Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #167642
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.user |
| Subject | Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers |
| Date | 2016-05-10 00:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rx1xf-6ah-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rwOTn-1x9-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <rx14f-5rm-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Monday 09 May 2016 22:37:06 Liam O'Toole wrote: > On 2016-05-09, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote: > > It is also a pity that Wheezy LTS appears not to be a truly viable > > proposition for the desktop. > > True. The software versions are obviously quite old, and not all > packages are supported[1]. Previous LTS releases did not support > graphical web browsers; I don't know whether that is the case for wheezy > LTS too. > > > I still have jdk7 to sort out on three computers. In > > Stable or newer jdk6 would surely have been removed for me by aptitude? > > No, obsolete packages such as openjdk-6-* are left untouched[2]. It is > up to you to remove them. > > 1: https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Using#Check_for_unsupported_packages > 2: > https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.h >tml#obsolete You have shown that they are not removed in LTS, which I have just discovered, and that they are not removed on upgrade to the next version. But, surely, normally when a newer version is installed automatically by aptitude, the older one is removed, unless you have been using aptitude safe-upgrade, when nothing is removed? (Or, of course, unless you have got it pinned?) Lisi
Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 10:40 +0200
Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Markus Schönhaber <debian-user@list-post.mks-mail.de> - 2016-05-09 11:30 +0200
Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 11:50 +0200
Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-05-09 13:00 +0200
Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-05-09 13:30 +0200
Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Dutch Ingraham <stoa@gmx.us> - 2016-05-09 14:20 +0200
Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 16:20 +0200
Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Piyavkin <piyavkin@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 18:00 +0200
Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-05-09 18:20 +0200
Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 18:40 +0200
Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2016-05-09 19:10 +0200
Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-05-09 15:10 +0200
Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 16:20 +0200
Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 23:40 +0200
Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 00:10 +0200
Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 00:40 +0200
Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 01:00 +0200
Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 01:00 +0200
Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-05-10 00:20 +0200
csiph-web