On 2022-09-22 11:43, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Tim wrote:
Quick followup for those here who like me might have pinned grub, the
fixed version is in bullseye-proposed-updates for those who prefer not
to leave pins lying around forgotten...
I haven't rebooted the host yet but I can confirm th
Tim wrote:
>Quick followup for those here who like me might have pinned grub, the
>fixed version is in bullseye-proposed-updates for those who prefer not
>to leave pins lying around forgotten...
>
>I haven't rebooted the host yet but I can confirm that my guests start
>
Quick followup for those here who like me might have pinned grub, the
fixed version is in bullseye-proposed-updates for those who prefer not
to leave pins lying around forgotten...
I haven't rebooted the host yet but I can confirm that my guests start
ok.
Thanks Steve for getting the fi
PS: Sorry for sending this thrice. I did not receive a copy
due to some misconfiguration.
Harri
Hi folks,
how good is test coverage of proposed-updates? This repository
is pretty much unknown (IMHO), so I wonder if there are numbers
from the popularity contest?
Regards
Harri
Hi folks,
how good is test coverage of proposed-updates? This repository
is pretty much unknown (IMHO), so I wonder if there are numbers
from the popularity contest?
Regards
Harri
Hi folks,
how good is test coverage of proposed-updates? Its pretty unknown
(IMHO), so I wonder if there are numbers from the popularity
contest?
Regards
Harri
Good catch. It seems that sometime after I wrote this email a new signature was
generated that is no longer generating errors so I guess it was a temporary
issue.
-T
> On Aug 2, 2018, at 7:28 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>
> ADD6B7E2 is an encryption subkey. As this is not used, it was revoke
Todd Fleisher writes:
> I’m seeing this as well and suspect it is due to the GPG sub-key
> ADD6B7E2 having been revoked. I am not sure why this has been done,
> perhaps ftpmaster can provide some context?
ADD6B7E2 is an encryption subkey. As this is not used, it was revoked
later (in 2014).
New
Hi Christoph,
I’m seeing this as well and suspect it is due to the GPG sub-key ADD6B7E2
having been revoked. I am not sure why this has been done, perhaps ftpmaster
can provide some context?
-T
Signing Key
> (7.0/wheezy)
> gpgv: Signature made Do 20 Jul 2017 16:31:09 CEST
> gpgv:using RSA key 8B48AD6246925553
> gpgv: BAD signature from "Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key (7.0/wheezy)
>
> .temp/.tmp/dists/wheezy-proposed-updates/Release.gpg sign
Hello,
(sorry, forgot to translate the subject in my last message)
the last few days, when I execute the command
debmirror /ftproot/debian --host=ftp.us.debian.org --method=rsync
--root=:debian --nosource --dist=wheezy-proposed-updates
--section=main,contrib,non-free --arch=amd64,i386
Hello,
the last few days, when I execute the command
debmirror /ftproot/debian --host=ftp.us.debian.org --method=rsync
--root=:debian --nosource --dist=wheezy-proposed-updates
--section=main,contrib,non-free --arch=amd64,i386 --getcontents
--diff=none --postcleanup --i18n --progress
I get
On Wed, 2013-05-29 at 19:45 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 29 mai 13, 11:27:17, Greg wrote:
> >
> > With the proposed-updates enabled:
> >
> > $ apt-cache policy
> ...
> > 500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-proposed-updates/main amd64
>
On Mi, 29 mai 13, 11:27:17, Greg wrote:
>
> With the proposed-updates enabled:
>
> $ apt-cache policy
...
> 500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-proposed-updates/main amd64
> Packages
> release
> v=7.0-updates,o=Debian,a=proposed-updates,n=wheezy-proposed
he policy'.
>
> Kind regards,
> Andrei
Running the command you requested reminded me of one additional thing I
did was disable the proposed-updates entry in the sources.list
(following a different set of advice), I tried running the steps both
with the entry in place and without it an
On Ma, 28 mai 13, 10:55:23, Greg Cercy wrote:
>
> I followed instructions about using apt pinning to do this at:
>
> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=432636
>
> I'm running wheezy (not ubuntu, so I changed all references of fiesty to
> wheezy.
>
> However none of the packages get remove
I need to remove packages from proposed-updates. There were recently
some changes made to several x packages that I installed last night. I
wish I hadn't. Since upgrading, x has frozen nearly a half dozen times.
I can restart gdm and recover and I've tried rebooting, but the problem
st
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>
> http://www.debian.org/releases/proposed-updates
>
> I've never used that repo before :-?
>
>
I hadn't either until I read it was the way to fix the disappearing mouse
pointer issue in Squeeze, here
http://hacks
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 04:05:20PM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> In <20110519195909.GA8991@Europa.office>, Freeman wrote:
> >Proposed-updates replaces the volatile archive.
>
> No, that's stable-updates, not stable-proposed-updates.
Ugh. True this is.
In <20110519195909.GA8991@Europa.office>, Freeman wrote:
>Proposed-updates replaces the volatile archive.
No, that's stable-updates, not stable-proposed-updates.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ:
In , Camaleón wrote:
>On Wed, 18 May 2011 20:15:33 -0700, Mark wrote:
>> I had to add the squeeze-proposed-updates repos to my sources.list after
>> learning about the intel 855gm bug in squeeze that requires a fix from
>> the proposed updates section. After apt-get updat
In , Mark wrote:
>I had to add the squeeze-proposed-updates repos to my sources.list after
>learning about the intel 855gm bug in squeeze that requires a fix from the
>proposed updates section. After apt-get update and apt-get upgrade, 13
>packages were updated/upgraded including ap
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 12:59:09PM -0700, evenso wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 08:15:33PM -0700, Mark wrote:
> >After apt-get update and apt-get upgrade, 13
> > packages were updated/upgraded including apt. Am I supposed to keep the
> > proposed updates repos active in
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 08:15:33PM -0700, Mark wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I had to add the squeeze-proposed-updates repos to my sources.list after
> learning about the intel 855gm bug in squeeze that requires a fix from the
> proposed updates section.
Proposed-updates replaces the volatil
On Wed, 18 May 2011 20:15:33 -0700, Mark wrote:
> I had to add the squeeze-proposed-updates repos to my sources.list after
> learning about the intel 855gm bug in squeeze that requires a fix from
> the proposed updates section. After apt-get update and apt-get upgrade,
> 13 packages
Hi,
I had to add the squeeze-proposed-updates repos to my sources.list after
learning about the intel 855gm bug in squeeze that requires a fix from the
proposed updates section. After apt-get update and apt-get upgrade, 13
packages were updated/upgraded including apt. Am I supposed to keep the
Thilo Six wrote the following on 11.02.2011 17:41
> Hello
>
> i am wondering why squeeze-proposed-updates contains lenny packages like e.g.:
>
> $ apt-cache policy linux-headers-2.6.26-2-amd64
> linux-headers-2.6.26-2-amd64:
> Installed: (none)
> Candidate: 2.6.26-26
> yes. I know the version numbers are lower than in squeeze, so harm is done to
^- no
sorry for the mistake
--
bye Thilo
4096R/0xC70B1A8F
721B 1BA0 095C 1ABA 3FC6 7C18 89A4 A2A0 C70B 1A8F
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote the following on 12.02.2011 00:00
-- --
> (aptitude search '~S~Asqueeze-proposed-updates!~Alenny-proposed-updates'),
> maybe? You might have to use different search terms, depending on what is in
> those Release files.
I'll see how
s and is currently being repackaged for
>> oldstable. It's possible it also happened with something that was
>> targeting stable-proposed- updates.
>>
>> This package won't cause any problems where it is at, so a bug is not
>> appropriate for it being present in
of the default (unstable) environment.
That is why it made me wonder. This and given it was just today that a quite
large number of those packages appeared at once.
I've downloaded the Packages.bz2 from {squeeze,lenny}-proposed-updates and
compared those:
$ sed '{/Version/!d ; /lenny/!d}' P
In , Thilo Six wrote:
>i am wondering why squeeze-proposed-updates contains lenny packages like
>e.g.:
>
>$ apt-cache policy linux-headers-2.6.26-2-amd64
>linux-headers-2.6.26-2-amd64:
> Installed: (none)
> Candidate: 2.6.26-26lenny2
> Version table:
> 2.6.26-2
On Friday 11 February 2011 17:41:52 Thilo Six wrote:
> Hello
>
> i am wondering why squeeze-proposed-updates contains lenny packages like
> e.g.:
>
> $ apt-cache policy linux-headers-2.6.26-2-amd64
> linux-headers-2.6.26-2-amd64:
> Installed: (none)
> Candidate:
Hello
i am wondering why squeeze-proposed-updates contains lenny packages like e.g.:
$ apt-cache policy linux-headers-2.6.26-2-amd64
linux-headers-2.6.26-2-amd64:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 2.6.26-26lenny2
Version table:
2.6.26-26lenny2 0
500 http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian
s. keeling schrieb:
During aptitude update; what's this mean and what do I do about it?
W: GPG error: http://secure-testing.debian.net \
etch-proposed-updates/security-updates Release: The following \
signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not \
available:
During aptitude update; what's this mean and what do I do about it?
W: GPG error: http://secure-testing.debian.net \
etch-proposed-updates/security-updates Release: The following \
signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not \
available: NO_PUBKEY 946AA6E18
howdy,
i'm trying to use debmirror, to create a local mirror so that i can use
fai(1) for automatic installs. i'm using the command below (2), but i keep
getting errors (3). the problem comes with the 'proposed-updates' section.
the repository doesn't appear to ha
Hello
Jonathan Matthews wrote:
> Just a quickie -
>
> Is there any difference between woody-proposed-updates and
> security.debian.org, for a stable machine?
>
> In other words, if I have stable and security in sources.list, am I
> missing out on /anything/ that's
Just a quickie -
Is there any difference between woody-proposed-updates and
security.debian.org, for a stable machine?
In other words, if I have stable and security in sources.list, am I
missing out on /anything/ that's been updated by not having
proposed-updates in there too?
In
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:07:01PM +0100, Uwe Hees wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have some computers running woddy with woody-proposed-updates. The
> recent sendmail bug revealed the problem that the version number of the
> security fix is less then the (older) version in propose
Uwe Hees said:
> Hello all,
>
> I have some computers running woddy with woody-proposed-updates. The
> recent sendmail bug revealed the problem that the version number of the
> security fix is less then the (older) version in proposed-updates. Thus
> the sendmail does not g
Hello all,
I have some computers running woddy with woody-proposed-updates. The
recent sendmail bug revealed the problem that the version number of the
security fix is less then the (older) version in proposed-updates. Thus
the sendmail does not get updated and the security hole remains on
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 12:49:13PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I've got a simple question: are the proposed updates part of the
> official Debian distribution or not ?
They are not part of the stable release. They're as much a part of the
Debian distribution as unstable is.
Hello everybody!
I've got a simple question: are the proposed updates part of the
official Debian distribution or not ?
Proposed updates to the stable distribution:
<ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/proposed-updates>
<ftp://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US/dists/propose
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 12:02:06PM +0200, Holger Rauch wrote:
> This is a repost of the message I sent on Oct 22. It obviously didn't get
> through. In case it did, and I was overlooking it, I apologize for any
> inconvenience.
>
> I got a few questions concerning proposed
Hi!
This is a repost of the message I sent on Oct 22. It obviously didn't get
through. In case it did, and I was overlooking it, I apologize for any
inconvenience.
I got a few questions concerning proposed updates:
1. Are there proposed updates for "Potato"?
2. Is it ALWAYS
Hi Holger,
Holger Rauch wrote:
> I got a few questions concerning proposed updates:
>
> 1. Are there proposed updates for "Potato"?
AFAIK, there are only security updates, although these are very good.
Add the following lines to your sources list, and upgrade normally u
Hi!
I got a few questions concerning proposed updates:
1. Are there proposed updates for "Potato"?
2. Is it ALWAYS a good thing to install proposed updates for "Potato" or
are there situations where one should refrain from installing them? If
there are such situations, what
I'm running potato and have just upgraded to procmail/proposed
updates. Now I have errors of this type in my log file:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 03 09:44:41 2001
Subject: Re: How to generate set/get method pairs
Folder: /home/andre/Maildir/new/994146292.834_0.mir
Jim writes:
> Does the existence of `testing' mean that `proposed-updates' is (in
> effect anyway) redundant?
As I understand it they have nothing to do with each other. 'Proposed
updates' is for proposed updates to stable: security fixes, critical bug
fixes, etc. P
l make me
> |> happy.
>
> Does the existence of `testing' mean that `proposed-updates' is (in
> effect anyway) redundant? It seems that very few packages have gone in
> there since testing came on the scene.
no proposed-updates is for security fixes and very severe
.
>
> Does the existence of `testing' mean that `proposed-updates' is (in
> effect anyway) redundant? It seems that very few packages have gone in
> there since testing came on the scene.
>
no, proposed-updates are for updates to a release. So if we want to get a
pack
|> So will testing always be available? I like the idea. I'm just not
|> used to packages being rolled back in a release. But if I have
|> apt-get always looking at testing, maybe that's what will make me
|> happy.
Does the existence of `testing' mean that `proposed-up
http://non-us.debian.org/dists/potato-proposed-updates/ does not
contain a Packages file, therefore it is not apt-get-able. This is
in contrast to
http://http.us.debian.org/dists/potato-proposed-updates/ which makes
me think that something is wrong here!?
-Hein
Which is the correct SECTIONS line for apt-move to mirror
'potato-proposed-updates'. I've strange behavior of apt-move to add
'potato-proposed-updates' to SECTIONS. If you have working apt-move.conf
to mirror also potato-proposed-updates send it me if it possible.
C
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 02:01:31PM +0200, Frodo Baggins wrote:
[...]
> You can access this directory with apt by adding
> deb http://ftp1.us.debian.org/debian dists/proposed-updates/
^^^
> to your /etc/apt/sources.list
>
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 02:01:31PM +0200, Frodo Baggins wrote:
> Hi debianers,
> In the dist/proposed-updates directory there is a README file stating
>
[snip]
>
> You can access this directory with apt by adding
> deb http://ftp1.us.debian.org/debian dists/proposed-updat
Hi debianers,
In the dist/proposed-updates directory there is a README file stating
Debian is committed to providing security updates to the stable
distribution as quickly as possible, but we also need time to thoroughly
test such updates to ensure that they meet our high standards
Hi,
I found the proposed updates to debian 2.2 scattered across three sites:
ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/proposed-updates/
ftp://security.debian.org/debian-non-US/dists/proposed-updates/
ftp://security.debian.org/debian-security/dists/potato/updates/
What are the differences, if any
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 03:39:09PM +1100, Brendan J Simon wrote:
> How do I edit my /etc/apt/sources.list to access the proposed-updates or
> potato-proposed-updates directory on the Debian mirrors.
What are those "proposed updates"? How do they differ from the usual
packages
Don't worry I figured it out. I didn't have a trailing / after propose-updates.
ie. I had
deb http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/debian dists/proposed-updates
instead of
deb http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/debian dists/proposed-updates/
Brendan Simon.
Brendan J Simon wrote:
> I&#
I'm running some PowerPC and Intel machines with Debian 2.2.
How do I edit my /etc/apt/sources.list to access the proposed-updates or
potato-proposed-updates directory on the Debian mirrors.
I searched the archives but didn't come up with anything helpful. Is
there a README, HOWTO,
Hi all,
when attempting to install packages from the proposed-updates directory,
some of them complain that libc6.1 (2.7.0u) is required but it not available.
I have not found any libc6.1 2.7.0u as a package to install.
Is there a workaround or should I just move to slink and forget the
proposed
On 18 Sep, Randy Edwards wrote:
>Could someone tell me exactly what the dists/proposed-updates
> subdirectory is for?
>
>Yes, I know it's for "proposed updates" ;-), but what for what dist?
> Hamm? Slink? Does this subdir function as sort of a new "inc
On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Randy Edwards wrote:
:Could someone tell me exactly what the dists/proposed-updates
: subdirectory is for?
:
:Yes, I know it's for "proposed updates" ;-), but what for what dist?
: Hamm? Slink? Does this subdir function as sort of a new "
Could someone tell me exactly what the dists/proposed-updates
subdirectory is for?
Yes, I know it's for "proposed updates" ;-), but what for what dist?
Hamm? Slink? Does this subdir function as sort of a new "incoming"
type of subdir so that the files are checked
67 matches
Mail list logo
