In article ,
David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 16 Oct 2023 at 16:05:48 (-0700), Bill Brelsford wrote:
>> The latest version of procps (2:4.0.4-2) depends on libsystemd0, so
>> upgrading 2:4.0.3-1 to it causes libsystemd0 to be installed. But
>> on my sysvinit system it confl
On Mon 16 Oct 2023 at 16:05:48 (-0700), Bill Brelsford wrote:
> The latest version of procps (2:4.0.4-2) depends on libsystemd0, so
> upgrading 2:4.0.3-1 to it causes libsystemd0 to be installed. But
> on my sysvinit system it conflicts with libelogind0:
>
> libelogi
The latest version of procps (2:4.0.4-2) depends on libsystemd0, so
upgrading 2:4.0.3-1 to it causes libsystemd0 to be installed. But
on my sysvinit system it conflicts with libelogind0:
libelogind0 : Conflicts: libsystemd0 but 254.5-1 is to be installed
Should I let libsystemd0 replace
On 29/06/15 11:39, Dhiraj Bhor wrote:
I am using debian 8.
I need help to resolve this issue.
$ tar xvf procps-3.2.7.tar.gz
$ cd procps-3.2.7/
I'm curious: why do you need to build a nine-year-old version of the
procps tools on a Debian 8 system?
(The answer may help people to provid
Hi all,
I came across following error.
*In file included from top.c:56:0:*
*top.h:248:4: error: redeclaration of enumerator ‘P_PID’*
*P_PID, P_PPD, P_URR, P_UID, P_URE, P_GRP, P_TTY,*
*^*
I am using debian 8.
I need help to resolve this issue.
$ tar xvf procps-3.2.7.tar.gz
$ cd procps
Navdeep Bhatia wrote:
> The "FROM" field in output of "w" command prints the value of the
> remote-host. But the output for this field can contain just 16 characters as
> depicted in the code snippet (taken from w.c, release 3.2.8) below.
> This truncates the value in case FROM field is an IPV6 add
Hi,
The "FROM" field in output of "w" command prints the value of the
remote-host. But the output for this field can contain just 16 characters as
depicted in the code snippet (taken from w.c, release 3.2.8) below.
This truncates the value in case FROM field is an IPV6 address or a
hostname. Is th
On 21 Mar 2004, Ken Bloom wrote:
> On 2004-03-21, Anthony Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 21 Mar 2004, Anthony Campbell wrote:
> >> For some time there have been errors processing procps. Using aptitude I'm
> >> getting:
> >>
On 2004-03-21, Anthony Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2004, Anthony Campbell wrote:
>> For some time there have been errors processing procps. Using aptitude I'm getting:
>> --
>> (Reading database ... 82789 files and
On 21 Mar 2004, Anthony Campbell wrote:
> For some time there have been errors processing procps. Using aptitude I'm getting:
> --
> (Reading database ... 82789 files and directories currently installed.)
> Preparing to replace procps 1:3.1.14-1 (using ...
On 21 Mar 2004, Anthony Campbell wrote:
> For some time there have been errors processing procps. Using aptitude I'm getting:
> --
> (Reading database ... 82789 files and directories currently installed.)
> Preparing to replace procps 1:3.1.14-1 (using ...
For some time there have been errors processing procps. Using aptitude I'm getting:
--
(Reading database ... 82789 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace procps 1:3.1.14-1 (using .../procps_1%3a3.2.0-1_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement p
one
1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 5 not upgraded.
Need to get 0B/145kB of archives. After unpacking 0B will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n]
(Reading database ... 27040 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace procps 1:2.0.7-8 (using
.../pro
On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 03:06:36PM -0500, Andy Loftus wrote:
> I'm trying to install procps-2.0.6 (as required by kernel 2.2.15) and it fails
> because it can't find termcap.h.
> I don't know what termcap is but I get the impression that I don't need it
> since
I'm trying to install procps-2.0.6 (as required by kernel 2.2.15) and it fails
because it can't find termcap.h.
I don't know what termcap is but I get the impression that I don't need it
since it is part of oldlibs in dselect (and the description restates my
assumption, &#
John Kuhn wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 08:18:33AM +0200, Vitux wrote:
> > John Kuhn wrote:
> > >
> > > My experiance was that 2.2.13 is the latest stable kernel that you
> > > can run on slink without updating any other packages. Kernel 2.2.14
> &
On Sun, Jan 09, 2000 at 10:45:24AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
> regarding my query about packages held back in the upgrade, they were
> flwm kbd kdelibs2g moonlight procps
> Are there problems with these?
>
Not necessarily at all. Sometimes upgrading packages requires
in
Kenward writes:
> Are there problems with these?
It may be that you have something installed that depends on the slink
versions. You should not have ended up without /bin/kill, though.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
regarding my query about packages held back in the upgrade, they were
flwm kbd kdelibs2g moonlight procps
Are there problems with these?
Kenward
People have suggested the installation of procps to bring /bin/kill back
into my system. Sounds good. I ran dpkg -l procps to see what its status
was, and found "hi" returned, so it has been installed (2.0.3-3) but was
apparently held back when I upgraded last week.
?? Why was it
Hwei Sheng TEOH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmmm, only one combination seems to work though... installing procps first
> will cause dpkg to complain when bsdutils is being installed. For some reason,
> installing procps on top of bsdutils seem to simply overwrite /bin/kill wi
On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, David Coe wrote:
> Hwei Sheng TEOH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
> > dpkg: error processing
> > /var/cache/apt/archives/bsdutils_1%3a2.9w-3.1_i386.deb
> > (--unpack):
> > trying to overwrite `/bin/kill', which is also
Hwei Sheng TEOH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/bsdutils_1%3a2.9w-3.1_i386.deb
> (--unpack):
> trying to overwrite `/bin/kill', which is also in package procps
[...]
> However, I was just wondering, is it really the case
I was just upgrading my potato system, and apt-get stopped when processing
bsdutils. There was an error message from dpkg:
dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/bsdutils_1%3a2.9w-3.1_i386.deb
(--unpack):
trying to overwrite `/bin/kill', which is also in package procps
Errors
Marshal Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I really don't know where I should post this, but I guess here would
> be as good as any. The latest procps package is overlapping with
> bsdutils. Namely /bin/kill is overlapping.
Yes, the new bsdutils (not yet on the mirrors) h
I really don't know where I should post this, but I guess here would
be as good as any. The latest procps package is overlapping with
bsdutils. Namely /bin/kill is overlapping.
Okay. Thanks.
Marshal
Next problem with my Debian 2.0 upgrade :-)
When I start TOP, I get this message...
"psadatabase has no magic no.procps version 1.11 instead of procps
version 1.2.7"
Now I knwo what it means, but how to I mend it :-)
I have tried removing (purge) the procps package, and then re-
Is there an estimate on when the fixed .deb version of procps is going to
be released? It's the last thing I need to install to complete the
transition from Bo to Hamm, and is preventing me from upgrading to kernel
2.1.78.
TIA,
Steve Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
nunya_ on EFnet IRC #Linux
O
On Sat, Jan 17, 1998 at 01:05:17AM -0800, George Bonser wrote:
>
> Preparing to replace procps 1:1.2.2-1 (using .../base/procps_1.2.5-1.deb)
> ...
> Unpacking replacement procps ...
> dpkg: error processing
> debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/base/procps_1.2.5-1.deb
> (
.1.12.gz or you can download the intere
procps_1.12.2_glibc_2.1.42.tar.gz just patched for you.
If you are a debian user you will find the binary deb packages too.
I done this patch because procps_1.12.2.tar.gz not works for me using
2.1.42 kernels and because xcpustate of procps.1.02 not works
This patch applied to procps_1.12.2.tar.gz make possible to use procps on
my [2.1.42] kernel (or >) and can be compiled with glibc (libc6).
Andrea Arcangeli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
HomePage: http://www.imola.queen.it/user/arcangeli/
Debian Mirror: ftp://dida43.deis.unibo.it/pub/deb
I installed the new version of procps and the free program well...
[bitgate]udjat ~ $> free
total used free sharedbuffers cached
Mem: 31000 26112 4888 7124 6684
-/+ buffers:194284192508 <---I dont thi
Hi
I noticed a number of days ago that the new version of procps (1.12-1)
had been uploaded to the master site.
Having checked ftp.debian.org today and finding that it is not there yet
I was wondering if there was some hold up.
Joe.
ps. I have been waiting for this update for a while as I am
Hakan Ardo writes:
>
> Hi,
> I tested to install procps 1.01a-1, but after that all I get out of ps is:
>
> ps: can't load library 'libproc.so.1.01a'
This is a bug in the postinst. I don't know if it has been reported yet.
Will check that.
You should
On Sun, 25 Aug 1996, Hakan Ardo wrote:
> Hi,
> I tested to install procps 1.01a-1, but after that all I get out of ps is:
>
> ps: can't load library 'libproc.so.1.01a'
>
> The libriry I have is libproc.so.0.99, which package contains the new version,
> and sh
> Hi Hakan --
>
> You said:
> > I tested to install procps 1.01a-1, but after that all I get out of ps is:
> >
> > ps: can't load library 'libproc.so.1.01a'
> >
> > The libriry I have is libproc.so.0.99, which package contains the new
>
Hi Hakan --
You said:
> I tested to install procps 1.01a-1, but after that all I get out of ps is:
>
> ps: can't load library 'libproc.so.1.01a'
>
> The libriry I have is libproc.so.0.99, which package contains the new version
,
> and shouldn't the depend
Hi,
I tested to install procps 1.01a-1, but after that all I get out of ps is:
ps: can't load library 'libproc.so.1.01a'
The libriry I have is libproc.so.0.99, which package contains the new version,
and shouldn't the dependency infomation in procps have told me that?
38 matches
Mail list logo
