Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Software-Support (DE) / Re: Tastaturlayout über CLI ändern
« Last post by Mister00X on 2022/01/10, 16:58:11 »
Ich habe da mal etwas gegoogelt, und https://forum.kde.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=164428#p428353 gefunden.

Also probier doch mal
Code: [Select]
qdbus org.kde.keyboard /Layouts setLayout "de"
22
Software-Support (DE) / Re: Tastaturlayout über CLI ändern
« Last post by Penyelam on 2022/01/10, 16:47:25 »
Danke für die schnelle Antwort.
Aber genau so sieht es schon aus.
23
Software-Support (DE) / Re: Tastaturlayout über CLI ändern
« Last post by hendrikL on 2022/01/10, 16:28:40 »
vielleicht mit hilfe der ~/.config/plasma-localerc
Code: [Select]
cat .config/plasma-localerc
[Formats]
LANG=de_DE.UTF-8

[Translations]
LANGUAGE=de

Als entsprechende userin ändern.
24
Software-Support (DE) / Tastaturlayout über CLI ändern
« Last post by Penyelam on 2022/01/10, 16:16:36 »
Meine Tochter hat zum Schreiben eines Textes mit kyrillischen Schriftzeichen das Tastaturlayout auf RU umgestellt.
Jetzt hat der Sperrbildschirm zugeschlagen und sie kann sich nicht mehr anmelden, die Zeichen für das Passwort kommen im kyrillischen nicht vor.

Das gleiche Problem wurde schon mal hier diskutiert:
https://forum.ubuntuusers.de/topic/tastaturlayout-umstellen-bei-gesperrtem-bildsc/
leider funktioniert die Lösung von dort nicht.

Sie kommt als root auf die Konsole, kann man das in einer Config-Datei zurückstellen?

Desktop: KDE Plasma 5.23.4 tk: Qt 5.15.2 wm: kwin_x11 vt: 7 dm: SDDM
    Distro: siduction 18.2.0 Patience - kde - (201803072323)

26
Hallo alle zusammen,

ich habe durch Zufall herausgefunden, das siductions KDE-ISO xdg-desktop-portal und das dazugehörige GTK-Frontend xdg-desktop-portal-gtk enthält, jedoch nicht das KDE-Frontend xdg-desktop-portal-kde. Ich denke, da es sich ja um ein KDE-Abbild handelt könnte man das doch noch hinzufügen beim nächsten release.

Mister00X
27
Upgrade Warnings (DE / EN) / Re: Wireguard unexpected dependency
« Last post by Mister00X on 2022/01/10, 14:46:22 »
I think I know the cause of this problem.
Code: [Select]
$ LANG=C apt depends wireguard
wireguard
 |Depends: <wireguard-modules> (>= 0.0.20191219)

<...snip...>

According to apt show linux-image-5.15.13-1-siduction-amd64 the siduction kernel provides
Code: [Select]
<...snip...>
Provides: wireguard-modules
<...snip...>
whereas debians stock kernel has
Code: [Select]
$ apt show linux-image-amd64
<...snip...>
Provides: linux-image-generic, linux-latest-modules-5.15.0-2-amd64, virtualbox-guest-modules, wireguard-modules (= 1.0.0)
<...snip...>

Debians stock kernel clearly provides a module with a version number greater than 0.0.20191219 where siductions kernel do not specify a wireguard-modules version number. Assuming that if a version number is not present apt defaults to pretend that it is 0 the problems can be explained.
28
Upgrade Warnings (DE / EN) / Re: Wireguard unexpected dependency
« Last post by hendrikL on 2022/01/10, 14:36:43 »
Ps.:
Since the modules are in the kernel i tested this, I don't know if the wireguard-dkms package is needed.

Code: [Select]
~$ LANG=C apt -s purge linux-image-5.15.0-2-rt-amd64 linux-image-rt-amd64 wireguard- wireguard-tools+ wireguard-dkms+
NOTE: This is only a simulation!
      apt needs root privileges for real execution.
      Keep also in mind that locking is deactivated,
      so don't depend on the relevance to the real current situation!
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading state information... Done
wireguard-tools is already the newest version (1.0.20210914-1).
wireguard-tools set to manually installed.
Recommended packages:
  wireguard
The following packages will be REMOVED:
  linux-image-5.15.0-2-rt-amd64* linux-image-rt-amd64* wireguard*
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  wireguard-dkms
0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 3 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Purg wireguard [1.0.20210914-1]
Purg linux-image-rt-amd64 [5.15.5-2]
Purg linux-image-5.15.0-2-rt-amd64 [5.15.5-2]
Inst wireguard-dkms (1.0.20210606-1 Debian:unstable, Debian:testing [all])
Conf wireguard-dkms (1.0.20210606-1 Debian:unstable, Debian:testing [all])

Conclusion, it should be possible to install wireguard-* without the debian-, rt- or cloud-kernel.

Edit: Typing that while I am connected via a wireguard-tunnel,

Code: [Select]
+++-==========================================-============-============-=======================================
rc  linux-image-5.10.19-towo.1-siduction-amd64 5.10-19      amd64        Linux 5.10 for 64-bit PCs
rc  linux-image-5.10.19-towo.2-siduction-amd64 5.10-19.1    amd64        Linux 5.10 for 64-bit PCs
rc  linux-image-5.10.20-towo.1-siduction-amd64 5.10-20.1    amd64        Linux 5.10 for 64-bit PCs
rc  linux-image-5.11.4-towo.1-siduction-amd64  5.11-4       amd64        Linux 5.11 for 64-bit PCs
ii  linux-image-5.15.12-2-siduction-amd64      5.15-12.1    amd64        Linux 5.15 for 64-bit PCs
ii  linux-image-5.15.13-1-siduction-amd64      5.15-13      amd64        Linux 5.15 for 64-bit PCs
ii  linux-image-siduction-amd64                5.15-13      amd64        Linux image for siduction on 64-bit PCs

Code: [Select]
LANG=C apt policy wireguard* | grep Installed -B 1

WARNING: apt does not have a stable CLI interface. Use with caution in scripts.

wireguard-tools-dbgsym:
  Installed: (none)
--
wireguard-dkms:
  Installed: (none)
--
wireguard-tools:
  Installed: 1.0.20210914-1
--
wireguard-modules:
  Installed: (none)
--
wireguard:
  Installed: (none

So wireguard works like a charme for me™, without having another kernel installed than the -siduction one!

Don't know how it is with a server setup, but as client it works.

29
Upgrade Warnings (DE / EN) / Re: Wireguard unexpected dependency
« Last post by hendrikL on 2022/01/10, 14:08:37 »
Well, I was curious and took a look at it.
I have wireguard installed, never ask what comes with!

Code: [Select]
~$ LANG=C apt policy wireguard
wireguard:
  Installed: 1.0.20210914-1
  Candidate: 1.0.20210914-1
  Version table:
 *** 1.0.20210914-1 500
        500 http://deb.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 Packages
        500 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing/main amd64 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

Code: [Select]
~$ LANG=C apt depends wireguard
wireguard
 |Depends: <wireguard-modules> (>= 0.0.20191219)
    linux-image-amd64
    linux-image-cloud-amd64
    linux-image-rt-amd64
  Depends: wireguard-dkms (>= 0.0.20200121-2)
  Depends: wireguard-tools (>= 1.0.20210914-1)

Code: [Select]
~$ LANG=C dpkg -l linux-image*

Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
| Status=Not/Inst/Conf-files/Unpacked/halF-conf/Half-inst/trig-aWait/Trig-pend
|/ Err?=(none)/Reinst-required (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ Name                                       Version      Architecture Description
+++-==========================================-============-============-==============================================
rc  linux-image-5.10.19-towo.1-siduction-amd64 5.10-19      amd64        Linux 5.10 for 64-bit PCs
rc  linux-image-5.10.19-towo.2-siduction-amd64 5.10-19.1    amd64        Linux 5.10 for 64-bit PCs
rc  linux-image-5.10.20-towo.1-siduction-amd64 5.10-20.1    amd64        Linux 5.10 for 64-bit PCs
rc  linux-image-5.11.4-towo.1-siduction-amd64  5.11-4       amd64        Linux 5.11 for 64-bit PCs
ii  linux-image-5.15.0-2-rt-amd64              5.15.5-2     amd64        Linux 5.15 for 64-bit PCs, PREEMPT_RT (signed)
un  linux-image-5.15.0-2-rt-amd64-unsigned     <none>       <none>       (no description available)
ii  linux-image-5.15.12-2-siduction-amd64      5.15-12.1    amd64        Linux 5.15 for 64-bit PCs
ii  linux-image-5.15.13-1-siduction-amd64      5.15-13      amd64        Linux 5.15 for 64-bit PCs
ii  linux-image-rt-amd64                       5.15.5-2     amd64        Linux for 64-bit PCs (meta-package)
ii  linux-image-siduction-amd64                5.15-13      amd64        Linux image for siduction on 64-bit PCs

So, the rt-image is installed.

Why?
Maybe I am totally wrong, our kernel image is named (correctly) "linux-image-siduction-amd64"
 but wireguard* depends on linux-image-[cloud, rt]amd64 but not "-siduction"!

And as long it depends on not recommends on, we/you can't change that behavior with like apt install --no-install-recommends.

I can be totally wrong!


30
Upgrade Warnings (DE / EN) / Re: Wireguard unexpected dependency
« Last post by michaa7 on 2022/01/09, 14:39:24 »
Hi, I have no clue about wireguard. But if i simmulate an install, there is no dependency like on your system.
Code: [Select]
# apt -V install wireguard -s
Paketlisten werden gelesen… Fertig
Abhängigkeitsbaum wird aufgebaut… Fertig
Statusinformationen werden eingelesen… Fertig
Die folgenden zusätzlichen Pakete werden installiert:
   wireguard-tools (1.0.20210914-1)
Die folgenden NEUEN Pakete werden installiert:
   wireguard (1.0.20210914-1)
   wireguard-tools (1.0.20210914-1)
0 aktualisiert, 2 neu installiert, 0 zu entfernen und 1 nicht aktualisiert.
Inst wireguard-tools (1.0.20210914-1 Debian:unstable [amd64])
Inst wireguard (1.0.20210914-1 Debian:unstable [all])
Conf wireguard-tools (1.0.20210914-1 Debian:unstable [amd64])
Conf wireguard (1.0.20210914-1 Debian:unstable [all])

So it seems as if there is something *unusual* happening on your system:

Have you packages on hold?
What output gives you an "apt update && apt dist-upgrade" ? ( add "-s" if you want to simulate)


EDIT!

BUT ...

I have linux-image-amd64 installed (because I use a Debian Kernel when I write a Debian Bug report). If I purge linux-image-amd64 and then simulate a wireguard install I get the same dependency as you.
Note, the rt kernel has three possible dependencies:
Code: [Select]
# apt depends wireguard
wireguard
 |Hängt ab von: <wireguard-modules> (>= 0.0.20191219)
    linux-image-amd64
    linux-image-cloud-amd64
    linux-image-rt-amd64
  Hängt ab von: wireguard-dkms (>= 0.0.20200121-2)
  Hängt ab von: wireguard-tools (>= 1.0.20210914-1)
and it seems as if in absence of all three it picks the last one.

Would be interessting if towo has linux-image-amd64 installed as well. It seems as if the siduction kernel meta package should be included as one possible dependency to avoid this oddness.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10