On Sunday, 11 June 2017 20:06:48 CEST Brian wrote:
> if you change your sources.list to use a suitable
> one from snapshot.debian.org it will be found.
I didn't know that, thanks!
On Sun 11 Jun 2017 at 11:13:21 +0200, solitone wrote:
> On Sunday, 11 June 2017 10:39:25 CEST Dejan Jocic wrote:
> > In case that you are on stable, perhaps in old stable repository, or its
> > backports, after you add those to sources.list.
>
> No, I'm on stretch, so I'm using the stretch repos
On 11-06-2017 05:06, solitone wrote:
> But where do you find old packages in case you no longer
> have them in /var/cache/apt/archives?
http://snapshot.debian.org/
--
A rolling disk gathers no MOS.
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
edua...@kalinowski.com.br
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 10:39:25 CEST Dejan Jocic wrote:
> In case that you are on stable, perhaps in old stable repository, or its
> backports, after you add those to sources.list.
No, I'm on stretch, so I'm using the stretch repository:
deb http://ftp.it.debian.org/debian/ stretch main non-free
UTC Time: June 11, 2017 7:39 AM
From: lisi.re...@gmail.com
On Sunday 11 June 2017 08:16:11 Fungi4All wrote:
> Below please find Lisi's answer on whether packages should be reverted or
> not.
!! There is nothing there - not surprising since I have never passed an
opinion on any such thing. Does th
On 11-06-17, solitone wrote:
> On Sunday, 11 June 2017 08:39:25 CEST Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > please, Solitone, let me and the list know what I am supposed to have said.
>
> No Lisi, I don't have more info than the list regarding what you supposedly
> said on this
> topic :-)
>
> In any case, I'
On Sunday, 11 June 2017 08:39:25 CEST Lisi Reisz wrote:
> please, Solitone, let me and the list know what I am supposed to have said.
No Lisi, I don't have more info than the list regarding what you supposedly
said on this
topic :-)
In any case, I've just removed the hold on the 4 chromium pa
On Sunday 11 June 2017 08:16:11 Fungi4All wrote:
> Below please find Lisi's answer on whether packages should be reverted or
> not.
!! There is nothing there - not surprising since I have never passed an
opinion on any such thing. Does the version that went directly to solitone
have a complete
With all the confusion on reply reply-all I has send her/him this
UTC Time: June 10, 2017 10:06 AM
From: fungil...@protonmail.com
To: solitone
UTC Time: June 10, 2017 9:55 AM
From: solit...@mail.com
On Saturday, 10 June 2017 05:45:22 CEST Fungi4All wrote:
> apt
>
> Hold a package:
> sudo apt-ma
On Saturday 10 June 2017 10:45:22 Fungi4All wrote:
> UTC Time: June 10, 2017 7:42 AM
> From: solit...@mail.com
>
> On Friday, 9 June 2017 23:38:40 CEST Jimmy Johnson wrote:
> > I've never downgrade using apt, but with synaptic it's not too hard,
>
> Hi Jimmy, and thanks for your reply. I'm under Pl
Hi,
I made best progress by using aptitude. However, you have to look at the
dependencies yourself.
How to handle:
- Start aptitude with ncurses gui.
- Mark the required to the former available version.
- Look at the dependencies, you my have to set the dependend libs also to
former versions
On 10-06-17, solitone wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 June 2017 05:45:22 CEST Fungi4All wrote:
> > apt
> >
> > Hold a package:
> > sudo apt-mark hold
> >
> > Remove the hold:
> > sudo apt-mark unhold
>
> That's ok. I can then:
> $ sudo apt upgrade
> to upgrade that package to the latest available v
--- Begin Message ---
UTC Time: June 10, 2017 9:55 AM
From: solit...@mail.com
On Saturday, 10 June 2017 05:45:22 CEST Fungi4All wrote:
> apt
>
> Hold a package:
> sudo apt-mark hold
>
> Remove the hold:
> sudo apt-mark unhold
That's ok. I can then:
$ sudo apt upgrade
to upgrade that package to
On Saturday, 10 June 2017 05:45:22 CEST Fungi4All wrote:
> apt
>
> Hold a package:
> sudo apt-mark hold
>
> Remove the hold:
> sudo apt-mark unhold
That's ok. I can then:
$ sudo apt upgrade
to upgrade that package to the latest available version.
But my question was: once I've upgrated it,
UTC Time: June 10, 2017 7:42 AM
From: solit...@mail.com
On Friday, 9 June 2017 23:38:40 CEST Jimmy Johnson wrote:
> I've never downgrade using apt, but with synaptic it's not too hard,
Hi Jimmy, and thanks for your reply. I'm under Plasma Desktop, so I don't have
synaptic--I use KDE's Discover. A
On Friday, 9 June 2017 23:38:40 CEST Jimmy Johnson wrote:
> I've never downgrade using apt, but with synaptic it's not too hard,
Hi Jimmy, and thanks for your reply. I'm under Plasma Desktop, so I don't have
synaptic--I use KDE's Discover. Although I use it only for automatic updates.
For instal
On 06/09/2017 09:44 PM, solitone wrote:
I am on Debian 9 (scratch), and I have a MacBook Pro 12,1 with retina display.
Few days ago I upgraded Google Chrome from version 58 to 59:
google-chrome-stable:amd64 (58.0.3029.110-1, 59.0.3071.86-1)
This new version no longer supports HiDPI. As a result
Le 16.06.2014 20:54, Linux-Fan a écrit :
On 06/16/2014 03:42 PM, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
Hello.
I made some virtual computers with my desktop computer, which runs a
(
mostly ) Debian testing. Now, I have noticed that even with
virtualbox's
backports, the computer on which I wan
On 06/16/2014 03:42 PM, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I made some virtual computers with my desktop computer, which runs a (
> mostly ) Debian testing. Now, I have noticed that even with virtualbox's
> backports, the computer on which I want to finally use them ( I was too
> la
On Sun, 23 Mar 2014, quixote wrote:
> *How* did you do the downgrade? I downloaded
> gthumb_3.2.6-1_amd64.deb, tried to install with gdebi, and got the
> error message:
>
> Dependency is not satisfiable: gthumb-data (= 3:3.2.6-1)
>
> So I downloaded that, put it in the same dir, and got the same
On 23/03/14 05:24 PM, quixote wrote:
*How* did you do the downgrade? I downloaded gthumb_3.2.6-1_amd64.deb,
tried to install with gdebi, and got the error message:
Dependency is not satisfiable: gthumb-data (= 3:3.2.6-1)
So I downloaded that, put it in the same dir, and got the same error
messa
*How* did you do the downgrade? I downloaded gthumb_3.2.6-1_amd64.deb,
tried to install with gdebi, and got the error message:
Dependency is not satisfiable: gthumb-data (= 3:3.2.6-1)
So I downloaded that, put it in the same dir, and got the same error
message.
The new interface is the absol
On 08/03/14 02:02 PM, Reco wrote:
Hi.
On Sat, 08 Mar 2014 13:52:23 -0500
Frank McCormick wrote:
I would like to downgrade Gthumb to the previous version before
the interface was changed. I am running Sid.
I've looked around but the only version available seems to
be the current one 3.3.1
P
Hi.
On Sat, 08 Mar 2014 13:52:23 -0500
Frank McCormick wrote:
> I would like to downgrade Gthumb to the previous version before
> the interface was changed. I am running Sid.
> I've looked around but the only version available seems to
> be the current one 3.3.1
Please choose one of those:
ht
It can be done, but your package lists will get cabbaged. I did it on
a workstation once, and within a year, the machine was
unmaintainable...Especially when upgrading to the new stable (e.g.
lenny to squeeze). It had all sorts of extra hoops to jump through...
Having done it, I would concur with
Hello Andrei!
Thanks, I'l definitely consider it. Much better than to go back. :-)
Knd regards
Julien
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Such Is Life: Very Intensely Adorable;
Free And Jubilating Amazement Revels, Dancing On - FLOWERS!
== Find my music at ==
http://juliencod
On Vi, 03 feb 12, 19:28:57, Bob Proulx wrote:
>
> It is still a long time until Wheezy releases. There is no indicate
> one way or the other about whether gnome-orca will be in wheezy or
> not. It is too early to tell. I think you should be patient and wait
> and see. A lot can happen in a yea
Hi bob!
I'm sorry, I see, that I wrote rather without context, besides I expressed
myself unclearly.
Yes, we are talking about Gnome-Orca. Why do I "have to upgrade"? The new
Orca version has a lot of fixes for problems, which are there in the old
version. These fixes will allow to use much
Julien Claassen wrote:
> So let's talk about Orca. :-)
Orca as in gnome-orca the screen reader?
> I found, that Orca is no longer available in wheezy and an
> installation of Squeeze's GNOME+Orca reulted in a lot of problems,
> which I could understand before.
Yes, problems. I don't know about
Hello!
Thanks bob and Aidan!
OK, I do understand now, why downgrading wouldn't be possible.
So let's talk about Orca. :-) I found, that Orca is no longer available in
wheezy and an installation of Squeeze's GNOME+Orca reulted in a lot of
problems, which I could understand before. Still, th
Julien Claassen wrote:
> I just wondered, if it would be possible to downgrade my Debian
> distro from - say - Wheezy to Squeeze? I thought, that it must work,
> but I can't for the life of me think, which exact command to use.
No. That operation is not supported. It would be almost impossible
t
I seem to remember asking this on IRC a while ago, and the answer I got
(from multiple people) was to backup system config files and, of course,
/home, and do a fresh install of stable. (In the end, I went with this
method.)
I am quite certain that downgrading from testing to stable is not
suppor
On 04/12/2011 03:32 PM, Andrej Kacian wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 22:03:36 -0400
Johan Kullstam wrote:
Apologies for following up to myself, but I thought I should say that
when I added /run myself the 2.6.38 kernel booted without problems.
So... is this udev167-1 safe to upgrade to on Wheezy
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 22:03:36 -0400
Johan Kullstam wrote:
>>>Apologies for following up to myself, but I thought I should say that
>>>when I added /run myself the 2.6.38 kernel booted without problems.
>>
>> So... is this udev167-1 safe to upgrade to on Wheezy (base-files 6.1), or
>> should I w
Andrej Kacian writes:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:44:17 +0100
> Anthony Campbell wrote:
>
>>On 08 Apr 2011, Anthony Campbell wrote:
>>>
>>> After an upgrade today to base-files 6.3 I rashly assume things would be
>>> fixed, but not so. My /run is no longer there but now the 2.6.38 kernels
>>> won't
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:44:17 +0100
Anthony Campbell wrote:
>On 08 Apr 2011, Anthony Campbell wrote:
>>
>> After an upgrade today to base-files 6.3 I rashly assume things would be
>> fixed, but not so. My /run is no longer there but now the 2.6.38 kernels
>> won't boot - they stop at the nouveau d
On 08 Apr 2011, Anthony Campbell wrote:
>
> After an upgrade today to base-files 6.3 I rashly assume things would be
> fixed, but not so. My /run is no longer there but now the 2.6.38 kernels
> won't boot - they stop at the nouveau driver. Luckily I still had a
> 2.6.37 kernel which isn't affected
On 06 Apr 2011, Benjamí Villoslada wrote:
> A Dimecres 06 Abril 2011 16:30:08, Wolodja Wentland va escriure:
> > I assume that you are actually trying to fix a different bug, namely one
> > introduced by the premature installation of base-files 6.2 which created
> > the /run directory. The fastest
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 03:37:11PM +0100, Wolodja Wentland wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 15:20 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 04:13:36PM +0200, Benjamí Villoslada wrote:
> > > Last Udev version have an important error:
> > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug
A Dimecres 06 Abril 2011 16:30:08, Wolodja Wentland va escriure:
> I assume that you are actually trying to fix a different bug, namely one
> introduced by the premature installation of base-files 6.2 which created
> the /run directory. The fastest fix is probably to just remove /run and be
> done
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 15:20 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 04:13:36PM +0200, Benjamí Villoslada wrote:
> > Last Udev version have an important error:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=621087
> >
> > Where can I find and download the previous 166 version?
>
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 16:13 +0200, Benjamí Villoslada wrote:
> Last Udev version have an important error:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=621087
>
> Where can I find and download the previous 166 version?
You can get them from: http://snapshot.debian.org/package/udev/166-1/
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 04:20:24PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2011-04-06 16:13 +0200, Benjamí Villoslada wrote:
>
> > Last Udev version have an important error:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=621087
> >
> > Where can I find and download the previous 166 version?
>
> On
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 04:13:36PM +0200, Benjamí Villoslada wrote:
> Last Udev version have an important error:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=621087
>
> Where can I find and download the previous 166 version?
http://snapshot.debian.org/package/udev/166-1/
Note that downgrad
On 2011-04-06 16:13 +0200, Benjamí Villoslada wrote:
> Last Udev version have an important error:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=621087
>
> Where can I find and download the previous 166 version?
On snapshot.debian.org. Alternatively, you can rm -rf /run and restart
udev.
Sv
On Tuesday 16 of November 2010 22:31:20 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> In <201011161438.54964.jesus.nava...@undominio.net>, Jesús M. Navarro wrote:
> >Downgrade shouldn't be considered as an "upgrade, only to a lower version"
>
> That is what a downgrade is, by definition.
In my case, this whoul
In <201011161438.54964.jesus.nava...@undominio.net>, Jesús M. Navarro wrote:
>Hi, Boyd:
>
>On Monday 15 November 2010 20:55:58 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> In <201011151334.06503.lukas.linh...@centrumholdings.com>, Lukas Linhart
>
>[...]
>
>> Downgrades aren't supported and can't reasonably be
Hi, Boyd:
On Monday 15 November 2010 20:55:58 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> In <201011151334.06503.lukas.linh...@centrumholdings.com>, Lukas Linhart
[...]
> Downgrades aren't supported and can't reasonably be supported in general.
> Specifically, it is impossible to modify the lower-versioned p
> Then I'm afraid you'll receive more advice in "debian-devel" :-)
Oh, I'll perhaps try. Thanks.
> I find the concept interesting.
> First, because I was not aware that a metapackage could be "itself" up/
> downgraded :-?
"metapackage"is usial package, not virtual package.
> Second, because if
In <201011151334.06503.lukas.linh...@centrumholdings.com>, Lukas Linhart
wrote:
>Problem is, we'd like to be able to downgrade. However. I did not found the
>option to "force download in dependency chain"; when metapackage is being
>downgraded, all dependencies forced to download must be specified
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:34:06 +0100, Lukas Linhart wrote:
> we're building packages with concept of "metapackage": package whose
> only purpose is to specify particular versions it depends on.
Then I'm afraid you'll receive more advice in "debian-devel" :-)
> Problem is, we'd like to be able to d
Lukas Linhart wrote:
> we're building packages with concept of "metapackage": package whose only
> purpose is to specify particular versions it depends on.
Sounds good. It is very commonly done.
> Problem is, we'd like to be able to downgrade. However. I did not found the
> option to "force do
Matteo Riva schrieb:
> Squeeze upgrade broke fglrx driver with the new xserver.
>
> How can I downgrade the xserver from 1.7.4 back to 1.6.5 when fglrx
> driver was working fine?
> What packages do I need to downgrade, and where can I find those
> versions?
>
>
Hi all!
I have two questions reg
Matteo Riva schrieb:
> Squeeze upgrade broke fglrx driver with the new xserver.
>
> How can I downgrade the xserver from 1.7.4 back to 1.6.5 when fglrx
> driver was working fine?
> What packages do I need to downgrade, and where can I find those
> versions?
>
>
Hi all!
I have two questions reg
Matteo Riva wrote:
Squeeze upgrade broke fglrx driver with the new xserver.
How can I downgrade the xserver from 1.7.4 back to 1.6.5 when fglrx
driver was working fine?
What packages do I need to downgrade, and where can I find those
versions?
1.7 is a major headache for me:
http://bugs.debi
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 11:25 +0100, Matteo Riva wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 10:40 AM, tv.deb...@googlemail.com
> wrote:
>
> Thanks! I had looked at the log but I guess I missed the error line
> mentioning dri module not being loaded do to an error.
>
> Installing the firmware-linux package
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 10:40 AM, tv.deb...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> A good starting point would be to look at your /var/log/Xorg.0.log for
> errors (EE) and warnings (WW). Nowadays X his supposed to handle dri or
> compositing alone, but sometime it helps to show him the way. On the
> contrary by
Matteo Riva wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Wolodja Wentland
> wrote:
>
>> I use the radeonhd driver and am very happy with its performance. I ran
>> into the same behaviour you described some time ago and fixed it by using EXA
>> as acceleration method. The applicable part from my xor
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Wolodja Wentland
wrote:
> I use the radeonhd driver and am very happy with its performance. I ran
> into the same behaviour you described some time ago and fixed it by using EXA
> as acceleration method. The applicable part from my xorg.conf is:
>
> --- snip ---
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 11:04 +0100, Matteo Riva wrote:
> 2010/1/30 Johan Grönqvist :
> > Have you tried both the radeon and the radeonhd
> Yes I have tried both drivers and couldn't see any appreciable
> difference.
I use the radeonhd driver and am very happy with its performance. I ran
into th
2010/1/30 Johan Grönqvist :
> Have you tried both the radeon and the radeonhd
> drivers? As I understand it, they should be similar in feature set, but I
> had issues (slow scrolling, among others) with the radeon driver that I do
> not experience with the radeonhd driver.
Yes I have tried both
Matteo Riva skrev:
Yes I am using the free driver now but the performance is poor. Actually
I get a strange behavior:
Have you tried both the radeon and the radeonhd
drivers? As I understand it, they should be similar in feature set,
but I had issues (slow scrolling, among others) with the
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:00 AM, tv.deb...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> before going the (hard) downgrade way, did you try using the free
> "radeon" driver (or whichever is relevant for your card). I "fixed" a
> computer crippled by the same problem yesterday, running an Ati
> HD2600XT, and t
Stefaan Himpe wrote:
>
>> I found snapshot.debian.net but it seems its last update was on 2008 or
>> am I looking in the wrong place
> Sorry I should have checked before pointing you there.
> Make sure to backup any important files (like configuration stuff in /etc)
> before you start to fiddle wi
I found snapshot.debian.net but it seems its last update was on 2008 or
am I looking in the wrong place
Sorry I should have checked before pointing you there.
Make sure to backup any important files (like configuration stuff in /etc)
before you start to fiddle with these things.
Disclaimer: I'
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Stefaan Himpe wrote:
> I also needed to downgrade when the nvidia driver was broken a few weeks
> ago. I managed to do so as root using dpkg with the -i option.
> Note that apt-get from that moment on complained about some broken packages
> on my system (until I d
I also needed to downgrade when the nvidia driver was broken a few weeks
ago. I managed to do so as root using dpkg with the -i option.
Note that apt-get from that moment on complained about some broken
packages on my system (until I did a dist-upgrade when the nvidia driver
was fixed).
For do
On Friday 29 January 2010 09:51:02 Matteo Riva wrote:
> Squeeze upgrade broke fglrx driver with the new xserver.
>
> How can I downgrade the xserver from 1.7.4 back to 1.6.5 when fglrx
> driver was working fine?
> What packages do I need to downgrade, and where can I find those
> versions?
Packag
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:31:10AM +0100, s. keeling wrote:
> Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Fri,24.Oct.08, 17:33:01, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> > > these previous package =EF=AC=81les locally in /var/cache/apt/archives/ or
> > > remotely at http:
> > > //snapshot.debian.net/. See also
Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri,24.Oct.08, 17:33:01, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> > these previous package =EF=AC=81les locally in /var/cache/apt/archives/ or
> > remotely at http:
> > //snapshot.debian.net/. See also 'Rescue using dpkg' on page 12.
>
> Does anybody else see ligatures
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 4:24 AM, T o n g <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:33:45 -0200, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
>
>>> I was experiencing with an unstable package, now I'd like to
>>> downgrade this package...
>
>>> $ apt-cache policy nfs-common
>>> nfs-common:
>>> Installed:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:33:45 -0200, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
>> I was experiencing with an unstable package, now I'd like to
>> downgrade this package...
>> $ apt-cache policy nfs-common
>> nfs-common:
>> Installed: 1:1.1.3-2
>> Candidate: 1:1.1.3-2
>> Version table:
>> *** 1:1.1.3-2 0
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 10:10:50 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Fri,24.Oct.08, 17:33:01, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> > nevermind:
> >
> > Downgrading from a later release of a package to an earlier one is not
> > officially supported in
> > Debian. However, you may find that you have to downgrade
On Fri,24.Oct.08, 17:33:01, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> nevermind:
>
> Downgrading from a later release of a package to an earlier one is not
> officially supported in
> Debian. However, you may find that you have to downgrade a specific
> package in order to
> re-install a version of a package that w
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 05:29:02PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I was experiencing with an unstable package, now I'd like to
> downgrade this package... I have been searching for hours I cannot
> find what I need to do:
>
> I simply tried:
>
> sudo apt-get install -t unsta
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 05:29:02PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I was experiencing with an unstable package, now I'd like to
> downgrade this package... I have been searching for hours I cannot
> find what I need to do:
>
> I simply tried:
>
> sudo apt-get install -t
Mathieu Malaterre escreveu:
> Hi there,
>
> I was experiencing with an unstable package, now I'd like to
> downgrade this package... I have been searching for hours I cannot
> find what I need to do:
> [...]
> $ apt-cache policy nfs-common
> nfs-common:
> Installed: 1:1.1.3-2
> Candidate: 1:1
nevermind:
Downgrading from a later release of a package to an earlier one is not
officially supported in
Debian. However, you may find that you have to downgrade a specific
package in order to
re-install a version of a package that works when a new version
malfunctions. You may find
these previous pa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/11/08 00:24, Rich Healey wrote:
> But wouldn't that also remove every X application i haven't built from
> source as well, due to dependencies?
If it's just the xserver-xorg*, then, "no". Didn't you see the
simulated purge that only removed a b
On Mon March 10 2008 22:24:50 Rich Healey wrote:
> But wouldn't that also remove every X application i haven't built from
> source as well, due to dependencies?
Your X applications depend on the X client, not the X server.
The X client is a whole bunch of libraries such as libx11-6.
--Mike Bird
On Mon March 10 2008 21:54:26 Rich Healey wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On 03/10/08 19:37, Rich Healey wrote:
> >> This is my work machine so my usual tolerance for breaking stuff in the
> >> persuit of knowledge is suspended.
>
> i was asking whether downgrading xorg *was* suicide, not offering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
But wouldn't that also remove every X application i haven't built from
source as well, due to dependencies?
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 03/10/08 23:54, Rich Healey wrote:
>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> On 03/10/08 19:37, Rich Healey wrote:
Last night whil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/10/08 23:54, Rich Healey wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 03/10/08 19:37, Rich Healey wrote:
>>> Last night while bored and reading this list I saw that many use the
>>> unstable version of Xorg on testing systems, and so I decided to do this
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 03/10/08 19:37, Rich Healey wrote:
>> Last night while bored and reading this list I saw that many use the
>> unstable version of Xorg on testing systems, and so I decided to do this
>> as well.
>
>> Works fine, well in fact, e
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/10/08 19:37, Rich Healey wrote:
> Last night while bored and reading this list I saw that many use the
> unstable version of Xorg on testing systems, and so I decided to do this
> as well.
>
> Works fine, well in fact, except that if i try to re
David Baron wrote, On 2006-10-04 01:43:
Since rc2-1 is broken beyond any operation, I put in rc1-1 which had worked.
Results:
1. Got the spreadsheets back.
2. Can read and edit a document only if I run soffice.bin explicitely.
3. Can export and reimport RTF but cannot any other RTF from before.
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 21:08:17 +0200, David Baron wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 October 2006 18:56, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 18:13:43 +0200, David Baron wrote:
> > > Since rc2-1 is broken beyond any operation, I put in rc1-1 which had
> > > worked.
> > >
> > > Results:
> > > 1.
On Tuesday 03 October 2006 18:56, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 18:13:43 +0200, David Baron wrote:
> > Since rc2-1 is broken beyond any operation, I put in rc1-1 which had
> > worked.
> >
> > Results:
> > 1. Got the spreadsheets back.
> > 2. Can read and edit a document only if I
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 18:13:43 +0200, David Baron wrote:
> Since rc2-1 is broken beyond any operation, I put in rc1-1 which had worked.
>
> Results:
> 1. Got the spreadsheets back.
> 2. Can read and edit a document only if I run soffice.bin explicitely.
> 3. Can export and reimport RTF but canno
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Hi,
I use WordPress, which needs mysql and php4.
Normally I use it on Sarge. But I upgraded to Sid on one partition.
Sid uses mysql-server-5.0 while Sarge uses 4.0.24-10sarge1.
That means I can dump the db on Sarge and read it back in on Sid.
But I cannot do that from
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 12:48:08AM +0100, Adam Hardy wrote:
>
> I'm using etch / testing and I did some upgrades (to try to get the
> hotsynch for my handheld working) but things went badly wrong.
>
> Now I'm trying to owngrade udev to 0.79 from 0.8xx but I can't get
> synaptic to allow me to for
So, obviously the source for my version of XOrg (6.9.0) not there. I
tried through ATI web page
(https://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=894&task=knowledge&folderID=300),
but it has only version for X.Org 6.8. So Flavio's installer is
downloading .rpm packages preconfigured for d
Jonathan Kaye wrote:
Ivan Glushkov wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to downgrade my Xorg version, since I need that for
installing the ATI drivers (fglrx). The problem is that they need
version < 6.8.9, and I have currently 6.9.0. I tried to change my
sources.list to point to testing, and I was thinkin
Ivan Glushkov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to downgrade my Xorg version, since I need that for
> installing the ATI drivers (fglrx). The problem is that they need
> version < 6.8.9, and I have currently 6.9.0. I tried to change my
> sources.list to point to testing, and I was thinking that simple
El mié, 28-09-2005 a las 10:10 -0400, Kevin B. McCarty escribió:
Thanks for your help Kevin. The procedure you outlined (below) for
downgrading just worked ok for me. I understood it and i think it makes
sense. I did not know how to get a list of packages from each branch,
like the one given by ap
"Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alf wrote:
Now my system is no very stable, and some applications crash now and
then. Because of this, i'd like to return to a more stable state. Is
there a way to uninstall all packages from unstable branch? I'd l
Alf wrote:
> Now my system is no very stable, and some applications crash now and
> then. Because of this, i'd like to return to a more stable state. Is
> there a way to uninstall all packages from unstable branch? I'd like to
> get my system back to testing, say, or stable.
Downgrading in genera
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:18:07PM -0700, Ibrahim Mubarak wrote:
>
> First of all, how can I find out what version of a package is installed
> on my system without going through synaptic or dselect, because
> sometimes I don't have access to an X session and the version number
> would be too long
--- Ibrahim Mubarak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
First of all, how can I find out what version of a package is installed
on my system without going through synaptic or dselect, [...]
Have a look at the manpage of the 'apt-cache' command, especially the
'policy' part:
$ apt-cache policy kdelibs-
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 03:36:33PM -0500, Kent West wrote:
> Ibrahim Mubarak wrote:
>
> >--- Ibrahim Mubarak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I performed an upgrade yesterday to my SID system. I know these are
> >>tough times with the migration to gcc 4.0 and everything, and that I
> >>sho
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
