From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) by lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v5FH8qq6002927 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 13:08:52 -0400 Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id B4CA24D9E9; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:08:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.110.31]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADA587A2E3 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:08:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailbackend.panix.com (mailbackend.panix.com [166.84.1.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D505C04B936 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:08:50 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 2D505C04B936 Authentication-Results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=panix.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jdashiel@panix.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 2D505C04B936 Received: from panix1.panix.com (panix1.panix.com [166.84.1.1]) by mailbackend.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955AF100C5 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 13:08:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by panix1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 20712) id 7142F14B9D; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 13:08:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by panix1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E06D14B98 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 13:08:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 13:08:49 -0400 (EDT) To: Linux for blind general discussion Subject: Re: working with nano In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (NEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, Sender IP whitelisted by DNSRBL, ACL 203 matched, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.31]); Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:08:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: inspected by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.31]); Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:08:50 +0000 (UTC) for IP:'166.84.1.89' DOMAIN:'mailbackend.panix.com' HELO:'mailbackend.panix.com' FROM:'jdashiel@panix.com' RCPT:'' X-RedHat-Spam-Score: -0.831 (BAYES_60, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_PASS, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD) 166.84.1.89 mailbackend.panix.com 166.84.1.89 mailbackend.panix.com X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 10.5.110.31 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-loop: blinux-list@redhat.com From: Linux for blind general discussion X-BeenThere: blinux-list@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: junk Reply-To: blinux-list@redhat.com List-Id: Linux for blind general discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:08:52 -0000 archlinux has nano version 2.84 on it now. Syntax for aptitude is first aptitude update then aptitude safe-upgrade That should get you updates without breaking anything and will let you know which packages were held back. If you want to find out why packages were held back aptitude why packagename ought to get that done. On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Linux for blind general discussion wrote: > Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 10:11:58 > From: Linux for blind general discussion > To: blinux-list@redhat.com > Subject: Re: working with nano > > I don't know which version of Debian you're running, but I just did > some quick checks, and: > Debian oldstable(Wheezy?) and Debian Stable(still Jessie for now > though I believe Stretch is in Release Candidate) both offer a 2.2.6 > version of nano. > Debian Testing, which is what I'm running, has a 2.7 version of Nano. > > I don't really follow Nano development, so I have no idea whey the > version number changed so little during the previous Debian release > cycle compared to the current one or what changed between 2.2 and 2.7. > > --