On 26/10/2014, Curt wrote:
> On 2014-10-25, Bret Busby wrote:
>>
>> which, from my understanding of a previous post or web page, relating
>> to Debian 6 LTS, is what is supposed to be in that file, to have
>> Debian 6 LTS updating as it should.
>>
>
> What I see here
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/L
Bret Busby wrote:
> Why a web page published to provide information to the public, needs
> to be "https", I have no idea.
To create more https traffic. If you only encrypt important things
then if it is encrypted them it must be important. An attacker now
knows that every piece of encrypted traf
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:37:32PM +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 25/10/2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Sb, 25 oct 14, 19:04:18, Bret Busby wrote:
> >>
> >> :~# df -h
> >> FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> > ...
> >> /dev/sda8 77G 73G 194M 100% /home
> >
>
On 26/10/2014, Curt wrote:
> On 2014-10-25, Bret Busby wrote:
>>
>> which, from my understanding of a previous post or web page, relating
>> to Debian 6 LTS, is what is supposed to be in that file, to have
>> Debian 6 LTS updating as it should.
>>
>
> What I see here
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/L
On 2014-10-25, Bret Busby wrote:
>
> which, from my understanding of a previous post or web page, relating
> to Debian 6 LTS, is what is supposed to be in that file, to have
> Debian 6 LTS updating as it should.
>
What I see here
https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Using
doesn't seem to correspond with
On 25/10/2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Sb, 25 oct 14, 19:04:18, Bret Busby wrote:
>>
>> :~# df -h
>> FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> ...
>> /dev/sda8 77G 73G 194M 100% /home
>
> Can't tell if this is the source of you problems, but I've seen all
> sorts
Hello, Cindy.
On 25/10/2014, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
> On 10/25/14, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>> On Sb, 25 oct 14, 19:04:18, Bret Busby wrote:
>>>
>>> :~# df -h
>>> FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on
>> ...
>>> /dev/sda8 77G 73G 194M 100% /home
>>
>> Can't tell if
On 10/25/14, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Sb, 25 oct 14, 19:04:18, Bret Busby wrote:
>>
>> :~# df -h
>> FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> ...
>> /dev/sda8 77G 73G 194M 100% /home
>
> Can't tell if this is the source of you problems, but I've seen all
> sorts of
On Sb, 25 oct 14, 19:04:18, Bret Busby wrote:
>
> :~# df -h
> FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on
...
> /dev/sda8 77G 73G 194M 100% /home
Can't tell if this is the source of you problems, but I've seen all
sorts of strange failures with a full /home, including X
On 25/10/14 22:06, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 25/10/2014, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 25/10/14 21:47, Bret Busby wrote:
>>> On 25/10/2014, Bret Busby wrote:
On 25/10/2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Sb, 25 oct 14, 18:17:02, Bret Busby wrote:
>> On 25/10/2014, Brian wrote:
>>>
>>
>
On 25/10/2014, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 25/10/14 21:47, Bret Busby wrote:
>> On 25/10/2014, Bret Busby wrote:
>>> On 25/10/2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Sb, 25 oct 14, 18:17:02, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 25/10/2014, Brian wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> So, now I am confused, as to whether I ma
On 25/10/2014, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 25/10/14 21:17, Bret Busby wrote:
>> On 25/10/2014, Brian wrote:
>>> On Sat 25 Oct 2014 at 11:44:32 +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
>>>
On 23/10/2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Igor Sverkos wrote:
>> As you can see, it is always the "Unpacking" step whic
On 25/10/14 21:47, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 25/10/2014, Bret Busby wrote:
>> On 25/10/2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>> On Sb, 25 oct 14, 18:17:02, Bret Busby wrote:
On 25/10/2014, Brian wrote:
>
>
> So, now I am confused, as to whether I managed to achieve a successful
> system update.
>
On 25/10/14 21:17, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 25/10/2014, Brian wrote:
>> On Sat 25 Oct 2014 at 11:44:32 +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/10/2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
Igor Sverkos wrote:
> As you can see, it is always the "Unpacking" step which is taking all
> the
> time.
>>>
On 25/10/2014, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 25/10/2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>> On Sb, 25 oct 14, 18:17:02, Bret Busby wrote:
>>> On 25/10/2014, Brian wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Please post the output of
>>> >
>>> >apt-get update
>>>
>>> "
>>> :~# apt-get update
>>
>> That looks fine. Please try 'apt-get
On 25/10/2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Sb, 25 oct 14, 18:17:02, Bret Busby wrote:
>> On 25/10/2014, Brian wrote:
>> >
>> > Please post the output of
>> >
>> >apt-get update
>>
>> "
>> :~# apt-get update
>
> That looks fine. Please try 'apt-get upgrade'.
>
"
:~# apt-get upgrade
E: Could n
On Sb, 25 oct 14, 18:17:02, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 25/10/2014, Brian wrote:
> >
> > Please post the output of
> >
> >apt-get update
>
> "
> :~# apt-get update
That looks fine. Please try 'apt-get upgrade'.
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussio
On 25/10/2014, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 25/10/2014, Bret Busby wrote:
>> On 25/10/2014, Brian wrote:
>>> On Sat 25 Oct 2014 at 11:44:32 +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
>>>
On 23/10/2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Igor Sverkos wrote:
>> As you can see, it is always the "Unpacking" step which is
On 25/10/2014, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 25/10/2014, Brian wrote:
>> On Sat 25 Oct 2014 at 11:44:32 +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/10/2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
>>> > Igor Sverkos wrote:
>>> >> As you can see, it is always the "Unpacking" step which is taking all
>>> >> the
>>> >> time.
>>> >
>
On 25/10/2014, Brian wrote:
> On Sat 25 Oct 2014 at 11:44:32 +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
>
>> On 23/10/2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
>> > Igor Sverkos wrote:
>> >> As you can see, it is always the "Unpacking" step which is taking all
>> >> the
>> >> time.
>> >
>> > dpkg has added fsync() calls after all f
On Sat 25 Oct 2014 at 11:44:32 +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 23/10/2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Igor Sverkos wrote:
> >> As you can see, it is always the "Unpacking" step which is taking all the
> >> time.
> >
> > dpkg has added fsync() calls after all file actions. This
> > significantly slows d
On 23/10/2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Igor Sverkos wrote:
>> As you can see, it is always the "Unpacking" step which is taking all the
>> time.
>
> dpkg has added fsync() calls after all file actions. This
> significantly slows down file operations. Basically it disables the
> file system buffer ca
roblem. Daily work is no problem.
> > But when it comes to apt/aptitude and installing/updating packages,
> > the system is very slow.
> >
> > Any ideas/hints?
>
> Install 'eatmydata' and use it when installing.
>
> apt-get install eatmydata
>
&g
Hi,
I already read the FAQ, that's why I am already using the "nodelalloc"
mount option.
I also tried "eatmydata":
> # eatmydata annotate-output apt-get install --reinstall tzdata
> 14:02:27 I: Started apt-get install --reinstall tzdata
> 14:02:27 O: Reading package lists...
> 14:02:27 O: Buildi
On Jo, 23 oct 14, 08:33:00, Curt wrote:
>
> What about some of the other workarounds/solutions outlined here
> (there)?
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/FAQ#User_Questions
>
> (Q: Why is dpkg so slow when using new filesystems such as btrfs or ext4?)
I'd be interested about the 'nodelallo
On 2014-10-23, Bob Proulx wrote:
>
>
> I expect this suggestion to be followed by many people griping that my
> suggestion is unsafe and that the years and years we spent living
> without fsync() were unsafe. But we did. We had at least a decade of
> fast systems in the "before time". And the s
te at disk drive speeds.
This is why unpacking files is quite a bit slow.
> Everything seems to be fast. Unpacking kernel sources (tar -xaf
> linux-3.16.6.tar.xz) is no problem. Daily work is no problem.
> But when it comes to apt/aptitude and installing/updating packages,
> the system
2.436764
> utimes("/usr/share/zoneinfo/right/Etc/GMT+2.dpkg-new", {{1414001610, 0},
> {1412718680, 0}}) = 0
> 43274 1414001632.436785 link("/usr/share/zoneinfo/right/Etc/GMT+2",
> "/usr/share/zoneinfo/right/Etc/GMT+2.dpkg-tmp") = 0
> ...
Everything s
On 06/14/2011 11:37 AM, Noah Duffy wrote:
> I've been running Debian Squeeze for a little while now. I was using
> Ubuntu before, so I'm really used to being able to keep certain
> software up-to-date using their PPA system. I'm loving Debian (even
> though I've had to make a few tweaks for it to
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2011-06-14 21:01 +0200, Noah Duffy wrote:
>
>>
>> I read the guide you posted, and it seems simple enough. I understand
>> it as this:
>>
>> Let's say I want to "backport" Banshee from Wheezy because it's
>> version 2.0.1, I could add the
On 2011-06-14 21:01 +0200, Noah Duffy wrote:
>
> I read the guide you posted, and it seems simple enough. I understand
> it as this:
>
> Let's say I want to "backport" Banshee from Wheezy because it's
> version 2.0.1, I could add the source repository for wheezy to my
> sources, and build that pa
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Jimmy Wu wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 00:35, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:37:28 -0500, Noah Duffy wrote:
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>> Is it recommended to install packages from testing? I know this often
>>> also updates dependencies that other software m
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 00:35, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:37:28 -0500, Noah Duffy wrote:
>
> (...)
>
>> Is it recommended to install packages from testing? I know this often
>> also updates dependencies that other software may use causing the system
>> to potentially not be as secur
On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:37:28 -0500, Noah Duffy wrote:
(...)
> Is it recommended to install packages from testing? I know this often
> also updates dependencies that other software may use causing the system
> to potentially not be as secure or stable.
I'd say that would depend on the package
I've been running Debian Squeeze for a little while now. I was using
Ubuntu before, so I'm really used to being able to keep certain
software up-to-date using their PPA system. I'm loving Debian (even
though I've had to make a few tweaks for it to work with my new
system), but there are a few pac
On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 18:04:53 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> When I run "apt-get update", Debian logs on to the updates ftp site
> (such as ftp.debian.org) and downloads an entirely new list of
> packages which overrides the older list. Thus if I install Debian from
> CDs and update, I will no lo
When I run "apt-get update", Debian logs on to the updates ftp site (such as
ftp.debian.org) and downloads an entirely new list of packages which
overrides the older list. Thus if I install Debian from CDs and update, I
will no longer be able to use them. Debian will insist on installing any
pr
On 31-Jan-2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi!
> I've got a notebook presario 1245, and a pcmcia net adapter. I
> need to update the pcmcia modules (I guess, as i had the same problem with
> suse 7) in order to make work the net adapter. I guess that if the updates
> of pcmcia stuff was avail
Hi!
I've got a notebook presario 1245, and a pcmcia net adapter. I
need to update the pcmcia modules (I guess, as i had the same problem with
suse 7) in order to make work the net adapter. I guess that if the updates
of pcmcia stuff was available on suse will be on debian...
My ques
Omen Wild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have found the pui-package-install-dest-dir variable and set it to
> /usr/local/lib/xemacs/xemacs-packages/ and XEmacs happily installs
^
> packages into that directory. But, and here is the question, how do I
> get X
Something that has been bothering me for quite a while: someone went
through the trouble of making a /usr/local/lib/xemacs/xemacs-packages/
directory, but then when I use XEmacs' built in package updating I
overwrite the packages that Debian installs. This just doesn't seem
right.
I have found th
ome friends the Debian 1.3.1. release.
> Eagerly :-) I began updating packages, installing this, purging that,...
>
> In the middle of the fun, it ocurred to me that it could be interesting
> to have the new dpkg package(s) on my system. So I installed
> dpkg1.4.0.8.deb, dpkg_cr
Hello,
Sometime ago I got the Debian GNU/Linux 1.1.4.Sept96 release. Working
with it, I managed to set up my little system at home.(I was very proud
of myself ;-)).
Two months ago, I borrowed from some friends the Debian 1.3.1. release.
Eagerly :-) I began updating packages, installing this
Hi,
I would just update my installed packages with deselect, but the procedure
to do so doesn't seem very clear to me. All that I get is 0 packages to
load. What is wrong ?
Regards,
JP L
Jean-Paul LACHARME. GREQAM UMR 9990 au CNRS, Centre de la Vieille Charite,
2,rue de la Charite,F13002 MARSEIL
>> What I want is a way comparing what is currently installed (dpkg -l) with
>> what is available on my local mirror.
>
>I believe the package you are looking for is dftp (not to be confused
>with dpkg-ftp).
Hmm, I think you're correct. It seems pretty bare bones but it will
hopefully do the tr
On Jan 16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam Shand) wrote:
> What I want is a way comparing what is currently installed (dpkg -l) with
> what is available on my local mirror.
>
I believe the package you are looking for is dftp (not to be confused
with dpkg-ftp).
Steve Greenland
--
The Mole - I think,
Hi,
I have been updating packages by manually ftping them from ftp.debian.org
and putting them in a directory which I have nfs exported to the other
three machines. I have then been running dpkg -i manually to install the
packages I want updated.
I was just about to write a script to do a
47 matches
Mail list logo
