On Vi, 23 mar 12, 01:27:38, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> Admittedly, you probably still need libdvdcss2 etc.
I'd miss xbmc.
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
signature.asc
Descript
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> Chris Bannister:
>>
>> I suppose that ultimately all you'd need is libav (ffmpeg is
>> "now/will be" deprecated)
>
> Oh, didn't know that.
>From a recent -devel post [1]:
> Actually, ffmpeg changed names to libav recently. The latter is
Chris Bannister:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 04:24:18PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>> Chris Bannister:
>>>
>>> I didn't know about handbrake-cli and looks like it might replace
>>> "videotrans" and "lxdvdrip"
>>
>> From what I can tell from their package descriptions: not quite. I
>> usually dum
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 04:24:18PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> Chris Bannister:
> >
> > I didn't know about handbrake-cli and looks like it might replace
> > "videotrans" and "lxdvdrip"
>
> From what I can tell from their package descriptions: not quite. I
> usually dump DVD contents using 'm
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 04:16:32PM +, Curt wrote:
> On 2012-03-22, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> > root@tal:~# apt-cache policy libavformat-extra-53
>
> You don't have to be root to do that, did you know?
True, I normally have a tty open for root anyway and the tty where I
have logged into as
On 2012-03-22, Chris Bannister wrote:
> root@tal:~# apt-cache policy libavformat-extra-53
You don't have to be root to do that, did you know?
Just an observation because I use apt-cache frequently and it's
convenient (and potentially less dangerous for slippery fingers) not to
be obliged to su
Chris Bannister:
>
> I didn't know about handbrake-cli and looks like it might replace
> "videotrans" and "lxdvdrip"
From what I can tell from their package descriptions: not quite. I
usually dump DVD contents using 'mplayer -dumpstream' and then encode
the resulting directory structure using Ha
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 02:10:13PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> I reaklly like handbrake-cli, that's why I had to keep d-m.org in the
> end.
I've only removed d-m.org from my laptop. The desktop running Lenny
still and where I burn DVD/CD will still have to have d-m.org.
I didn't know about ha
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 05:01:57PM +0100, Alberto Fuentes wrote:
> On 21/03/12 07:08, Chris Bannister wrote:
> >Remember, Aptitude's "resolver system" is different to apt-get's
>
> I think the problem is not the the resolver (apt-get and aptitude
> should get dependences about the same if not prob
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Alberto Fuentes wrote:
look at this, is interesting
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=401835
this is more than 5 years old. It would be interesting to check wether this
bug has been fixed, but the answer of march 2007 is not encouraging.
--
Pierre
look at this, is interesting
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=401835
On 22/03/12 17:49, Jochen Spieker wrote:
Pierre Frenkiel:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote:
I didn't have that problem. Is it reproducible?
yes. I tried apt-get several times before shift
Pierre Frenkiel:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>
>> I didn't have that problem. Is it reproducible?
>
>yes. I tried apt-get several times before shifting to aptitude.
>Is the difference coming from the fact that you are on amd64 and I am on
> i386?
>I'll try later on m
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote:
I didn't have that problem. Is it reproducible?
yes. I tried apt-get several times before shifting to aptitude.
Is the difference coming from the fact that you are on amd64 and I am on
i386?
I'll try later on my laptop which has a amd64 proc
Pierre Frenkiel:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>
>> In order to "downgrade" from 5:0.7.11-0.1 to 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 you need to
>> tun 'apt-get install ffmpeg=4:0.8-2~bpo60+1'.
>
> this is an example where aptitude is superior to apt-get:
> with apt-get install (or dist-install), I we
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:49:42 +0100
Jochen Spieker wrote:
Hello Jochen,
> The "epoch" (the version number prefix, before the ':') is used to
> explicitly enforce this. 4:x is always older than 5:y. Christian
> Marillat does this on purpose. I don't know his reasons.
Some of the software in his r
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote:
idem with "aptitude full-upgrade"
The "epoch" (the version number prefix, before the ':') is used to
explicitly enforce this. 4:x is always older than 5:y. Christian
Marillat does this on purpose. I don't know his reasons.
In order to "downgrade" fro
Pierre Frenkiel:
>
>ffmpeg:
> Installed: 5:0.7.11-0.1
> Candidate: 5:0.7.11-0.1
> Version table:
> *** 5:0.7.11-0.1 0
> 1 http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ squeeze/main i386 Packages
>100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 0
>
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote:
/etc/apt/preferences.d/00multimedia:
Package: *
Pin: release o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages
Pin-Priority: 1
I tried that, but then, apt-get dist-upgrade proposed to upgrade
8 packages, but not ffmpeg, although I have:
==> apt-cache policy ffmpeg
Chris Bannister:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 04:54:39PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>>
>> Sometimes aptitude's TUI is really useful. Like yesterday, when I
>> down-pinned debian-multimedia.org and wanted to replace all packages
>> from there with their official Debian counterparts (if possible).
>
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 04:54:39PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>
> Sometimes aptitude's TUI is really useful. Like yesterday, when I
> down-pinned debian-multimedia.org and wanted to replace all packages
> from there with their official Debian counterparts (if possible).
Mmmm, interesting. I've
On 21/03/12 07:08, Chris Bannister wrote:
Remember, Aptitude's "resolver system" is different to apt-get's
I think the problem is not the the resolver (apt-get and aptitude should
get dependences about the same if not problem found, and therefore
"aptitude full-upgrade" should do the same as
Camaleón:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:08:29 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
>> Remember, Aptitude's "resolver system" is different to apt-get's
>
> That's why I prefer to refresh both "separately". apt-get was happy with
> the current db state while aptitude wasn't.
From what I know, I have troubl
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:08:29 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:45:51PM +, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:10:07 +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>>
>> > Camaleón:
>>
>> (...)
>>
>> >> Did you first update the packages database?
>> >>
>> >> apt-get update
>> >
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:45:51PM +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:10:07 +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>
> > Camaleón:
>
> (...)
>
> >> Did you first update the packages database?
> >>
> >> apt-get update
> >> aptitude update
> >
> > apt-get and aptitude both use the same packag
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Lisi wrote:
> On Monday 19 March 2012 14:17:44 Bonno Bloksma wrote:
>>
>> It is either a normal apt-get upgrade or an aptitude full-upgrade. But
>> why.?
>
> Because they are not the same? If they were identical there would be no point
> in having the two of
On Monday 19 March 2012 16:39:13 Jochen Spieker wrote:
> Lisi:
> > On Monday 19 March 2012 12:32:19 Jochen Spieker wrote:
> >> The OP has explicitly has explicitly stated that he/she is interested in
> >> the reason for the behaviour. Work-arounds are too easy. :)
> >
> > It's NOT a workaround. It
Lisi:
> On Monday 19 March 2012 12:32:19 Jochen Spieker wrote:
>>
>> The OP has explicitly has explicitly stated that he/she is interested in
>> the reason for the behaviour. Work-arounds are too easy. :)
>
> It's NOT a workaround. It is correct usage.
Sure it is correct usage, but it hides the
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:17:44 +, Bonno Bloksma wrote:
> To answer most questions asked:
(...)
Would have been better to reply to every message separately...
> 3)
> The last time I ran a full-upgrade was when I upgraded from Lenny. I
> think this system started out as an Etch system years ago
On Monday 19 March 2012 14:17:44 Bonno Bloksma wrote:
> It is either a normal apt-get upgrade or an aptitude full-upgrade. But
> why.?
Because they are not the same? If they were identical there would be no point
in having the two of them.
Lisi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-req
On Monday 19 March 2012 12:32:19 Jochen Spieker wrote:
> Lisi:
> > Surely it is worth following the earlier suggestion and doing an
> > "aptitude full-upgrade" before trying more complicated things?
>
> The OP has explicitly has explicitly stated that he/she is interested in
> the reason for the be
To answer most questions asked:
>>> Did you first update the packages database?
>>>
>>> apt-get update
>>> aptitude update
>>
>> apt-get and aptitude both use the same package database. Running the
>> 'udpate' for both of them is not required.
>
> I just run "apt-get upgrade" and said there was
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:10:07 +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> Camaleón:
(...)
>> Did you first update the packages database?
>>
>> apt-get update
>> aptitude update
>
> apt-get and aptitude both use the same package database. Running the
> 'udpate' for both of them is not required.
I just run "
Lisi:
>
> Surely it is worth following the earlier suggestion and doing an "aptitude
> full-upgrade" before trying more complicated things?
The OP has explicitly has explicitly stated that he/she is interested in
the reason for the behaviour. Work-arounds are too easy. :)
J.
--
Ultimately, the
On Monday 19 March 2012 12:10:07 Jochen Spieker wrote:
> Camaleón:
> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:58:12 +, Bonno Bloksma wrote:
> >> Version: 5.1.49-3
> >> Priority: optional
> >> Section: database
> >> []
>
> Is this a squeeze system? -Then you should make sure you have
> security.debian.org i
Camaleón:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:58:12 +, Bonno Bloksma wrote:
>
>> Version: 5.1.49-3
>> Priority: optional
>> Section: database
>> []
Is this a squeeze system? -Then you should make sure you have
security.debian.org in your sources.list. The current version from s.d.o
is 5.1.61-0+squee
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:58:12 +, Bonno Bloksma wrote:
> On 2 of my machines I have mysql-common installed
>
> # aptitude show mysql-common
> Package: mysql-common
> State: installed
> Automatically installed: no
> Version: 5.1.49-3
> Priority: optional
> Section: database
> []
>
> However
On 03/19/2012 11:58 AM, Bonno Bloksma wrote:
Hi,
On 2 of my machines I have mysql-common installed
[...]
As we don't know what kind of setup you're having (stable, bpo, testing,
unstable...), it's hard to tell what's up. How about aptitude dist-upgrade?
--
Rares Aioanei
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
37 matches
Mail list logo
