On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 10:38:09AM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> spoke too soon. firefox keeps dying with:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ firefox
> /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin: symbol lookup error:\
> /usr/lib/libpangocairo-1.0.so.0: undefined symbol: \
> cairo_scaled_font_get_font
spoke too soon. firefox keeps dying with:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ firefox
/usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin: symbol lookup error:\
/usr/lib/libpangocairo-1.0.so.0: undefined symbol: \
cairo_scaled_font_get_font_options
tom arnall
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PR
spoke too soon. firefox keeps dying with the message:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ firefox
/usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin: symbol lookup error:\
/usr/lib/libpangocairo-1.0.so.0: undefined symbol:\
cairo_scaled_font_get_font_options
and sometimes i get with th
On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 12:55:35PM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> i did the dist-upgrade y'day and e'thing i can remember to look at is fixed.
> what a treasure this maillist!
yay! enjoy.
A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
i did the dist-upgrade y'day and e'thing i can remember to look at is fixed.
what a treasure this maillist!
tom arnall
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:24:40 -0500
Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 14:03 -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 11:35:03PM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > debian:/etc/apt# cat apt.conf
> > > > APT::Defa
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:23:33 -0500
Greg Folkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 23:35 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:21:16 -0800
> > tom arnall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > i have my apt-get parameter files set up properly, i think, but
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 14:03 -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 11:35:03PM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > debian:/etc/apt# cat apt.conf
> > > APT::Default-Release "etch";
> >
> > It's not related to your problem, but 'etch' doesn't work as a
> > Defa
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 23:35 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:21:16 -0800
> tom arnall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > i have my apt-get parameter files set up properly, i think, but when
> > i do an apt-cache policy i don't like what i get, as follows:
> >
> > deb
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 11:35:03PM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> >
> >
> > debian:/etc/apt# cat apt.conf
> > APT::Default-Release "etch";
>
> It's not related to your problem, but 'etch' doesn't work as a
> Default-Release. You must use 'testing'. Also this options is needed
> only if y
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:21:16 -0800
tom arnall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 January 2007 15:35, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 03:28:55PM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 09 January 2007 23:08, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 09, 2
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 12:21:16PM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 January 2007 15:35, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> >
> > Okay, I would say at this point you should probably go ahead and
> > dist-upgrade yourself to get caught up. I don't know how long its been
> > since you upgraded,
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 15:35, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 03:28:55PM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> > On Tuesday 09 January 2007 23:08, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 05:19:51PM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> > > > > > i replaced 'testing' with '
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 03:28:55PM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 January 2007 23:08, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 05:19:51PM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> > > > > i replaced 'testing' with 'etch' today and haven't used apt-get
> > > > > since.
> > > > >
> > > > >
On Tuesday 09 January 2007 23:08, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 05:19:51PM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> > > > i replaced 'testing' with 'etch' today and haven't used apt-get
> > > > since.
> > > >
> > > > how do i tell which version (testing/stable) i'm running?
> > >
> > > y
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 05:19:51PM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
>
> > > i replaced 'testing' with 'etch' today and haven't used apt-get since.
> > >
> > > how do i tell which version (testing/stable) i'm running?
> >
> > you'll have to check the version numbers of a few things. I don't know
> > how ap
> > i replaced 'testing' with 'etch' today and haven't used apt-get since.
> >
> > how do i tell which version (testing/stable) i'm running?
>
> you'll have to check the version numbers of a few things. I don't know
> how apt behaves if you don't specify a default distribution when there
> are mul
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 01:12:29PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> Hope that is enough of an explanation for you.
Just to make sure I didn't do anything wrong I will detail my steps:
My setup:
think:~# cat /etc/apt/apt.conf
APT::Default-Release "unstable";
think:~# cat /etc/apt/sources.list
deb ht
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 01:12:29PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> Hope that is enough of an explanation for you.
Just to make sure I didn't do anything wrong I will detail my steps:
My setup:
think:~# cat /etc/apt/apt.conf
APT::Default-Release "unstable";
think:~# cat /etc/apt/sources.list
deb ht
On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 07:50 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 04:05:31PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 22:48 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:04:46PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > > > You should take a look at my sources.list
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 04:05:31PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 22:48 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:04:46PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > > You should take a look at my sources.list
> > >
> > > http://www.gregfolkert.net/files/sources.list
> >
On Tue, 2006-12-26 at 10:41 -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> On Friday 22 December 2006 13:05, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 22:48 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:04:46PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > > > You should take a look at my sources.list
> > > >
> >
On Friday 22 December 2006 13:05, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 22:48 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:04:46PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > > You should take a look at my sources.list
> > >
> > > http://www.gregfolkert.net/files/sources.list
> >
> > [qoute
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 22:48 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:04:46PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> > You should take a look at my sources.list
> >
> > http://www.gregfolkert.net/files/sources.list
>
> [qoute from above link]
> # COMMENTS:
> # Do not forget to put in /etc/a
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:04:46PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
> You should take a look at my sources.list
>
> http://www.gregfolkert.net/files/sources.list
[qoute from above link]
# COMMENTS:
# Do not forget to put in /etc/apt/apt.conf
#
# APT::Default-Release "";
# APT::Cache-Limit 1800
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 11:50 -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> On Thursday 21 December 2006 11:36, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 09:20:09PM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 11:06:54AM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 21 December 2006 10:45, A
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> On Thursday 21 December 2006 11:36, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 09:20:09PM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 11:06:54AM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> > > >
> > > > what are the consequen
On Thursday 21 December 2006 11:36, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 09:20:09PM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 11:06:54AM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> > > On Thursday 21 December 2006 10:45, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 10:00:05
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 09:20:09PM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 11:06:54AM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> > On Thursday 21 December 2006 10:45, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 10:00:05AM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ fnd apt_preferen
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 08:23:08PM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 09:56:29AM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 10:42:33AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 07:14:08PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > >
> > > > yo
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 11:06:54AM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> On Thursday 21 December 2006 10:45, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 10:00:05AM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ fnd apt_preferences
> > > /usr/share/man/es/man5/apt_preferences.5.gz
> > > /usr/share/m
On Thursday 21 December 2006 10:45, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 10:00:05AM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ fnd apt_preferences
> > /usr/share/man/es/man5/apt_preferences.5.gz
> > /usr/share/man/fr/man5/apt_preferences.5.gz
> > /usr/share/man/man5/apt_preference
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 10:00:05AM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ fnd apt_preferences
> /usr/share/man/es/man5/apt_preferences.5.gz
> /usr/share/man/fr/man5/apt_preferences.5.gz
> /usr/share/man/man5/apt_preferences.5.gz
> /usr/share/man/pt_BR/man5/apt_preferences.5.gz
> /usr/shar
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 09:56:29AM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 10:42:33AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 07:14:08PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> >
> > > you'll have to check the version numbers of a few things. I don't know
> > >
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 10:00:05AM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 December 2006 19:14, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> >
> > regardless, what is your version of libc6? that's probably the best
> > indicator at this point. one of my etch boxes is running
> >
> > dpkg -l | grep libc6
> > i
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 10:42:33AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 07:14:08PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>
> > you'll have to check the version numbers of a few things. I don't know
> > how apt behaves if you don't specify a default distribution when there
> > are m
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 19:14, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 05:25:51PM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> > On Wednesday 20 December 2006 15:41, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 02:20:16PM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> > > > and until 'etch' becomes 's
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 07:14:08PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> you'll have to check the version numbers of a few things. I don't know
> how apt behaves if you don't specify a default distribution when there
> are multiple sources. for example, I have my apt_preferences set for
> "sid" on
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 05:25:51PM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 December 2006 15:41, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 02:20:16PM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> > > and until 'etch' becomes 'stable', do i get rid of the ref's to 'stable'
> > > in sources.list once i
On Wednesday 20 December 2006 15:41, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 02:20:16PM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> > and until 'etch' becomes 'stable', do i get rid of the ref's to 'stable'
> > in sources.list once i've replaced 'testing' with 'etch'? or have the
> > ref's to 'stable
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 02:20:16PM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
>
>
> and until 'etch' becomes 'stable', do i get rid of the ref's to 'stable' in
> sources.list once i've replaced 'testing' with 'etch'? or have the ref's
> to 'stable' been ignored all along, beginning at the point where i put the
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 13:51, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:33:10AM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> > On Monday 18 December 2006 11:10, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > > largely. Are you currently pointed at testing or at etch? If at
> > > testing, you might want to cha
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 02:29:08PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 01:51:57PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>
> [...]
> > warning! train platform analogy! warning!
> >
> > okay, here's how I view the releases. Debian is like a set of
> > trains. There are a limited
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 01:51:57PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
[...]
> warning! train platform analogy! warning!
>
> okay, here's how I view the releases. Debian is like a set of
> trains. There are a limited number of platforms for getting on the
> trains. Each platform has a name and the
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:33:10AM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
>
>
> Andrew,
>
> Thanks for getting back to me. By 'pointed at Etch', do you mean get rid of
> the 'testing' addresses and have only 'stable' in 'sources.list'? Hate being
> a nervous nelly, but it means a lot to me to get a solid os
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:33:10AM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> On Monday 18 December 2006 11:10, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> >
> > largely. Are you currently pointed at testing or at etch? If at
> > testing, you might want to change to etch so you don't get caught out.
> >
> > my one etch server
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:33:10AM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> Thanks for getting back to me. By 'pointed at Etch', do you mean get rid of
> the 'testing' addresses and have only 'stable' in 'sources.list'? Hate being
> a nervous nelly, but it means a lot to me to get a solid os on my
On Monday 18 December 2006 11:10, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:59:26AM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> > On Saturday 18 November 2006 17:33, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 07:47:21PM -0500, Leonid Grinberg wrote:
> > > > I assume that you mean that u
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:59:26AM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
> On Saturday 18 November 2006 17:33, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 07:47:21PM -0500, Leonid Grinberg wrote:
> > > I assume that you mean that upgrades do not break your system. Testing
> > > is always better at thi
On Saturday 18 November 2006 17:33, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 07:47:21PM -0500, Leonid Grinberg wrote:
> > I assume that you mean that upgrades do not break your system. Testing
> > is always better at this than Unstable. Etch is a particular example,
> > because it will b
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 07:47:21PM -0500, Leonid Grinberg wrote:
> I assume that you mean that upgrades do not break your system. Testing
> is always better at this than Unstable. Etch is a particular example,
> because it will become stable soon.
>
Upgrades in testing or unstable always risking b
I assume that you mean that upgrades do not break your system. Testing
is always better at this than Unstable. Etch is a particular example,
because it will become stable soon.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 11:12:39AM -0800, tom arnall wrote:
>
> of the two versions of Debian - unstable and testing - which is the most
> likely to provide smooth upgrades?
>
What do you mean by smooth upgrades? If you are the sort of person who
likes to update every day, then unstable is mor
53 matches
Mail list logo
