On 01/15/09 16:46, Stephen Dewey wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 01/15/09 16:22, Stephen Dewey wrote:
Try:
# apt-get install linux-image-2.6-686
By the way, isn't this the linux image for Intel through P4? I am not
sure if this is the right package for me, I am
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 01/15/09 16:22, Stephen Dewey wrote:
>>>
>>> Try:
>>> # apt-get install linux-image-2.6-686
>>>
>>
>> By the way, isn't this the linux image for Intel through P4? I am not
>> sure if this is the right package for me, I am running x86_64. una
On 01/15/09 16:22, Stephen Dewey wrote:
Try:
# apt-get install linux-image-2.6-686
By the way, isn't this the linux image for Intel through P4? I am not
sure if this is the right package for me, I am running x86_64. uname-a
gives:
Linux asystems 2.6.16.29-xen #1 SMP Sun Sep 30 04:00:13 UTC 200
> Try:
> # apt-get install linux-image-2.6-686
>
By the way, isn't this the linux image for Intel through P4? I am not
sure if this is the right package for me, I am running x86_64. uname-a
gives:
Linux asystems 2.6.16.29-xen #1 SMP Sun Sep 30 04:00:13 UTC 2007
x86_64 GNU/Linux
Any idea how I can
> Look for /var/cache/apt/archives/linux-image-2.6*deb.
>
> I'd manually (dpkg -i") install install the relevant package then reboot and
> try again following the Etch->Lenny instructions.
>
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't find
/var/cache/apt/archives/linux-image-2.6*deb, does that mean any
> since it was apt-get, and not aptitude, that installed these 300
> packages, apt-get decided that they were wanted installs. But not
> aptitude.
Well, I guess they were mostly installed as some kind of dependencies
anyway, because I can guarantee to you that I don't miss anything
since the mass
On 01/15/09 13:15, Stephen Dewey wrote:
[snip]
Ok. Yeah I guess I should have done things a bit differently. Given
that I started a different way, switching sources to Lenny and running
an upgrade then a dist-upgrade that left "75 not fully installed or
removed" packages, do you have any idea ho
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 02:15:52PM -0500, Stephen Dewey wrote:
> this mess? I am tempted to simply install the new kernel as suggested
> (apt-get install linux-image-2.6-686) and then run apt-get
> dist-upgrade again to finish the process once that dependency is
> resolved, but I am worried about m
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Stephen Dewey
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 4:56 AM, Johannes Wiedersich
> wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Stephen Dewey wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
> I am having trouble with the libfaac
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 4:56 AM, Johannes Wiedersich
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Stephen Dewey wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
I am having trouble with the libfaac0 package, and have been hoping to
upgrade it the hope that
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 01:51:11PM -0200, André Neves wrote:
> I had always used apt-get in my system, doing autoremove
> whenever it suggested there were unneeded packages installed. One day
> I ran aptitude out of curiosity, and well, it suggested to uninstall
> almost 300 unneeded packages!
sin
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:51, Ron Johnson wrote:
> From memory and the fact that now apt regularly nags me that certain packages
> aren't needed anymore, and can be dropped with 'apt-get autoremove', I
> *think* that the same (or similar) algorithms were implemented in apt,
I disagree. I had a
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 02:21:53PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
> André Neves wrote:
> >> The main difference is that aptitude is now prefered over apt-get.
> >
> > Sorry, preferred by who?
>
> By the debian developers. From
> /usr/share/doc/aptitude/README
>
> > What is this aptitude thing
On 01/15/09 07:21, Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
[snip]
IIRC, it's mainly the better algorithms to resolve dependencies and the
ability to distinguish between packages that are automatically installed
vs manually installed, that have been introduced in aptitude, but not in
apt-get.
From memory an
> IIRC, it's mainly the better algorithms to resolve dependencies and the
> ability to distinguish between packages that are automatically installed
> vs manually installed, that have been introduced in aptitude, but not in
> apt-get.
Thanks for the info. I might turn aptitude into the canonical w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
André Neves wrote:
>> The main difference is that aptitude is now prefered over apt-get.
>
> Sorry, preferred by who?
By the debian developers. From
/usr/share/doc/aptitude/README
> What is this aptitude thing, anyway?
>
> aptitude is a featureful
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 09:59:23 -0200, André Neves (andrechale...@gmail.com)
wrote:
> > The main difference is that aptitude is now prefered over apt-get.
>
> Sorry, preferred by who?
"aptitude is now the preferred text front end for APT, the Advanced
Package Tool"
Read it in full here:
htt
> The main difference is that aptitude is now prefered over apt-get.
Sorry, preferred by who?
André
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephen Dewey wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> I am having trouble with the libfaac0 package, and have been hoping to
>>> upgrade it the hope that a bug fix has been released for my problem.
>>> The libfaac0 package re
On 01/15/09 03:34, Stephen Dewey wrote:
Ok. I am OK with moving to Lenny. Would it then be OK for me to simply
upgrade to Lenny via the below?
apt-get update
apt-get -t stable upgrade
apt-get -t stable dist-upgrade
apt-get -t testing upgrade
apt-get -t testing dist-upgrade
(I am getting this fr
>> Ok. I am OK with moving to Lenny. Would it then be OK for me to simply
>> upgrade to Lenny via the below?
>>
>> apt-get update
>> apt-get -t stable upgrade
>> apt-get -t stable dist-upgrade
>> apt-get -t testing upgrade
>> apt-get -t testing dist-upgrade
>>
>> (I am getting this from
>> http://w
Hi I am using Debian Lenny beta 2 and I have just en staled synaddsubefx and
things went t swimmingly but there is no "Audio" the sound blaster platinum
card woks fine except when I try to play "zynAddsubefx" aney body have an
idea why I have no Audio ??.thanks in advance.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at
On 01/14/09 22:54, Stephen Dewey wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
I am having trouble with the libfaac0 package, and have been hoping to
upgrade it the hope that a bug fix has been released for my problem.
The libfaac0 package requires libc6 >= 2.7-1 but etch only has
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>
>> I am having trouble with the libfaac0 package, and have been hoping to
>> upgrade it the hope that a bug fix has been released for my problem.
>> The libfaac0 package requires libc6 >= 2.7-1 but etch only has
>> 2.3.6.ds1-13etch8, so I've
On 01/14/09 22:39, Stephen Dewey wrote:
I am having trouble with the libfaac0 package, and have been hoping to
upgrade it the hope that a bug fix has been released for my problem.
The libfaac0 package requires libc6 >= 2.7-1 but etch only has
2.3.6.ds1-13etch8, so I've added a testing distributio
I am having trouble with the libfaac0 package, and have been hoping to
upgrade it the hope that a bug fix has been released for my problem.
The libfaac0 package requires libc6 >= 2.7-1 but etch only has
2.3.6.ds1-13etch8, so I've added a testing distribution to my sources
list.
However, after runn
26 matches
Mail list logo
