Re: Debian 5.0.5 images for PowerPC

Nuno Miguel dos Santos Baeta wrote:
>Hello!
>
>I want to download Debian 5.0.5 DVD images for PowerPC.  Unfortunately
>I am unable to find images for DVDs 2, 3, 4 and 5 - they seem to have
>disappeared from the servers but MD5SUMS file lists them...
>
>Are there any problems with the PowerPC images and Debian?

We don't make all the ISO images available for download directly - see

  http://www.debian.org/CD/faq/#not-all-images

for more details.

>BTW, CD images are also missing, as well as torrent files.  Jigsaw
>Downloader files (.jigdo and .template) exist but it is impossible to
>build the DVD images.

They certainly *should* work - I tested them when I created them in
the first place. What problems are you having?

--

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve <at> einval.com
"I've only once written 'SQL is my bitch' in a comment. But that code 
 is in use on a military site..." -- Simon Booth

Evolution no longer providing calendar notification unless uder desktop environment (unstable)

Hi all,

If you take a look at the debian bug 588552, you'll notice that as of
now Evolution (2.30.3-1) needs
"/usr/lib/evolution/2.30/evolution-alarm-notify" to be running in
order to provide events notifications and the like.

Problem is that evolution doesn't start this process, and now it
relies on the desktop manager doing that, such as gnome, xfce and the
like (/etc/xdg/autostart/evolution-alarm-notify.desktop).

I don't like desktop managers, and I just use plain fluxbox.  So I'm
thinking on creating my own fluxbox entry menu where I start Evolution
and evolution-alarm-notify.desktop within the same entry.

If anyone has faced it already, what other options are there for plain
window managers (no desktop managers)?

Thanks,

--

-- 
Javier.

Re: Upgrade to latest Inkscape

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 13:59, Bob Proulx <bob <at> proulx.com> wrote:
> Kelly Clowers wrote:
>> James Stuckey wrote:
>> > You shouldn't do it like this. If you do, you very well may end up with an
>> > unstable system.
>>
>> What? Why would it be unstable?
>
> For one it would then be "Unstable", as in the daily Debian Unstable
> build.  As in Unstable, Testing, Stable.  Here is a reference to
> Debian release tracks.

Oh, just the names? I realized 3 or 4 years ago that there is no point
in being afraid of unstable or experimental just because of the names.
I guess they might be unstable enough to bother some people.

> But the real problem with upgrading by the method described is that
> you will probably end up with an unbootable system.  That would be
> another definition of unstable.  This next upgrade will require
> specific actions to successfully upgrade.  Such as upgrading the
> kernel first, rebooting, then upgrading the rest of the system.  See
> several of the recent discussion threads talking about the upgrade
> process from Lenny to Squeeze to get the details.

Yeah, I guess I forgot about that silly transition issue. Probably
because I tend to just upgrade with aptitude interactive, and even
I do manage to get an unbootable system, it is easy enough to
recover it with a live cd.

Cheers,

Reg:- Persistent usb

Re: Reg:- Persistent usb

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 07:05:14 +0530
Kousik Maiti <kousikster <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> This question may be repeated in this mailing list.

Not sure what this means.

> Is there any good documentation for creating persistent bootable usb?

Look at this:

http://live.debian.net/manual/en/html/persistence.html

Celejar
--

-- 
foffl.sourceforge.net - Feeds OFFLine, an offline RSS/Atom aggregator
mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email
ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator

Re: Reg:- Persistent usb

On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 07:05:14AM +0530, Kousik Maiti wrote:
> Hi all,
> This question may be repeated in this mailing list.

So you didn't bother checking then?

--

-- 
Of course you can't flap your arms and fly to the moon.  After a while you'd
run out of air to push against.

[Semi-OT] Process *name* a valid concept in Unix/Linux?

Hi,

I know that you can see a pid and it's complete command line, but is 
there the concept of "name"?

For example, in OpenVMS, you can do:
   $ SET PROCESS/NAME=SOMEUNIQUENAME

Then in SHOW SYSTEM (similar to "ps aux") you'll see a line with a 
pid and the text SOMEUNIQUENAME.  Also, no other process can have 
the same name, thus performing a similar function as lock files.

Or, since fork() is so integral to Unix and processes keep flitting 
in an out of existence, is "name" not a relevant concept?

Thanks

--

-- 
Seek truth from facts.

Re: Locked up Gnome

Current testing versions of gnome & gnome components are giving lot of 
troubles to me mainly crashes and resource floods.
Just for test I got kde (kde3 tanks to a repachage for squeeze, see 
link) some days ago and the performance boost was unimaginable. All the 
system was lighter; iceweasel i'd say is five time quicker starting and 
listing chronology.
I wouldn't suggest anyone to upgrade a well working gnome these days.

kde3 for squeeze: http://techpatterns.com/forums/about1450.html

Re: [Semi-OT] Process *name* a valid concept in Unix/Linux?

  On 8/31/2010 9:26 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know that you can see a pid and it's complete command line, but is 
> there the concept of "name"?
>
> For example, in OpenVMS, you can do:
>   $ SET PROCESS/NAME=SOMEUNIQUENAME
>
> Then in SHOW SYSTEM (similar to "ps aux") you'll see a line with a pid 
> and the text SOMEUNIQUENAME.  Also, no other process can have the same 
> name, thus performing a similar function as lock files.
>
> Or, since fork() is so integral to Unix and processes keep flitting in 
> an out of existence, is "name" not a relevant concept?
>
> Thanks
>

setproctitle(3) which is from BSD will do that if I remember right.  If 
I also recall correctly it was supposed to be implemented inside of 
Debian as libsetproctitle (you can google it and find the Wishlist bug) 
but never actually got implemented, read: 
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=setproctitle&sektion=3

Re: Locked up Gnome

Current testing versions of gnome & gnome components are giving lot of 
troubles to me mainly crashes and resource floods.
Just for test I got kde (kde3 tanks to a repachage for squeeze, see 
link) some days ago and the performance boost was unimaginable. All the 
system was lighter; iceweasel i'd say is five time quicker starting and 
listing chronology.
I wouldn't suggest anyone to upgrade a well working gnome these days.

kde3 for squeeze: http://techpatterns.com/forums/about1450.html