Re: causes for this?
On Sunday 24 June 2018 09:31:27 Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 24 June 2018 04:07:28 Diego Roversi wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 11:15:47 -0400
> >
> > Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote:
> > > On Saturday 23 June 2018 09:18:29 David Pottage wrote:
> > > Now I need to locate a source for xelatex so I can print the docs
> > > and get started. apt can't find it it the repo's. Sigh... Hints
> > > welcomed of course.
> >
> > I think you should install texlive-xetex package. Or just install
> > texlive, if you have planty of disk space.
>
[...]
> Next roadblock, make pdfdocs can't find sphinx, 1.3 or better. And apt
> can't find it either... Sigh.
>
> I guess I go out and see if synaptic can show me anything on its own
> screen. This is a jessie based install. But with a pinned realtime
> kernel a few versions lower than what I'm attempting to build. 4.4.4
> something.
Synaptic did find it, but its version 1.2.3, too early for this >1.3
demanding makefile.
I looked at the repo's but did not find a backports entry, nor did I find
anything from debian-arm not pre-filtered by passing thru the raspian
repo first, no direct debian-arm entries.
Jessie is running well, and except for the keyboard/mouse miss-fires,
dead stable. I've tried a stretch install several times on the rock64,
and setting up an amanda-client to back it up is a sure way to lock it
up, needs a full 10 second powerdown to reboot and recover. Zip in the
logs for clues. So I won't touch a stretch install on a working machine
until amanda can back it up. And its backing up this jessie install
every night w/o any hiccups.
Open to suggestions as to what I do about the out of date sphinx-common
install. Seems like I ought to be able to find it in backports, but
whose?
/etc/apt/sources.list.d/ entry preferred.
Thanks everybody.
--
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
Reply to: