25/05, Piszcz, Justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks as if you need to copy your public key into the authorized_keys2
> file on the remote machine for user root.
>
Thankyou so much Justin :-) it worked! the
ssh-copy-id
comand creates a file called authorized_keys and not authorized_key
Looks as if you need to copy your public key into the authorized_keys2
file on the remote machine for user root.
Justin.
-Original Message-
From: Siju George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 9:11 AM
To: Debian User
Subject: backupPC on sarge
Hi all,
I am trying
On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 09:00, Adam Dobrin wrote:
> I'm having trouble using backuppc from a separate subnet. I have a VPN
> connection from an offiste location to my network; and while the remote
> machine *can* ping into the internal network, and perl's gethostbyname
> functions fine; bpc is st
Steve Lamb wrote:>
I just did a search for "debian sata dvd burner".
Here's the link:
You're right. Apparently I didn't do enough testing, or the problem was
temporary,
and now seems to be limited to the sourceforge lists or at least backuppc-user,
and google is vindicated for how. Sorry
Marty wrote:
> Steve Lamb wrote:
>>> No, it's just some recent change that google made.
>> So you claim. And your proof is... what?
> See my answer above.
What you gave was not proof. It was supposition based on your
observations on a *dynamic system*. IE, the same term used today is
Steve Lamb wrote:
Again, Google obscures nothing. Just
because Google doesn't return the hits you're expecting doesn't mean they're
obscured, either. Just means your search is not specific enough. No more, no
less. Hardly anything insidious in that.
I seem to recall previously getting go
Marty wrote:
> I wonder how SPI would respond to that statement.
Would be interesting, wouldn't it. I mean you are talking about a
collective of individuals who have decided that some software should be
funded. Just because they say it is "in the public interest" doesn't mean the
public want
Steve Lamb wrote:
Marty wrote:
Steve Lamb wrote:
The public has no interest.
But google shareholders do? I hope that's not what you mean.
Nope. Simply pointing out that "the public" is an entity which in and of
itself has no interests. "The public" is a collection of individuals
Marty wrote:
> Steve Lamb wrote:
>> The public has no interest.
> But google shareholders do? I hope that's not what you mean.
Nope. Simply pointing out that "the public" is an entity which in and of
itself has no interests. "The public" is a collection of individuals, each of
whom hav
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 15:26, Marty wrote:
> Maybe the most optimistic explanation would be just that google is
> knucking under to the rampant copyright or lawsuit madness that's
> plaguing the USA, but that still leaves a problem for technical
> list users.
I've moved some of my busier list subs
Steve Lamb wrote:
Marty wrote:
I don't see what legitimate purpose it might serve, and I wonder if the
posters' wishes or search engine users' interests, or even public
interests, enter into consideration? I suppose not.
The public has no interest.
But google shareholders do? I hope th
Stephen Patterson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:40:11 +0200, Sturla Holm Hansen wrote:
Anyone tried backuppc ( http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ )
If so, here's my files:
Fatal error (bad version): Host key verification failed.
Sounds like ssh is being bitchy wrt to the identity key for each
host.
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:40:11 +0200, Sturla Holm Hansen wrote:
> Anyone tried backuppc ( http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/ )
> If so, here's my files:
> Fatal error (bad version): Host key verification failed.
Sounds like ssh is being bitchy wrt to the identity key for each
host. Can you ssh login
26 matches
Mail list logo
