Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On Sat 13 Jan 2018 at 17:05:54 (+), Curt wrote: > On 2018-01-13, David Wright wrote: > > On Sat 13 Jan 2018 at 05:14:37 (+0100), Ionel Mugurel Ciobîcă wrote: > >> On 12-01-2018, at 15h 03'25", David Wright wrote about "Re: Frustration > >> over Debia

Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On 2018-01-13, David Wright wrote: > On Sat 13 Jan 2018 at 05:14:37 (+0100), Ionel Mugurel Ciobîcă wrote: >> On 12-01-2018, at 15h 03'25", David Wright wrote about "Re: Frustration over >> Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)" >>

Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On Sat 13 Jan 2018 at 16:56:05 (+), Glenn English wrote: > Has anyone in this thread mentioned DNS yet? Quoting RFC 1178: “There is always room for an exception. “I don't think any explanation is needed here. However, let me add that if you later decide to change a name (to someth

Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

Has anyone in this thread mentioned DNS yet? -- Glenn English

Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On Sat 13 Jan 2018 at 05:14:37 (+0100), Ionel Mugurel Ciobîcă wrote: > On 12-01-2018, at 15h 03'25", David Wright wrote about "Re: Frustration over > Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)" > > [...] People use names, computers like numbers. &g

Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > Some people always seem to remain confused. Perhaps they have > > the same confusion with timezones, for similar reasons. > > Both are confusing. One, Debian has the possibility to improve. Yes, we could "improve". But for many of us that doesn't

Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 03:03:25PM -0600, David Wright wrote: Which reason? The formal name of a release is the Release number. And yet our sources.list files all contain deb stretch main and not deb 9 main And I had to look up "9" in that wiki page to even make this point. The page

Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On 13-01-2018, at 09h 07'58", bw wrote about "Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)" > > On Friday, January 12, 2018 11:14:37 PM Ionel Mugurel Ciobîcă wrote: > > > On 12-01-2018, at 15h 03'25", David Wright w

Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On Saturday, January 13, 2018 09:07:58 AM bw wrote: > It is a good point, however have you considered the effect of a visual > association along with a word and a number? For instance, everytime I > think of debian "stretch" i see a purple octopus. For "buster" I see a > yapping little dachshund

Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, January 12, 2018 11:14:37 PM Ionel Mugurel Ciobîcă wrote: > > On 12-01-2018, at 15h 03'25", David Wright wrote about "Re: Frustration > > over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports

Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On Friday, January 12, 2018 11:14:37 PM Ionel Mugurel Ciobîcă wrote: > On 12-01-2018, at 15h 03'25", David Wright wrote about "Re: Frustration > over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)" > > > [...] People use names, computers like num

Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On 12-01-2018, at 15h 03'25", David Wright wrote about "Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)" > [...] People use names, computers like numbers. > I do not take sides here, but I can't accept this statement. Numbers are

Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On Friday, January 12, 2018 04:03:25 PM David Wright wrote: > Another reason: it's a convention that organisations use > because it works. It's less ambiguous to write jessie than 8 > especially in contexts where lots of numbers are being discussed, > and it's more memorable to most people. People

Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

When a release becomes ancient history, its code name still applies to it and the all its point releases, whatever numbering scheme is then in force. > but that doesn't carry over into "casual" conversation like the > parent thread or the repo urls etc. No, for several reason

Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 13:54 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 08:49:05AM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > > But the various names and use of those names gets very frustrating > > for me, and > > I suspect I am not the only one. The numbered versions, the Toy > > Story names,

Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On Friday, January 12, 2018 09:01:34 AM Ian Campbell wrote: > On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 13:54 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 08:49:05AM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > > > But the various names and use of those names gets very frustrating > > > for me, and > > > I suspect I

Re: Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 08:49:05AM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > But the various names and use of those names gets very frustrating for me, > and > I suspect I am not the only one. The numbered versions, the Toy Story names, > and then the testing, stable, old stable, old old stable is jus

Frustration over Debian naming (was: Re: Meltdown fix for wheezy-backports)

Intentionally cross posted. On Friday, January 12, 2018 04:58:38 AM Richard Hector wrote: > Apologies for my misunderstanding. I hadn't made the mental link from > wheezy to LTS (I don't (think I) have any wheezy machines left myself, > but have acquired clients who do). Aside: For those on the d

Re: 32bit compatibility for NVidia binary drivers in wheezy backports

> And that's not impossible. libgl1-nvidia-glx depend on > xserver-xorg-video-nvidia. > And xserver-xorg-video-nvidia is not Multiarch-aware, i.e. you cannot > co-install xserver-xorg-video-nvidia:i386 and > xserver-xorg-video-nvidia:amd64 at the same time. It seems this problem has been fixed in

Re: 32bit compatibility for NVidia binary drivers in wheezy+backports

Hi. On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 20:41:54 +0100 Aleksandar Dimitrov wrote: > But if I try to install the 32 bit compatibility package from multiarch… > > > % aptitude install -t wheezy-backports nvidia-kernel-dkms:i386 Are you sure that you need to do this? This will install DKMS'

32bit compatibility for NVidia binary drivers in wheezy+backports

Hi list, I'm trying to install the NVidia binary package in Debian wheezy from wheezy-backports on a 64bit system — which went fine. I've added multiarch: > % dpkg --print-architecture > amd64 > > % dpkg --print-foreign-architectures > i386 But if I try to install

Several dracut problems (keymap, luks passphrase, resume from hibernate) in wheezy(-backports)

contains an lvm volume with swap (and another partition.) Lots of things happened, I'm going to try to summarize: I'm using wheezy with wheezy backports. Installing kernel 3.16.0 (suspend and hibernate don't work for me in 3.2.0) pulled in dracut. Out of the box, dracut's ini

Re: Possible incompatibility between wheezy gnome and wheezy-backports libreoffice

Sorry, I was too fast: 1:4.3.3-2~bpo70+2 didn't make it yet to the repositories, so I was simply repeating the same thing. Will get for this fix before trying again upgrading. Thanks to all who responded. Cheers, Miguel El 28/12/14 a las 22:37, Miguel Ortiz Lombardía escribió: > > Hi, > >

Re: Possible incompatibility between wheezy gnome and wheezy-backports libreoffice

On 12/28/14, Miguel Ortiz Lombardía wrote: > > Hi, > > Not true in the case that I reported. Even after apt-get update, I get > the same messages and gnome is marked to be removed... Looks like a > different problem that the one found by Chris. Some of this, *not all*, but some of this I found t

Re: Possible incompatibility between wheezy gnome and wheezy-backports libreoffice

Hi, Not true in the case that I reported. Even after apt-get update, I get the same messages and gnome is marked to be removed... Looks like a different problem that the one found by Chris. Cheers, Miguel El 28/12/14 a las 19:17, Sven Joachim escribió: > On 2014-12-28 18:40 +0100, Chris Swe

Re: Possible incompatibility between wheezy gnome and wheezy-backports libreoffice

On 2014-12-28 18:40 +0100, Chris Swenson wrote: > I'm having the same issue with libreoffice. I cannot upgrade it because > it is looking for libc6 >= 2.19, which is unavailable. It appears it was > compiled with libc6 at this version instead of the one available in > debian (2.13-38+deb7u6). Perh

Re: Possible incompatibility between wheezy gnome and wheezy-backports libreoffice

I'm having the same issue with libreoffice. I cannot upgrade it because it is looking for libc6 >= 2.19, which is unavailable. It appears it was compiled with libc6 at this version instead of the one available in debian (2.13-38+deb7u6). Perhaps we should contact the libreoffice maintainers? -- –

Possible incompatibility between wheezy gnome and wheezy-backports libreoffice

Hi, I'm using debian wheezy (amd64) up-to-date till December 24. I have installed some packages from wheezy-backports, essentially libreoffice. I made an upgrade this morning and I got these messages (that I didn't look into at the time...): > sudo apt-get upgrade Reading package

Re: Fwd: Re: Failed to install VLC from wheezy backports

lable from another source > > E: Package 'libavutil52' has no installation candidate > E: Package 'libavcodec-extra-54' has no installation candidate > > I think something must be seriously broken ... I see wheezy-backports has libavcodec-extra-55 and libavutil53

Re: Fwd: Re: Failed to install VLC from wheezy backports

Thanks very much for the explanation, Anderei, On 09/12/14 10:42, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > I can't spot anything wrong in here. A "bigger hammer" approach would be > to do this > > apt-get install -t wheezy-backports vlc vlc-nox libvlccore7 > > If th

Re: Fwd: Re: Failed to install VLC from wheezy backports

On Ma, 09 dec 14, 10:28:01, Tony van der Hoff wrote: > > tony@tony-fr:~$ sudo apt-cache policy > [sudo] password for tony: Note: apt-cache doesn't require root privileges, since it only provides information > Package files: > 100 http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-

Fwd: Re: Failed to install VLC from wheezy backports

Apologies to Andrei -- inadvertently sent by mail: Original Message Subject: Re: Failed to install VLC from wheezy backports Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 10:16:47 +0100 From: Tony van der Hoff To: Andrei POPESCU On 09/12/14 00:04, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Lu, 08 dec 14, 17:30

Re: Failed to install VLC from wheezy backports

On Lu, 08 dec 14, 17:30:44, Tony van der Hoff wrote: > > root@tony-fr:~# apt-get -t wheezy-backports install vlc > Reading package lists... Done > Building dependency tree > Reading state information... Done > Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you h

Re: Failed to install VLC from wheezy backports

On 12/08/2014 11:30 AM, Tony van der Hoff wrote: Hi, I'm trying to install a recent VLC on my wheezy box, but: root@tony-fr:~# apt-get -t wheezy-backports install vlc Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Some packages could not be inst

Failed to install VLC from wheezy backports

Hi, I'm trying to install a recent VLC on my wheezy box, but: root@tony-fr:~# apt-get -t wheezy-backports install vlc Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have requested an impos

Re: MATE Desktop 1.8 from wheezy-backports

On Wednesday 08 October 2014 17:07:37 Giorgos Savvas wrote: > On 08/10/2014 15:14, Pol Hallen wrote: > >> What is the recommended way for switching to wheezy-backports and MATE > >> 1.8? This is what I'm thinking: > > > > using: > > > > # wheezy st

Re: MATE Desktop 1.8 from wheezy-backports

On 08/10/2014 15:14, Pol Hallen wrote: What is the recommended way for switching to wheezy-backports and MATE 1.8? This is what I'm thinking: using: # wheezy stable deb http://ip/debian/ stable main contrib non-free deb http://ip/debian-security stable/updates main contrib non-free ap

MATE Desktop 1.8 from wheezy-backports

and it was recommended to use MATE 1.8 from wheezy-backports instead. What is the recommended way for switching to wheezy-backports and MATE 1.8? This is what I'm thinking: 1. Add wheezy-backports to sources.list: deb http://http.debian.net/debian wheezy-backports main 2. apt-get update

Re: Question about wheezy-backports

Andrei POPESCU writes: > > On my stable install where new packages haven't been cleared in a while > (179 in total) I have only 2 new packages that do *not* come from > backports (icedove-l10n-hr and icedove-l10n-hy-am). > > Actually I'm quite surprised about these two even showing up, given tha

Re: Question about wheezy-backports

enated ones) is a pain to remember with rarely-used or new commands. I used to get certain options wrong reguilarly when I first started using systemctl... >> I don't understand why you wouldn't want to restrict the search to >> wheezy-backports. If the OP only wants to see new wh

Re: Question about wheezy-backports

this option before! Oh, thanks for spotting it, I wrote that from memory (shame on me). > I don't understand why you wouldn't want to restrict the search to > wheezy-backports. If the OP only wants to see new wheezy-backports > packages, why should his search be cluttered up wi

Re: Question about wheezy-backports

ry but I've never tried it even though I've often wondered about it... The "forget-new" verb clears up my question(s). By the way, it's "aptitude forget-new", without the hyphens. I'd never noticed this option before! I don't understand why you wouldn&#x

Re: Question about wheezy-backports

On Lu, 05 mai 14, 00:32:55, Osamu Aoki wrote: > > If you are much lazier, just > bump apt preferences to make them automatically installed. See: > > $ man apt_preferences This is however not supported and not recommended. https://lists.debian.org/20140427123500.ga2...@formorer.de Kind regards,

Re: Question about wheezy-backports

Hi, On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 11:28:22PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: > I have added to my sources.list the following line: > > deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-backports main > > But according to http://backports.debian.org/Instructions/, that won't > make

Re: Question about wheezy-backports

On Sb, 03 mai 14, 23:28:22, Paul E Condon wrote: > I have added to my sources.list the following line: > > deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-backports main > > But according to http://backports.debian.org/Instructions/, that won't > make the backport appear in i

Re: Question about wheezy-backports

On Du, 04 mai 14, 04:01:25, Tom H wrote: > > I've never used this search term but aptitude has a search for new > packages. I assume that a package is somehow marked as new after > "apt-get update" or "aptitude update". New means packages not previously existing in *any* repository, so in the co

Re: Question about wheezy-backports

On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Paul E Condon wrote: > > I have added to my sources.list the following line: > > deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-backports main > > But according to http://backports.debian.org/Instructions/, that won't > make the backport appe

Re: Question about wheezy-backports

ccation when I actually need a backport. > > TIA For a list of all the packages in the backports repository: https://packages.debian.org/wheezy-backports/allpackages When you have the repository in /etc/apt/sources.list, and you want to check if there is a newer version of a particular package, u

Re: Question about wheezy-backports

On 4 May 2014 01:22, Tom Furie wrote: > On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 11:28:22PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: >> I have added to my sources.list the following line: >> >> deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-backports main >> >> But according to http://backpor

Re: Question about wheezy-backports

On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 11:28:22PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: > I have added to my sources.list the following line: > > deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-backports main > > But according to http://backports.debian.org/Instructions/, that won't > make the backpor

Question about wheezy-backports

I have added to my sources.list the following line: deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-backports main But according to http://backports.debian.org/Instructions/, that won't make the backport appear in interactive aptitude, or be automatically 'upgraded' to the backport

Re: Using wheezy-backports, advice needed

On 20140411_1642+0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 11 April 2014 16:23:49 Paul E Condon wrote: > > This is pretty clear indication that wheezy-backports won't help, > > Or did I make a mistake? What mistake? > > There is no findutils package in Wheezy backports. >

Re: Using wheezy-backports, advice needed

On 20140411_1853+0200, Florian Ernst wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 04:58:56PM +0100, Martin Read wrote: > > As Lisi Reisz notes, findutils is not in wheezy-backports. A search on > > packages.debian.org reveals that a package of findutils 4.5.12 was created > > for exper

Re: Using wheezy-backports, advice needed

On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 04:58:56PM +0100, Martin Read wrote: > As Lisi Reisz notes, findutils is not in wheezy-backports. A search on > packages.debian.org reveals that a package of findutils 4.5.12 was created > for experimental on 2013-09-28, but for whatever reason the maintainer

Re: Using wheezy-backports, advice needed

On 20140411_1639+0100, Brian wrote: > On Fri 11 Apr 2014 at 09:23:49 -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: > > > root@big:/etc/apt# aptitude -t wheezy-backports install findutils > > No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed. > > 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed

Re: Using wheezy-backports, advice needed

On 11/04/14 16:23, Paul E Condon wrote: This is pretty clear indication that wheezy-backports won't help, Or did I make a mistake? What mistake? An alternative source of findutils that fits with Wheezy? Where? How? You don't appear to have made a mistake. As Lisi Reisz notes, findut

Re: Using wheezy-backports, advice needed

On Friday 11 April 2014 16:23:49 Paul E Condon wrote: > This is pretty clear indication that wheezy-backports won't help, > Or did I make a mistake? What mistake? There is no findutils package in Wheezy backports. https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=findutils&searchon=name

Re: Using wheezy-backports, advice needed

On Fri 11 Apr 2014 at 09:23:49 -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: > root@big:/etc/apt# aptitude -t wheezy-backports install findutils > No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed. > 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 72 not upgraded. > Need to get 0 B of arc

Using wheezy-backports, advice needed

I have discovered, with help form Bernhard Voelker, a user of openSUSE, that the version of findutils that I am using (4.4.2) contains a bug that explains crashes in my use case. He is using (4.5.12) and recommends >=(4.5.10) I have attempted to use wheezy-backports using instructions at: h

Re: Where to file bug report for wheezy-backports?

On Jo, 16 ian 14, 09:53:33, Paulus, Markus G A (Mark) wrote: > Hi All, > > I have an issue with a package on wheezy-backports, and am not sure > of the proper procedure to notify someone: reportbug would work, but you can also write to debian-backports (where the reportbug would s

Where to file bug report for wheezy-backports?

Hi All, I have an issue with a package on wheezy-backports, and am not sure of the proper procedure to notify someone: I am trying to install linux-headers-3.10-0.bpo.3-rt-amd64. $ sudo apt-get install linux-headers-$(uname -r) Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading

Re: Should I build a nmu for stable or a backport for wheezy-backports?

ways to solve this: >>> >>> a) I've downloaded the stable version of the package, applied the >>> patch that fixed the problem and built a wheezy-backports package; >> >> What you described is the way we make stable updates. I have done this >> kind

Re: Should I build a nmu for stable or a backport for wheezy-backports?

e fix was uploaded to unstable/testing >> but never got in time for stable. For reference I'm talking about >> http://bugs.debian.org/679657. >> >> I tried 2 ways to solve this: >> >> a) I've downloaded the stable version of the package, applied th

Re: Should I build a nmu for stable or a backport for wheezy-backports?

eference I'm talking about > http://bugs.debian.org/679657. > > I tried 2 ways to solve this: > > a) I've downloaded the stable version of the package, applied the > patch that fixed the problem and built a wheezy-backports package; What you described is the way w

Re: Should I build a nmu for stable or a backport for wheezy-backports?

On 07/08/13 07:17, Rui Miguel P. Bernardo wrote: > Hello list, > > let's say there is a bug in a stable package and that bug breaks the > program functionality. Later the fix was uploaded to unstable/testing > but never got in time for stable. For reference I'm talking about > http://bugs.debian.o

Should I build a nmu for stable or a backport for wheezy-backports?

: a) I've downloaded the stable version of the package, applied the patch that fixed the problem and built a wheezy-backports package; b) I've downloaded the maintainers git repository (unstable), revert some commits and build a wheezy-backports; Backports exists for recent packages from unstab

Re: Search Wheezy-backports?

On Fri, 24 May 2013, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Vi, 24 mai 13, 09:56:44, Patrick Bartek wrote: > > > > Nothing in particular. Just "in general." For example say, in the > > future, a particular version of an app from Stable repo is giving me > > trouble or I need some feature(s) that's only in a

Re: Search Wheezy-backports?

On Vi, 24 mai 13, 09:56:44, Patrick Bartek wrote: > > Nothing in particular. Just "in general." For example say, in the > future, a particular version of an app from Stable repo is giving me > trouble or I need some feature(s) that's only in a newer version, and > I want to search ONLY backports

Re: Search Wheezy-backports?

On Fri, 24 May 2013, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Du, 19 mai 13, 20:39:40, Patrick Bartek wrote: > > I've been searching and reading the mans on apt, apt-get, aptitude, > > etc., and I haven't been able to find a way to search > > Wheezy-backports. Is there one? I

Re: Search Wheezy-backports?

On Du, 19 mai 13, 20:39:40, Patrick Bartek wrote: > I've been searching and reading the mans on apt, apt-get, aptitude, > etc., and I haven't been able to find a way to search Wheezy-backports. > Is there one? I'm sure there is. I'm just not finding it. You did

Re: Search Wheezy-backports?

aid in the mans that the -t option > > > > would do that. Don't know why it doesn't. > > > > > > > > Also, I just noticed a funny thing: Today, when I do 'apt-cache > > > > show libreoffice-writer' both the 3.5 and new 4.0 v

Re: Search Wheezy-backports?

#x27;t know why it doesn't. > > > > > > Also, I just noticed a funny thing: Today, when I do 'apt-cache > > > show libreoffice-writer' both the 3.5 and new 4.0 versions are > > > listed. > > > > Same here. > > > > > Sa

Re: Search Wheezy-backports?

So it's only useful on install/upgrade operations. What about the search option? That's what this thread was initially about: Searching ONLY in wheezy-backports. B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130523094547.05927...@debian7.boseck208.net

Re: Search Wheezy-backports?

Le 20/05/2013 23:14, Greg Madden a écrit : On Monday 20 May 2013 13:04:25 you wrote: apt-cache show libreoffice The 'apt-cache + options" command works on the package cache, which includes , afaik, all the packages reference in the sources.list. 'apt-get' install stable packages unless the

Re: Wheezy-backports

gt; > I have not seen any posts about this so I assume I have missed. > something. > > Sources list looks like this: > > deb http://ftp.ca.debian.org/debian wheezy-backports main > deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian wheezy-backports main > deb http://ftp.uk.deb

Re: Wheezy-backports

On Lu, 20 mai 13, 20:29:48, Wayne Topa wrote: > Using the instructions at > for a few days now, without success, I am getting the following > > " Could not connect to ftp.us.debian.org:80 (204.152.191.39). - connect > (110: Connection timed out)" Could

Re: Wheezy-backports

On Wednesday 22 May 2013 00:31:14 Wayne Topa wrote: > On 05/21/2013 06:06 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Tuesday 21 May 2013 21:17:23 Brian wrote: > >> On Tue 21 May 2013 at 14:44:06 -0400, Wayne Topa wrote: > >>> On 05/21/2013 12:44 PM, Brian wrote: > On Tue 21 May 2013 at 11:32:32 -0400, Wayne

Re: Wheezy-backports

On Tue, 21 May 2013, Wayne Topa wrote: > On 05/21/2013 03:13 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote: > > On Tue, 21 May 2013, Wayne Topa wrote: > > > >> On 05/21/2013 12:57 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote: > >>> On Tue, 21 May 2013, Wayne Topa wrote: > >>> > On 05/21/2013 11:52 AM, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: > >

Re: Wheezy-backports

On 05/21/2013 06:06 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 21 May 2013 21:17:23 Brian wrote: >> On Tue 21 May 2013 at 14:44:06 -0400, Wayne Topa wrote: >>> On 05/21/2013 12:44 PM, Brian wrote: On Tue 21 May 2013 at 11:32:32 -0400, Wayne Topa wrote: > This is what I get I get from trying to fin

Re: Wheezy-backports

On Tuesday 21 May 2013 21:17:23 Brian wrote: > On Tue 21 May 2013 at 14:44:06 -0400, Wayne Topa wrote: > > On 05/21/2013 12:44 PM, Brian wrote: > > > On Tue 21 May 2013 at 11:32:32 -0400, Wayne Topa wrote: > > >> This is what I get I get from trying to find ftp.debian.org > > >> > > >>> topa@dj:~$

Re: Wheezy-backports

On Tue 21 May 2013 at 14:44:06 -0400, Wayne Topa wrote: > On 05/21/2013 12:44 PM, Brian wrote: > > On Tue 21 May 2013 at 11:32:32 -0400, Wayne Topa wrote: > > > >> This is what I get I get from trying to find ftp.debian.org > >> > >>> topa@dj:~$ fping http://ftp.debian.org/debian > >>> http://ft

Re: Wheezy-backports

On 05/21/2013 03:13 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote: > On Tue, 21 May 2013, Wayne Topa wrote: > >> On 05/21/2013 12:57 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote: >>> On Tue, 21 May 2013, Wayne Topa wrote: >>> On 05/21/2013 11:52 AM, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: > Hi Wayne, >>> topa@dj:~$ fping http://ftp.debian.

Re: Wheezy-backports

On Tue, 21 May 2013, Wayne Topa wrote: > On 05/21/2013 12:57 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote: > > On Tue, 21 May 2013, Wayne Topa wrote: > > > >> On 05/21/2013 11:52 AM, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: > >>> Hi Wayne, > > topa@dj:~$ fping http://ftp.debian.org/debian > > http://ftp.debian.org/debian ad

Re: Wheezy-backports

On 05/21/2013 12:44 PM, Brian wrote: > On Tue 21 May 2013 at 11:32:32 -0400, Wayne Topa wrote: > >> This is what I get I get from trying to find ftp.debian.org >> >>> topa@dj:~$ fping http://ftp.debian.org/debian >>> http://ftp.debian.org/debian address not found >> >> For some reason, which I ha

Re: Wheezy-backports

On 05/21/2013 12:57 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote: > On Tue, 21 May 2013, Wayne Topa wrote: > >> On 05/21/2013 11:52 AM, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: >>> Hi Wayne, > topa@dj:~$ fping http://ftp.debian.org/debian > http://ftp.debian.org/debian address not found For some reason, which I hav

Re: Wheezy-backports

On Tue 21 May 2013 at 17:44:19 +0100, Brian wrote: > On Tue 21 May 2013 at 11:32:32 -0400, Wayne Topa wrote: > > > This is what I get I get from trying to find ftp.debian.org > > > > > topa@dj:~$ fping http://ftp.debian.org/debian > > > http://ftp.debian.org/debian address not found > > > > Fo

Re: Wheezy-backports

On Tue, 21 May 2013, Wayne Topa wrote: > On 05/21/2013 11:52 AM, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: > > Hi Wayne, > >>> topa@dj:~$ fping http://ftp.debian.org/debian > >>> http://ftp.debian.org/debian address not found > >> > >> For some reason, which I haven't figured out, is why they are not > >> found? D

Re: Wheezy-backports

On Tue 21 May 2013 at 11:32:32 -0400, Wayne Topa wrote: > This is what I get I get from trying to find ftp.debian.org > > > topa@dj:~$ fping http://ftp.debian.org/debian > > http://ftp.debian.org/debian address not found > > For some reason, which I haven't figured out, is why they are not foun

Re: Wheezy-backports

On 05/21/2013 11:52 AM, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: > Hi Wayne, >>> topa@dj:~$ fping http://ftp.debian.org/debian >>> http://ftp.debian.org/debian address not found >> >> For some reason, which I haven't figured out, is why they are not found? >> DNS problem or ipv6 or ??? >> > > Doesn't wor here, t

Re: Wheezy-backports

Hi Wayne, > > topa@dj:~$ fping http://ftp.debian.org/debian > > http://ftp.debian.org/debian address not found > > For some reason, which I haven't figured out, is why they are not found? > DNS problem or ipv6 or ??? > Doesn't wor here, too. But try "ping ftp.debian.org" as root. Should work

Re: Wheezy-backports

ezy was released. >>> >>> I have not seen any posts about this so I assume I have missed. >>> something. >>> >>> Sources list looks like this: >>> >>> deb http://ftp.ca.debian.org/debian wheezy-backports main >>> deb http://ftp.

Re: Wheezy-backports

me I have missed. >> something. >> >> Sources list looks like this: >> >> deb http://ftp.ca.debian.org/debian wheezy-backports main >> deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian wheezy-backports main >> deb http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian wheezy-backports main >>

Re: Search Wheezy-backports?

just noticed a funny thing: Today, when I do 'apt-cache > > show libreoffice-writer' both the 3.5 and new 4.0 versions are > > listed. > > Same here. > > > Same output with or without the -t wheezy-backports. I'm beginning > > to think that the Libr

Re: Wheezy-backports

ction timed out)" > > The same results with ftp.ca.debian.org, ftp.uk.debian.org. This > started the day after Wheezy was released. > > I have not seen any posts about this so I assume I have missed. > something. > > Sources list looks like this: > > deb htt

Wheezy-backports

tp.uk.debian.org. This started the day after Wheezy was released. I have not seen any posts about this so I assume I have missed. something. Sources list looks like this: deb http://ftp.ca.debian.org/debian wheezy-backports main deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian wheezy-backports main deb http://f

Re: Search Wheezy-backports?

ter' both the 3.5 and new 4.0 versions are listed. Same here. > Same output with or without the -t wheezy-backports. I'm beginning > to think that the LibreOffice 4 packages have been moved out of > backports, if they were ever there, and into the stable repos. Guess > I

Re: Search Wheezy-backports?

On Monday 20 May 2013 13:04:25 you wrote: > apt-cache show > libreoffice The 'apt-cache + options" command works on the package cache, which includes , afaik, all the packages reference in the sources.list. 'apt-get' install stable packages unless the '-t' option is used. -- Peace, Greg --

Re: Search Wheezy-backports?

ot; > > > > > > > root@debian7:~# apt-cache policy libreoffice > > libreoffice: > > Installed: 1:3.5.4+dfsg-4 > > Candidate: 1:3.5.4+dfsg-4 > > Version table: > > 1:4.0.3-2~bpo70+1 0 > > 100 http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ w

Re: Search Wheezy-backports?

ry again, but > > > be more thorough. > > > > Interesting. What is output of: > > root@tal:~# apt-cache policy "app version ONLY in backports." > > > > root@debian7:~# apt-cache policy libreoffice > libreoffice: > Installed: 1:3.5.4+d

Re: Search Wheezy-backports?

# apt-cache policy "app version ONLY in backports." > root@debian7:~# apt-cache policy libreoffice libreoffice: Installed: 1:3.5.4+dfsg-4 Candidate: 1:3.5.4+dfsg-4 Version table: 1:4.0.3-2~bpo70+1 0 100 http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-backports/main amd64 Packag

  1   2   >