** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #497983
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=497983
** Also affects: apt (Debian) via
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=497983
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
apt-transport-https: large packages timeout afte
Okay, i think we never get in compliance which cow is the best super cow, so i
propose the following:
APT provides two standard cows: the "old" cow and the cow from Fernando Ribeiro
accessible with "apt-get moo" and "apt-get moo moo".
This should be suitable for most users.
For the more advanced
** Changed in: apt (Ubuntu Lucid)
Assignee: (unassigned) => David Kalnischkies (donkult)
--
apt-get source pkg=version downloads the wrong version
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/551178
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubu
(Probably "a bit" late, but here we go)
You will have to use the slightly unwieldy "tor+mirror+http", so your example
line would be:
deb tor+mirror+http://mirrors.ubuntu.com/mirrors.txt bionic main restricted
universe multiverse
btw: apt-transport-tor is by default using a new circuit per host
A package which isn't even installed can not be the cause of a problem…
and you are not using a "tor+" source (which is enabled by that
package).
Looks for me like you would need to "apt update" as the data you have
locally on your system is too old and references no longer existing
files … a few
This is documented behavior due to in which order the various
configuration places are evaluated: man apt.conf has the details at the
top.
In other words, you have to set Dir::Ignore-Files-Silently in a config
file specified with the APT_CONFIG environment variable for it to take
effect for config
They both sound awfully "generic" (pun intended), but I can't really
come up with an example for a bad match, so lets just try it I guess.
That said, isn't the "deeper" problem that these metapackages can be
removed easily even through they are important to keep the kernel up-to-
date (and hence s
The cake is a lie.
--print-uris does *NOT* print the URIs an "apt update" is bound to use.
It can't because it doesn't download any file and it would need to
download at least the (current) InRelease file to answer that. So what
it does is print the URIs it would download IF everything would exist
Nowadays our HTTPS implementation works a few layers deeper than what I
talked about three years ago, so we could similar to our auth.conf work
now open all certificate (others also?) files as root before dropping
rights. As that would be best implemented by someone who actually uses
these features
"apt install foo/bar" will try to satisfy dependencies of foo from
release bar if the current candidates do not satisfy the requirements.
That is more a feature for going to a PPA (or backports) than leaving it
and has some issues, but it exists (e.g. your downgrade has probably all
dependencies sa
Without looking at the deb file, this is likely a regression of 2.0
which was fixed in the recently released 2.0.1 in Debian. Pretty sure
that will eventually flow into Ubuntu as well. See the commit in
question for details if you are interested: https://salsa.debian.org
/apt-team/apt/-/commit/bf46
Regarding the bug itself: I wouldn't exactly call it a regression, but
it wasn't a super-intended change either. If I see it right I "broke" it
in 2015 by fixing a compiler warning, which indicated that a check which
should have been since ever never applied. So, that it worked before was
just as w
Note that the file we have in lists/ is not what we downloaded as we
have downloaded a highly compressed version of the content (e.g. xz),
but store it either uncompressed (for which we have a checksum) or
lightly compressed (e.g. lz4 for which we have no checksum and can not
as different versions
APT can't know how "critical" the other packages are compared to the
packages which failed to download (which really shouldn't happen to
begin with). I mean, if you don't (normally) use an SSH server, but
hard-depend on a sublime text-editor experience…
Have you tried the --fix-missing option the
apt-utils is not required & this is not a warning (in the sense of an
unimportant error), but an information why debconf isn't asking
questions to configure all packages upfront at the start of the run, but
will ask questions (if any) while the packages are actually installed as
needed potentially
The message can not be shown only if the package is going to ask
questions as debconf would need to extract the questions beforehand (and
find none) for that to work – but it can't do that without apt-utils. :)
Not sure about the stderr vs. stdout, I guess the rational is that its
more important t
Mechanical train signals used to signal if the next section is clear vs.
blocked by another train used to have the arm raised if it was clear and
down if not. That was so that if the mechanic would fail in some way the
arm would fall down and rest in the "blocked" state rather than in a
"clear" sta
No such version exists as it would be a bug. An Auto-Installed field !=
1 is still possible if the section includes another field the current
apt version doesn't know about and hence can't reason about. apt itself
does not currently generate such stanzas, but a future version might. Or
other client
> I've attached an example log, where the error pops up for multiple
packages, and they all appear to be compared to one size (86464 bytes).
just for the record: This is a misunderstanding. If apt does pipelining
it searches in the requests it made for the file this response is for.
If no request
No idea about Ubuntu specifically, but it should be in upstream since apt
1.8.0~alpha3 release on Tue, 18 Dec 2018 15:02:11 +0100.
See also: https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt/merge_requests/38
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed
(as I was asked to have a look – only reviewing based on comments and
code in this bug through)
I guess setting the state explicit here is okay, I wonder why the
package hasn't any state through – isn't that kinda normal for a package
not touched at all? I also think it is wrong that .get_changes(
So, how is this option named in firefox and how do you set it? ………
exactly. You don't have it as an option as servername != hostname is
something you only need for experiments which is the main purpose of
s_client. Firefox doesn't need that option as it is using SNI (in
reality it uses a library wh
Is it really /any/ which I can't confirm at the moment as holding e.g.
apt & dpkg works just fine…
The underlying question is: Are the packages you are trying to hold
installed? If not, dpkg will accept the hold at first and record it (so
apt will report it on showhold again), but as soon as the d
"apt-cache" (the commandline binary packaged in apt) never reads keys
because it has no business with keys… from the "reproducer" I guess you
are trying to report a problem with the python bindings? You have also
omitted any other useful information like which version you are using…
If you want it
The recommended way is "chown _apt:root FILE && chmod 400 FILE" at the moment.
Ideally we wouldn't need the chown (or have it root:root), but that isn't very
realistic to be implementable without rolling our own TLS stack in the process
at the moment, so we have to make due with that for now.
Di
Thanks for your well written bugreport and a very happy Christmas to
you, too, sir. Please proceed to the checkout counter and accept a full
refund and our sincere apologizes.
Unfortunately, I am neither a ubuntu developer, nor do I drink kool-aid
apart from the seasonal appropriate hot cocoa, but
I am sorry, but with the provided details this report isn't actionable.
You have run apt on the terminal so including the ENTIRE output would
have been a good idea, can't do much with the hashsum mismatches –
expect predicting that this is indeed some sort of problem on your end
of the internet con
apt does what it is told – appstream configures apt to download only the
files for the native architecture, so there is no sensible action to be
taken by apt and hence this task invalid.
If "$(NATIVE_ARCHITECTURE)" in the apt.conf file shipped by appstream is
changed to "$(ARCHITECTURE)" apt will
Still, could you please fix sbuild to not use options which do nothing
Dmitrijs?
As Michael said, --fix-broken did, does and will not do anything for build-dep,
so calling apt with it is just wrong, even if it was accepted in the past. The
parsing of the commandline became stricter now as we get
If we have an error message, the exit code should be non-zero, but we
can't do this without surprising users (read: scripts).
While it might not be perfect, it is at least not wrong as 'del' does in
this situation what it is supposed to do: remove the key from the
keyring. This is a trivial task o
Well, this is intended behavior as our commandline parser got stricter
and allows/forbids options based on the subcommands (like update)
instead of accepting and possibly silently ignoring all options for
every subcommand confusing the hell out of users and developers alike.
Simulation (-s) is e.g
(History-digging response) After sending my reply I actually wondered
about the lock as well: A simple test revivaled that the current version
has no problem with it, but now I had a closer look: I vaguely remember
problems with locking as well, but I am not sure if that was related to
'update'. A
As I implemented this years ago I am obviously biased, but I think not
supporting "#" as a comment is a mistake as sources.list and preferences
support it and most other config files you come across do comments with '#'.
The autokernelremove code was an "external" contribution and it just shows
Well, you should tell us your sources then, otherwise we wouldn't know
how to reproduce. Also, the output of "ls -l /var/lib/apt/lists" to see
the timestamps might be helpful.
Note that apt isn't setting the timestamp to your last execution of apt,
but to the last modification time the server repo
This is caused by the usage of relatively new c++11 features, namely
std::get_time, as described in this libstdc++6 upstream bug:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71556
The Release for yakkety-proposed currently reads: "Date: Fri, 17 Jun
2016 6:30:29 UTC". Note the "6" as hour.
Rever
@dino99: Are you sure you haven't (partially) upgraded just the 'apt'
package? In that case this would be expected as the "fix" is in libapt-
pkg5.0 build by the apt source package – the ubuntu repository was most-
recently updated in a 2-digit hour, while both PPAs were last updated in
single-digi
This is intended. The intro text of the OPTIONS section mentions that
for boolean options every option has a --no- option negating the effect
(which happens to be right above --no-install-recommends). As --install-
recommends is the default, it feels more useful to document the negation
as its the
What type of proxy is that? Given you were using it before I presume its
an HTTP proxy. Does the URI you specify has "http://"; in front? Is that
perhaps a public proxy? We have a test covering HTTP proxies and I have
just run an upgrade myself with a SOCKS proxy so that more likely
something speci
That used to be a shortcoming in apt-file, not a problem of apt-
transport-tor (or any other transport as apt-file was using its own
implementation). An apt-file release changing to utilizing apt for
downloads (which in turn would us a-t-t then) was released as version
3.0, released on 28 Feb 2016
And which are the "broken error messages" then, I don't see any… ?
(the messages are on the longer side, which makes it look "funny" if
wrapped like it is in launchpad, but I don't see what is broken about
it…)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which
That would be horrible… If you contact a server foo.example.org it
should respond with the cert for it, not with a cert for
bar.example.com. That is what SNI is all about after all (as your client
connects to an IP and SNI is telling the server which hostname it wanted
to connect to, so the server
That sounds like what this commit describes:
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/apt/apt.git/commit/?id=84eec207be35b8c117c430296d4c212b079c00c1
Hence tagged as such as its available in the 1.4 series. Not sure if this
should be backported to 1.2 or not.
** Changed in: apt (Ubuntu)
Status: Ne
The solution is to tell the owners of the respective repositories to fix
their Release file(s). The Date (and Valid-Until) field MUST be in UTC
(aka GMT, Z, +). Earlier apt versions accepted other timezones
silently, but parsed it as UTC anyhow which could cause all kinds of
fun. Now a /warning
While that sounds reasonable at first in simple situations, if I follow
that argument, I can find no reason why we are doing complex metapackage
handling, keeping many providers and a lot of other things, so we should
get right of all those, too, should we?
In reality we have to deal with many man
Have you read apt-secure(8) manpage as the explanatory notice (N:)
attached to the *warning* message says?
It explains why you see the *warnings*, that it is the propose of the
switch to downgrade the *errors* to a *warning* (so that worked as
intended) and it mentions how to configure that in sou
> The allow-unauthenticated did not downgrade all errors relating to signing to
> warnings.
> If it had, the apt-get update would have included the new packages and it
> would find
> the packages during an install command, but may not allow installation
> without explicit
> confirmation. The err
well, reassigning 3 years old bugs isn't really helping anyone…
especially if there are no details. Even worse if you pull a "I had a
complete unrelated issue I haven't reported a couple days ago, so that
years old issue here must be a bug in apt". After all, in your
reasoning, if it would be a gen
Are you sure you haven't marked these kernels as manually installed
somehow? Perhaps there is also something depending on them still like
some installed out-of-tree kernel modules.
The output of the following three commands can be helpful to figure out
if apt would consider autoremoving them if no
So apt would autoremove them if it could, like it already did with the
linux-image-extra packages – so I guess as before: kernel module package
depending on the images perhaps via indirection (provides), probably on
of the "NonfreeKernelModules: zfs zunicode zcommon znvpair zavl" (or
another, I am
That is a regression of sorts caused by a sleight of hand used to avoid
another bug. The commit in question would be
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/apt/apt.git/commit/?id=446551c8ffd2c9cb9dcd707c94590e73009f7dd9
although the involved code changed in the mean time the general idea
remains the same:
Could be:
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/apt/apt.git/commit/?id=84ac6edfabe1c92d67e8d441e04216ad33c89165
Which is a problem with the redirection handling, which would also explain why
its not happening for everyone as these download servers might be doing (no)
redirections based on the region o
(srly, bugreports referring to pastebin?)
Well, apts output says what is going on: As a package with that name
doesn't exist and the string looks like a regex (thanks to the '.') it
will search for packages matching the regex and it does find one. That
is perfectly fine and established behavior wh
(for the record: I am not defending the name->glob->regex fallback/guess
as a wonderful interface… it isn't… I am defending it on the grounds
that it is an interface for nearly two decades now, so changing it for
apt-get would be a horrible mess breaking usercases left and right and
apt-users tend
This is an explicit feature – apt will mark the packages as manual if
the metapackage is removed as a consequence of another package (e.g. you
remove the browser the metapackage depends on, the office-suite will be
marked as manual to prevent it to be removed automatically just because
you don't li
See
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/apt/apt.git/commit/?id=9127d7aecf01f2999a2589e4b0503288518b2927
and
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/apt/apt.git/commit/?id=27925d82dd0cbae74d48040363fe6f6c2bae5215
among others.
Backporting of these changes itself might not be sensible, but we
"backported" th
With a quick test I can't reproduce this with %40 as encoding, but I
will try some more later.
I would highly recommend to NOT write your authentication information in
sources.list through. Beside the parsing problem you seem to encounter,
you can't reasonably change the permission of the file (it
That is the case since at least version 1.1~exp15, so closing as done.
Note that 'apt' isn't supposed to replace 'apt-get'. They can happily
co-exist and should be used as needed.
** Changed in: apt (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Fix Released
--
You received this bug notification because you ar
Raring is out-of-support for 2 years now (and was already unsupported at
the time of the bugreport) and the report misses all sorts of details to
be actionable.
I guess this was a "web-portal confusing apt" issue back then, which is
long fixed by now, hence opportunistically closing – if that is
r
This is a feature, so you can pin a release (like backports) to a low
value, but raise it easily if you need to. It is also explicitly
documented in the apt_preferences manpage, which also mentions a
"workaround": Note that this [= the target release setting] has
precedence over any general priorit
Please mention the exact command you are trying as --yes is implemented
in apt… e.g. "apt install sauerbraten --yes".
** Changed in: apt (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https:/
All settings involving pinning are of the first-come-first-serve level.
Adding an exception for the default-release setting to have an effect on
all packages from this release "maybe" is just complicating a feature in
usage, documentation and code which is already very complicated – and
what makes
well, apt 1.2.10 is in xenial and in that version my example works, so I
fear you will need to provide a few more details like the entire output
and commandline of the command you try.
(it works also in earlier versions and I am relatively sure it works
since the dawn of the apt-binary as its used
The apt(8) manpage doesn't list any options (okay, it mentions a selected few,
but it has no long list like the other manpages).
It lists only subcommands like 'install' or 'show' and refers the reader to the
manpage of apt-get or apt-cache or whatever for details because repeating the
very same
As pitti can't reproduce it with a clean system there is a good chance
an "unrelated" package from a PPA or cruft from an earlier upgrade
confuses apt (as far as I remember PPAs are disabled on upgrade in
Ubuntu, so it can't be new "unrelated" packages at least). These bugs
are everyone’s favorite
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/apt/apt.git/commit/?id=0919f1df552ddf022ce4508cbf40e04eae5ef896
** Changed in: apt (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Committed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpa
APT is using dpkg's --recursive option with a temporary directory since
recently if it has to touch >5 packages to avoid producing too long
commandlines for the kernel (yes, that is a thing… although unlikely it
does happen in big upgrades). Seems like this interface in dpkg does
support only *.deb
I presume that works (I would be using nativearch="$(dpkg --print-
architecture)" through – and poking directly into info/ is discouraged.
Checking exitcode of commands like 'dpkg-query -s "$1"' might be
better), but note that with a "foo:all" you aren't talking about a
package as packages can't ha
The names aren't ambiguous – if apt prints no architecture it is ALWAYS
the native architecture. This is this way for compatibility reasons as
apt hadn't previously printed any architecture – because they were all
native – so old tools, scripts, processes, … sticking to the common case
of single-ar
btw: "apt-cache pkgnames" should have better/quicker result than
searching.
Don't know what that goldfish is nor am I particular interested in
cloud, but I guess they could be added if there is need/interest. Its
not like there is any real cost attached to it and false positives are
pretty unlikel
1. Removing the _apt user is really not needed nor a good idea. Its enough to
have this in a config file:
APT::Sandbox::User "root"; // remove file again after testing!
2. Symlinking /usr/bin/gpgv to /bin/true will never work as verifying
signatures is more involved then just checking the exit co
That isn't directly the fault of apt-key. It uses gpg which in its >=
2.0 versions has split its operations into a multitude of daemons for
security reasons. The daemons should be terminating themselves a few
seconds after the directory they operate in disappears. That is at least
the case for gpg-
Without an example nobody will ever know what you might mean.
You might be meaning accidentally debug output – I that happened
sometime ago, could be 1.1 and should be fixed in newer versions. Or
perhaps you mean that you enabled debug output and expect it to be all
orderly – not going to happen:
I realized that even the reporter say that in newer versions it works –
so no wonder I couldn't reproduce it. I modified our basic-auth test to
check for this issue specifically, so we aren't going to regress on
this.
The history suggests this could be fixed by
436d7eab92bb8f9cc6498acfbf2055e717be
We had the intention (#818639) but forgot it then so only zh_CN was
fixed in 1.2.8 … I commited the comma-drop now [I would like to claim
that this comma makes perfect sense in German but even there it is a bit
strange].
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bug
Thank you both for the files! A quick test suggests that both expose the
problem by unpacking but not configuring libgcrypt before touching
systemd. The actual produced order is quiet different through (and both
systems are obviously far away from a minbase chroot – which happily
does the right th
Attached is a trivial patch [in retrospective] I just committed upstream
which should fix this issue – I have only verified it by logchecking
with the two status files from the buglog (again: thanks!) through, I
haven't actually run it on a real system so testers welcome!
That should be easily bac
Just as a comment: After the first error you have a decent chance to report
errors which depend on the previous error.
'example-data' can't be installed for whatever reason - the logical consequence
is that 'example' will fail to install, too, resulting in a useless bugreport.
After the first "v
First A simple workaround for this specific case:
Move the libsmbclient dependency in kde-runtime from somewhere in the middle to
the end of the dependency list.
The problem:
Imagine a package A depending on B and C. B depends on nothing and C breaks the
"old" installed B.
In some situations (no
Do you have a proxy configured or something like that?
Or is your connection very flaky?
Given that it works then you call apt-get directly suggests to me that
muon messes something up, but i don't want to play bug-ping-pong now…
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
I can't read french, but:
dpkg-deb (sous-processus) : données : erreur de lecture interne de gzip : «
: data error »
dpkg-deb: le sous-processus a retourné une erreur de sortie d'état
2
dpkg : erreur de traitement de
/var/cache/apt/archives/libgtk2.0-0_2.23.2-0ubuntu4_i386.deb (--unpack) :
Look
Yes it still exists - as it is a feature. See the 01autoremove config
file and the option APT::Never-MarkAuto-Sections in particular.
** Changed in: apt (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribe
I guess the applet is provided by system-config-printer, so lets
reassign it to them, as there is nothing apt can do about.
P.S.: The packages are not completely installed - some are dangling
half-installed on your system as you can see in the end of the APT
output. More information about the stat
How should APT detect if it is installed on a server? It simply can't
(what is a server after all)
So if you want that to happen, reassign it to a metapackage and ship a
config file in it.
But please report incorrect recommends against the package in question!
A recommends is nearly as important
Do you have a cdrom/dvd listed in your sources?
If so comment it out or upgrade to APT 0.8.9:
* cmdline/acqprogress.cc:
- don't ask the user for media change if quiet >= 2, stdout is not
a tty and assume-yes, force-yes or trivial-only option is set to
avoid cpu eating endless loo
Well, expect that 406 and Range have nothing to do with each other. 416
is an out-of-range request, while 406 tells us that we requested a file
in a specific encoding which the server did not have.
The 416 Range thing should be handled for a while now, we at least have a
testcase covering it so I
or the fix which is in the experimental branch for this issue for 2+ months
now… ;)
353c135e45d3b76dbecc1ba1b2bd9266601181ee
I don't think the virtual package handling CacheSetHelperAPTGet provides
is really needed (nor even wanted) for download or changelog, so we can
just use the default helper
Without verifying if these Ubuntu versions actually have my bad patch
("deprecate the Section member from package struct" - fixing the problem
of a package changing sections basically being randomly in one of these
sections) I would presume this is debbug #793360 aka: Never-Mark-Auto
doesn't apply
While this sounds like a good idea at first and many users actually do
it this way (= unchecked import of keys), apt can't do it for security
reasons and adding it (anyway) as an option would just mean we encourage
this behavior further.
The signing keys of a repository ensure that the data apt do
Thanks for the report! Unfortunately reporting it against apt is
incorrect as apt itself contains no program which "automatically" adds
PPAs or similar such. It just takes the sources.list content and
interprets it. So it was either you adding this PPA by hand in which
case its a user error (copy&p
apt 1.1~exp4 fixes this issue (see also debbug #762898) in git commit
43acd01979039b248cb7f033b82e36d778d0ebec, so try that version then it
appears in Ubuntu. Using of the root cache (if available) is at least
supposed to happen in that version as well (but also in the version you
have… I will give
That's a fun one… You see, back in 2013 I remodeled the commandline
parsing. The point was that an option (like -s) is only accepted if the
command (e.g. dselect-upgrade) supports this option. Previously e.g.
apt-get would accept any option even if it only has an effect for
certain commands. Very d
ähm, did you realize that "Expires" is the exact time of your request
(compare "Date") in your example? (See also the HTTP1.1 spec which will
tell you that 'Expires' doesn't really mean what you think it does, so
that the value it has is actually 'okay').
APT is using If-Modified-Since in its requ
The funpart to observe here is that apt is crashing while writing an
apport report for an observed failure… so figure out what error it is
that apt wants to report here is probably bringing you guys a lot closer
to figure out what goes on… (looking at the stacktrace in the bugreport
alone as I don'
About what progress reporting are we talking here? (apt has a gazillion
steps which have independent progress reporting, so "progress report" is
a tat too unspecific).
If we are talking about the "(Reading database" in the output you
attached, this isn't even coming from apt – this is coming from
Sorry if my previous comment came across as rude, it wasn't intended as
such. It was just meant as a quick reply (I was in a hurry) to clear up
what is the topic of this bug as incomplete reports aren't actionable.
(An incomplete bug isn't necessarily the fault of the bugreporter as
someone can ha
[ There is no --arch option. Its either -a or --host-architecture. If it
would be --arch, it would mean build-architecture.]
I said this earlier already: This is a problem of not having
enough/correct information. For APT "Multi-Arch: foreign" means that it
can use a package from any architecture.
Could you guys please refrain from pinging me for comments without
reading my previous comments?
Not only does this response now eat up all the time I have available for
APT this week, its also highly demotivating to have the public record of
two @canoncial.com people that they don't have to read
My problem with https is that I hadn't the infrastructure set up to test it –
and code needs testing, especially if it ends up on millions of systems.
Others might be good enough to write (or apply) bugfree code without testing,
but I am not.
So what I do with patches I can't test is that I revi
APT isn't using wget, it uses its own http (1.1) client implementation
to be able to use advanced flags in the request wget and co do not
support (as they are not intended to be used in this way) and
potentially supports features like pipelining (currently disabled by
default though as some dumb mi
A package has to publicly announce that it is overriding files from
another package. If it doesn't dpkg has to assume that this is done by
mistake and bails out.
Just because the filename is the same doesn't meant it has a compatible
content. If it isn't compatible it will break software on way or
1 - 100 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
