David Wittman wrote:
>> 3.16.0-4 is *not* the kernel version but the ABI name used.
> I feel dumb for asking, but the output of uname is not the exact
> kernel version I'm running? That seems contradictory to everything
> I've learned and read... including what I just read here[1]:
>> Kernel ve
Hi.
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 20:43:17 -0600
David Wittman wrote:
> Danke, Sven.
>
> > 3.16.0-4 is *not* the kernel version but the ABI name used.
>
> I feel dumb for asking, but the output of uname is not the exact kernel
> version I'm running? That seems contradictory to everything I've le
Danke, Sven.
> 3.16.0-4 is *not* the kernel version but the ABI name used.
I feel dumb for asking, but the output of uname is not the exact kernel
version I'm running? That seems contradictory to everything I've learned
and read... including what I just read here[1]:
> Kernel version
> This is t
David Wittman wrote:
> I am trying to download the kernel source so that I can patch a kernel
> module, but I keep finding that it's pulling a more recent kernel release
> than the one I specify. IE:
> ```
> vagrant@debian-jessie:~$ uname -r
> 3.16.0-4-amd64
> vagrant@debian-jessie:~$ dpkg-query
On Jo, 20 nov 14, 22:05:08, Joel Roth wrote:
>
> > Are you sure these files are from dbus? I'd rather guess they are from
> > the 'apt' source package. Anyway:
>
> Yes, they are. I'm curious at which step they get generated.
Me too. Care to explain step by step what you did?
Kind regards,
Andr
Hallo,
* Joel Roth [Thu, Nov 20 2014, 10:05:08PM]:
> > > pkgcache.apt
> > > pkgcache.bin
> > > restore
> > > sources.list
> > > sources.list.destdir
> > > srcpkgcache.bin
> >
> Hi Andrei,
>
> > Are you sure these files are from dbus? I'd rather guess they are from
> > the 'apt' sourc
HI,
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:05:08PM -1000, Joel Roth wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 08:03:58AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Jo, 20 nov 14, 12:29:32, Joel Roth wrote:
...
> Yes, they are. I'm curious at which step they get generated.
Your original post should have "dbus" in the command
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 08:03:58AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Jo, 20 nov 14, 12:29:32, Joel Roth wrote:
> >
> > However, there are files that apt-get source downloads that
> > are not in the repository. Can someone tell me where they come from?
> > They appear necessary for the package to
On Jo, 20 nov 14, 12:29:32, Joel Roth wrote:
>
> However, there are files that apt-get source downloads that
> are not in the repository. Can someone tell me where they come from?
> They appear necessary for the package to build.
>
> .pc/
> Packages
> Packages.gz
> apt.co
On 2010-01-07 17:42 +0100, Stephen Powell wrote:
> On 2010-01-07 at 11:04:18 -0500, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> Install the debian-keyring package.
>
> Thank you! That solves the problem. But it requires 26M of disk space!
> Wow! It's just a collection of keys, right? Why is it so big?
> Are there
On 2010-01-07 at 11:04:18 -0500, Sven Joachim wrote:
> Why do you run apt-get source as root?
I am used to being root when I run apt-get because this is required
when installing a binary package. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly)
that installing a source package also required root privileges.
But s
On 2010-01-07 16:37 +0100, Stephen Powell wrote:
> I am trying to get the source code for a Debian package with
>
> apt-get source xxx
>
> where xxx is the name of the package. The retrieval of the source package
> appears to have been successful, but I get error messages along the way:
>
> gpg:
On Monday July 31, 2006 5:38 pm, Stephen Cormier wrote:
> On Monday 31 July 2006 14:10, Pollywog wrote:
> > I looked in the APT tutorial and also in a book but I could not find an
> > answer to this problem.
> >
> > I want to get a source package from the "testing" release, not from
> > "stable", s
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 03:10, Pollywog wrote:
>[...]
> I want to get a source package from the "testing" release, not from
> "stable", so I did this:
>
> apt-get -t testing source
>
> It does not seem to work. Is there a way to do this without temporarily
> modifying the sources.list in order
On Monday 31 July 2006 14:10, Pollywog wrote:
> I looked in the APT tutorial and also in a book but I could not find an
> answer to this problem.
>
> I want to get a source package from the "testing" release, not from
> "stable", so I did this:
>
> apt-get -t testing source
>
> It does not seem to
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 05:10:38PM +, Pollywog wrote:
> I looked in the APT tutorial and also in a book but I could not find an
> answer
> to this problem.
>
> I want to get a source package from the "testing" release, not from "stable",
> so I did this:
>
> apt-get -t testing source
>
>
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 09:24:43PM -0400, Chris Jones wrote:
[..]
>>>2. Can I just remove the source tree after having installed the
>>>binary .deb without breaking anything? Or is there a recommended
>>>'debian way' to clean up?
>>If you build the source packages at the same time as you build the
Magnus Therning wrote:
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 09:13:48AM -0400, Chris Jones wrote:
1. How do I do the equivalent of the usual gnu ./configure when I
install from source..?
This is all done from inside the debian/rules file. I'd suggest reading
the New Maintainer's Guide for a gentle introdu
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 09:13:48AM -0400, Chris Jones wrote:
>1. How do I do the equivalent of the usual gnu ./configure when I
>install from source..?
This is all done from inside the debian/rules file. I'd suggest reading
the New Maintainer's Guide for a gentle introduction to Debian
packaging.
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:05:43 +0200
David Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having failed to get apt-build to work, I tried this. I can easily compile
> and
> install stuff that the kde packages will not due to dependency problems
> (around qt3 and kde) and I get the Debian version (versions po
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:41, Daniel Webb wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 08:38:57PM +1100, Andrew Vaughan wrote:
> > If you have deb-src lines pointing at stable and unstable apt-get
> > source will get the latest (ie, unstable) version. Use apt-get source
> > = to get other versions.
> >
> > From
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 08:38:57PM +1100, Andrew Vaughan wrote:
> If you have deb-src lines pointing at stable and unstable apt-get source
> will get the latest (ie, unstable) version. Use apt-get source
> = to get other versions.
>
> From the apt-get manpage
>
>source source causes a
Hi
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:43, Daniel Webb wrote:
> I've been using Debian for 5 years, so I thought I understood how package
> priorities work, but apparently I don't. Why is it pulling the packages
> from unstable instead of stable?
>
> $ apt-get source -b fakeroot
If you have deb-src lines poi
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 10:20:19PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> I can't believe that it would be a problem, as I imagine your
> /etc/apt/preferences would cause an error, but do you have a "stable"
> line in your /etc/apt/sources.list?
>
> all i can say is that's weird
Yes, I regularl
I can't believe that it would be a problem, as I imagine your
/etc/apt/preferences would cause an error, but do you have a "stable"
line in your /etc/apt/sources.list?
all i can say is that's weird
A
Daniel Webb wrote:
I've been using Debian for 5 years, so I thought I understood how packa
Ok. Thanks!
New doubt: how to see i686 in the package? The "dpkg -I" command don't
show this information.
Regards,
Eriberto
Roberto C. Sanchez escreveu:
Are you saying this because filename ends in _i386.deb? If so, that is
normal. Even the i686 kernel image packages end in that suffix:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 10:37:08AM -0300, Eriberto wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I installed the pentium-builder package and I made the export
> DEBIAN_BUILDARCH=i686. However, after a apt-get build-dep and apt-get source
> -b, the result was a i386 package. Why the result wasn't a i686 package? I
> test
Travis Crump wrote:
Notice that it only fetched 1628B as opposed to all 39.8kB
[1628B==diff+dsc+1B but that may just be a coincidence]
Not a coincidence. I had compiled it without bumping the version number
so that the dsc and diff were overwritten with local versions that
didn't match the serv
Abdul Latip wrote:
Hi,
Unlike "apt-get install", I guess that "apt-get source"
does not check if the source is already loaded.
It always has for me[or rather it resumes the download and resuming a
100% download is pretty quick. :)]
Random package for which I already had source:
[EMAIL PROTECTE
Sent: den 18 september 2002 09:00
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: apt-get source postgres
On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 05:49, Jonas Persson wrote:
> Hi everyone, i have a problem finding postgresql 7.1.3 source as debian package. I
>looked in potato
> but there the version is 6.5.4. The rea
On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 05:49, Jonas Persson wrote:
> Hi everyone, i have a problem finding postgresql 7.1.3 source as debian package. I
>looked in potato
> but there the version is 6.5.4. The reason why i want an older version is that the
>application i want to
> run against postgresql uses fea
On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 00:12, nate wrote:
> of course most things that i do apt-get source i also mark them as
> HOLD in the dpkg database so my next upgrade doesn't overwrite my
> custom packages. i do this by doing:
>
> dpkg --get-selections >selections
> (edit selections, change 'install' to 'ho
On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 02:16:06PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 01:11:52PM -0400, Erik Mathisen wrote:
> | Hello,
> |
> | I have a question. I normally use
> |
> | apt-get install
> |
> | to install any package on my system. Now I have seen how you can use
> Hello,
>
> I have a question. I normally use
>
> apt-get install
>
> to install any package on my system. Now I have seen how you can use
>
> apt-get source
>
> and then compile it own your own machine. Now what I was wondering, is
> there an advantage to doing this? If so, what is it,
On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 01:11:52PM -0400, Erik Mathisen wrote:
| Hello,
|
| I have a question. I normally use
|
| apt-get install
|
| to install any package on my system. Now I have seen how you can use
|
|apt-get source
|
| and then compile it own your own machine. Now what I was
On 11 Mar 2002 23:46:11 -0500
James Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I install via apt-get source and compile the package, then
> install. apt-get -u upgrade wants to replace my compiled version with
> the binary package from debian servers, of the same version. Ever time
> I install a pa
Modify the debian/changelog in your debian source tree so that the version
is 2:1.0.6-3, etc... the number in front of the colon will not show up in
dselect, etc. This change will keep your version "current."
Unfortunately, dselect doesn't provide an indication when a newer debian
version is avail
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Robert L. Harris wrote:
>
> I did the apt-get source and it dropped the source in my current
> directory. When I go to configure it doesn't build, missing
> "/root/qt/debian/objprelink" and it doesn't get auto-configured to match
> the paths etc of my pre-packaged version.
On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 07:18:14PM -0700, Robert L. Harris wrote:
>
> I did the apt-get source and it dropped the source in my current directory.
> When I go to configure it doesn't build, missing "/root/qt/debian/objprelink"
> and it doesn't get auto-configured to match the paths etc of my pre-pa
Looks like a wasted effort right now. The version in the source
tree is older than the one I need also.
Thus spake Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 07:18:14PM -0700, Robert L. Harris wrote:
> > I did the apt-get source and it dropped the source in my current
> > direc
On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 07:18:14PM -0700, Robert L. Harris wrote:
> I did the apt-get source and it dropped the source in my current
> directory. When I go to configure it doesn't build, missing
> "/root/qt/debian/objprelink" and it doesn't get auto-configured to
> match the paths etc of my pre-pac
I did the apt-get source and it dropped the source in my current directory.
When I go to configure it doesn't build, missing "/root/qt/debian/objprelink"
and it doesn't get auto-configured to match the paths etc of my pre-packaged
version.
Thus spake brian r ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Refer to man p
Refer to man page 'apt-get' and edit /etc/apt/sources.list.
Sequence is something like:
apt-get update # update package list
apt-get source # with the appropiate --compile option
'install-somehow' # obviously, I am unclear here.
However, it says manpage of apt-get says the sources lists aren't
Thus spake Nathan E Norman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I think that the -t flag works for getting source as well. Have a
> > look at the man page.
>
> It didn't. I tried that and thought I mentioned it in my email ...
> that bit seems to have been omitted. My bad.
Ah, yeah, didn't see that ment
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 01:13:50AM -0500, Justin R. Miller wrote:
> Thus spake Nathan E Norman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > $ apt-get source php4/testing
> >
> > should work, but doesn't. It says "unable to find a source package
> > for php4/testing" ...
> >
> > I'm looking at the pool directory
This is cool!
Back to apt-cache, can I specify a release name and query the version
number of a specific package?
like apt-cache -t stable show php4
But seems apt-cache does not provide -t.
> Thus spake Nathan E Norman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > $ apt-get source php4/testing
> >
> > should
Thus spake Nathan E Norman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> $ apt-get source php4/testing
>
> should work, but doesn't. It says "unable to find a source package
> for php4/testing" ...
>
> I'm looking at the pool directory and the source for 4.0.100 (the
> version in testing) is there ... so you could a
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 11:32:26AM +0800, Patrick Hsieh wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've defined stable,testing and unstable URLs in my sources.list file.
> After apt-get update, seems apt-get will only deal with the latest version
> of packages or sources. Is there any way to specify a specific
> tree(s
On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 03:34:10PM -0300, Alejandro Diego Garin wrote:
>
> hello!
>
> Could you tell me what is the deb-src link to download de source packages in
> potato?
deb-src http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free
deb-src http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stabl
Alejandro Diego Garin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ADG> Could you tell me what is the deb-src link to download de source
ADG> packages in potato?
It's generally exactly the same as the 'deb' line you have in
/etc/apt/sources.list, but with 'deb-src' at the front of the line
instead.
--
David Maze
thanks for the reply, alias works great :)
Dingo.
).|.(
'.'___'.'
' '(>~<)' '
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-ooO-=(_)=-Ooo-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Petr [Dingo] Dvorak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> is there any way how i can set up the apt-get source so it unpacks the source
> in /usr/src/ and drops the original tarball in /usr/src ?
(cd /usr/src ; apt-get source whatever)
?
Set up an alias or shell-script to do the cd.
--
Alan Shut
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 14:47:15 CDT, "Petr [Dingo] Dvorak" writes:
>is there any way how i can set up the apt-get source so it unpacks the source
>in /usr/src/ and drops the original tarball in /usr/src ?
apt-get source puts whatever you request in the current dir.
just
ORIG_DIR=`pwd`; cd /u
on Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 01:55:17AM -0700, Tristan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> When using apt-get upgrade, apt-get wants to upgrade packages I built from
> apt-get -b source even though the package's
> version is current. Is there a way of stopping apt-get from doing this?
Have you marked your lo
Forrest English wrote:
>
> i'm trying to get a current version of gkrellm on my potato server so i
> can view it remotely over an ssh login.
[..]
> make[2]: Entering directory `/root/gkrellm-1.0.7/locale'
> msgfmt -f -v -o de.mo de.po
> make[2]: msgfmt: Command not found
http://packages.debian.or
have you tried apt-cache search xchat so you know you have the right source
or .deb package.
> well I just did a apt-get update ; apt-get -b source
> xchat-gnome 1.6.4 and still the same error does anyone
> have a idea what I'm doing wrong? I have included a
> copy of my sources.list at teh bott
well I just did a apt-get update ; apt-get -b source
xchat-gnome 1.6.4 and still the same error does anyone
have a idea what I'm doing wrong? I have included a
copy of my sources.list at teh bottom of the email.
Thanks,
Don
--- Bob Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The correct syntax is "apt-get
The correct syntax is "apt-get -b source " not
"apt-get source -b "
Bob
On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 05:53:56PM -0800, D. Hoyem wrote:
> I want to update xchat to 1.6.4 so I did a apt-get
> update ; apt-get source -b xchat 1.6.4 and I get this
> error, Could not open file
> /var/state/apt/lis
apt-get source downloads to pwd. I tripped on it a few times
myself...
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Bill Wohler wrote:
> I just tried `apt-get source -b xmms' and the package was downloaded
> and built in /etc. Why there? Wouldn't it be better to do it in
> /usr/src?
>
> If I can't change Debia
"Michael J. Micek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 02:33:25PM -0800, Bill Wohler wrote:
> > I just tried `apt-get source -b xmms' and the package was downloaded
> > and built in /etc. Why there?
>
> pwd
D'oh! RTFM. I see it now. Thanks.
--
Bill Wohler <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 02:33:25PM -0800, Bill Wohler wrote:
> I just tried `apt-get source -b xmms' and the package was downloaded
> and built in /etc. Why there? Wouldn't it be better to do it in
> /usr/src?
apt-get source downloads the source to the current directory. You
happened to be
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 02:33:25PM -0800, Bill Wohler wrote:
> I just tried `apt-get source -b xmms' and the package was downloaded
> and built in /etc. Why there?
pwd
> Wouldn't it be better to do it in /usr/src?
>
> If I can't change Debian policy, how can I configure apt-get to
> down
Pollywog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:27:16 +, Colin Watson said:
>>dpkg-source -x licq_1.0-5.dsc
>
>This was a problem because it complained that the dsc file was not a
>gzipped file and I gzipped it. Then it complained that the file was
>not the size expected. I down
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:27:16 +, Colin Watson said:
> Pollywog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I am having problems getting the latest sources for Licq.
> >I can download the dsc diff, and tarball for version 1.0 manually
> >from ftp.debian.org but when I try to get them with 'apt-get source
Pollywog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am having problems getting the latest sources for Licq.
>I can download the dsc diff, and tarball for version 1.0 manually
>from ftp.debian.org but when I try to get them with 'apt-get source
>licq', I get an older version even though my sources.list is set up
>
> On 31-Oct-2000 Mario Vukelic wrote:
> >
> >> deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US/ stable non-US/main
> >> non-US/contrib
> >> non-US/non-free
> >
> > Thanks. Unfortunately, I still get the same errors (both for update and
> > source).
> > Hmmm
> >
>
> how odd, that is directly from
On 31-Oct-2000 Mario Vukelic wrote:
>
>> deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US/ stable non-US/main
>> non-US/contrib
>> non-US/non-free
>
> Thanks. Unfortunately, I still get the same errors (both for update and
> source).
> Hmmm
>
how odd, that is directly from my own sources.list.
> deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US/ stable non-US/main non-US/contrib
> non-US/non-free
Thanks. Unfortunately, I still get the same errors (both for update and source).
Hmmm
--
I did not vote for the Austrian government
Linux: The choice of a GNU generation. Visit http://www.gnu.o
I just realized that apt-get update also gives me an error:
Failed to fetch
http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US/dists/stable/non-US/source/Sources
404 Not Found
Seems to be related. However, I still don't find the error in sources.list
--
I did not vote for the Austrian government
Linux
On 31-Oct-2000 Mario Vukelic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Whenever I try to do a "apt-get source anypackage" apt responds with:
>
> Reading Package Lists... Done
> Building Dependency Tree... Done
> E: Could not open file
> /var/state/apt/lists/non-us.debian.org_debian-non-US_dists_stable_non-US_sourc
> e_S
On 07/24/00 22:15:33 -0400, Mike Werner wrote:
> You're way off. ::grin:: But that's okay. We'll get ya there. Here's the
> relevant portion from my sources.list:
>
> deb-src http://http.us.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free
> deb-src http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable
Mark Wagnon wrote:
> deb ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian unstable main source
> ^^
> Is this how it's done, or am I way off here?
You're way off. ::grin:: But that's okay. We'll get ya there. Here's the
relevant portion from my sources.list:
deb-sr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Seth R Arnold wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 06, 1999 at 10:22:57PM +1200, Matthew Gregan wrote:
> > If you have a new enough apt-get that supports the 'source' command but
> > don't have it set up correctly, you need something like this added to
> > y
Subject: Apt-get source question
Date: Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 09:17:18AM -0200
In reply to:Paulo Henrique Baptista de Oliveira
Quoting Paulo Henrique Baptista de Oliveira([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Hi Debian users,
> anyone knows if with apt-get source package I can see
74 matches
Mail list logo
