Re: Re (3): Dying Iceweasel.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:59:34 -0800, peasthope wrote:
> From: noelamac@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:26:49 +0000 (UTC)
>>> From: Cam..ó..
>
> That's the HTML numeric reference to miniscule oacute.
You mean the hex code, right?
But why your MUA renders as such?
>> It seems your Oberon Mail does not like accented characters ...
>
> According to IETF standards, how should characters beyond basic ASCII be
> handled? The mailer has some elementary settings which I might adjust
> to make accented Roman characters work directly.
Oberon Email does not support ISO nor UTF-8 character encoding? Wow.
>> As I already pointed, esr is for the enterprise version ...
>
> Who would know the esr acronym? Another bit of wiki.debian.org in need
> of fixing.
People who is interested in the Enterprise based version will know ;-)
Besides, Google is always of help.
>> ... update your Iceweasel (and your flash player plugin) to the lastest
>> version available, ...
??
> Yes. I chose aurora. By the way, everyone else in the world would call
> it alpha. I wonder why Debian chose "aurora".
Aurora is the codename that Mozilla uses for this version... from where rock
are you coming from? ;-P
>> Are you sure you selected the right version?
>
> No. I merely chose the latest as you instructed.
??
I don't remember to have said "aurora" :-)
I was referring to the latest version of the stable branch, of course
(release).
>> ... please send the output of what you get when using aptitude
>> interactively? :-?
>
> root@dalton:/etc/apt# aptitude
> ...
> [1(1)/...] Suggest 13 removals
(...)
What suggests those removals? Is there no more info?
> --\ Remove the following packages:
> empathy [2.30.3-1 (now, stable)]
> icedove [3.0.11-1+squeeze10 (now, stable)]
> iceweasel [10.0.5esr-1~bpo60+1 (now, squeeze-backports)]
> libcamel1.2-14 [2.30.3-2+squeeze1 (now, stable)]
> libebook1.2-9 [2.30.3-2+squeeze1 (now, stable)]
> libedataserver1.2-13 [2.30.3-2+squeeze1 (now, stable)]
> libmozjs2d [1.9.1.16-16 (now, stable)]
> libnspr4-0d [4.8.6-1 (now, stable)]
I don't see any compelling reason on why aptitude suggests to remove those
packages. There has to be a detailed report you can read explaining it,
can't you find it? Also, compare this output with the one provided by apt-get.
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: