Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Thu 27 Feb 2020, 21:35
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Derivatives
Precise-light - 17March2019 - for older hardware
Moderators: Flash, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 31 of 32 [478 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 29, 30, 31, 32 Next
Author Message
s243a

Joined: 02 Sep 2014
Posts: 2478

PostPosted: Mon 10 Feb 2020, 09:02    Post subject:  

jrb wrote:
s243a wrote:
jrb wrote:
s243a wrote:
It looks like the root certificate for Let's Encrypt is missing.
...
To connect to deb.torproject.org insecurely, use `--no-check-certificate'
I'm afraid this problem is requiring more knowledge and time than I have right now. Embarassed Keep me posted on what you come up with.

I use '--no-check-certificate' quite a lot, so much that I have a small script in my download directory just for that. Extract, place in the directory you download to, click on the script and paste in your URL.


I got this working. See my previous post:

s243a wrote:

I got this working by installing the Xenial-updates version of
https://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial-updates/ca-certificates
...
P.S. I recommend prior to installing ca-certificates_20170717_16.04.2_all.deb that one should first delete the contents of:
Code:

/usr/share/ca-certificates

...
to remove old certificates. Then update /etc/ca-certificates.conf by doing the following:
Code:

cd /usr/share/ca-certificates
find . -name '*' | sed 's#^./##' > /etc/ca-certificates.conf



What I forgot to mention is that after doing the above, then run the following command:
Code:

update-ca-certificates
Sorry to be negative above. I'm a bit busy with other things right now, but I will get back to this. What puzzled me was the different action that update-ca-certificates performed when /etc/ca-certificates.conf and /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/*.crt's were updated. Have you got some links for small files on websites that need '--no-check-certificate'? It would be nice to test without having to download big files.


As I mentioned above, prior to updating the certificates the following wouldn't work without the --no-check-certificate option:
Code:

wget https://deb.torproject.org/torproject.org/dists/jessie/main/binary-i386/Packages.gz -O /tmp/pkg/root/ppa_Packages.gz


After updating the certificate, the --no-check-certificate option isn't required.

_________________
Find me on minds and on pearltrees.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
s243a

Joined: 02 Sep 2014
Posts: 2478

PostPosted: Tue 11 Feb 2020, 14:15    Post subject:  

Posting from the netsurf browser now, installed via the package manager. I also tried installing firefox from the package manager. I got the error

libc.so.6 version `GLIBC_2.18 not found (required by /usr/lib/libsdc++.so.6)

So, I'll try the portable version of a browser next.

P.S. why isn't the portable browser install script included?

P.S #2 Here is some helpful info. Looks like we have to block some packages related to libc. I'm using precise 5.7.2

Code:

ages] $ ls -1 -a | grep .files
ca-certificates_20170717_16.04.2_all.files
firefox-16.0.1-i686-up.files
gcc-4.6-base_4.6.3-1ubuntu5.files
libc6_2.15-0ubuntu10.18.files
libc6_2.15-0ubuntu10.files
libc-bin_2.15-0ubuntu10.18.files
libc-bin_2.15-0ubuntu10.files
libgcc1_4.6.3-1ubuntu5.files
multiarch-support_2.15-0ubuntu10.18.files
multiarch-support_2.15-0ubuntu10.files
netsurf_2.8-2.files
netsurf-gtk_2.8-2.files
pkg-1.9.23-noarch.files
PortaBrowseInstall-i386-0.4.files
tzdata_2012b-1.files
tzdata_2016j-0ubuntu0.12.04.files
yad-0.40.3-i686_common32.files


I'll write a script to move the offending files out of my save folder.

_________________
Find me on minds and on pearltrees.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
s243a

Joined: 02 Sep 2014
Posts: 2478

PostPosted: Tue 11 Feb 2020, 22:58    Post subject:  

Looking at the ISO, I notice that "world" and "group" can write to the /var folder. That sounds overly permissive to me but I'm not an expert in these things.
_________________
Find me on minds and on pearltrees.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
s243a

Joined: 02 Sep 2014
Posts: 2478

PostPosted: Wed 12 Feb 2020, 20:41    Post subject:  

I wrote a script to move and/or delete the bad packages:

Pastebin: mv_bad_pkgs.sh

This script was run to clear the bad files in precise 5.7.2 light. I'm not sure if it will work on older versions of precise because in older puppies the file lists might be slightly different. The script doesn't clean the metadata in user-installed-packages. I could add this feature but it would make the script slightly longer and hence more complicated.

I haven't tried rebooting yet to see if this fixed my issues. I also need to update /var/packages/PACKAGE_MANAGMENT to blacklist these packages.

_________________
Find me on minds and on pearltrees.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
jrb


Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 1439
Location: Smithers, BC, Canada

PostPosted: Wed 12 Feb 2020, 20:56    Post subject:  

s243a wrote:
jrb wrote:
s243a wrote:
jrb wrote:
s243a wrote:
It looks like the root certificate for Let's Encrypt is missing.
...
To connect to deb.torproject.org insecurely, use `--no-check-certificate'
I'm afraid this problem is requiring more knowledge and time than I have right now. Embarassed Keep me posted on what you come up with.

I use '--no-check-certificate' quite a lot, so much that I have a small script in my download directory just for that. Extract, place in the directory you download to, click on the script and paste in your URL.


I got this working. See my previous post:

s243a wrote:

I got this working by installing the Xenial-updates version of
https://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial-updates/ca-certificates
...
P.S. I recommend prior to installing ca-certificates_20170717_16.04.2_all.deb that one should first delete the contents of:
Code:

/usr/share/ca-certificates

...
to remove old certificates. Then update /etc/ca-certificates.conf by doing the following:
Code:

cd /usr/share/ca-certificates
find . -name '*' | sed 's#^./##' > /etc/ca-certificates.conf



What I forgot to mention is that after doing the above, then run the following command:
Code:

update-ca-certificates
Sorry to be negative above. I'm a bit busy with other things right now, but I will get back to this. What puzzled me was the different action that update-ca-certificates performed when /etc/ca-certificates.conf and /usr/share/ca-certificates/mozilla/*.crt's were updated. Have you got some links for small files on websites that need '--no-check-certificate'? It would be nice to test without having to download big files.


As I mentioned above, prior to updating the certificates the following wouldn't work without the --no-check-certificate option:
Code:

wget https://deb.torproject.org/torproject.org/dists/jessie/main/binary-i386/Packages.gz -O /tmp/pkg/root/ppa_Packages.gz


After updating the certificate, the --no-check-certificate option isn't required.
Excellent work s243a! I ran through your procedure and it worked perfectly and I started to make a .pet using Debian Sid's ca-certificates figuring they would be the most up to date. Then I found this ca-certificates-2019-03-08.pet lurking in my Downloads. Can't remember downloading it and searches haven't found it. It's more up to date than Sid and it downloaded your test package with no argument.

I would like to give credit to the creator, maybe they will see this and step forward.

Will install this .pet in the next update.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
jrb


Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 1439
Location: Smithers, BC, Canada

PostPosted: Wed 12 Feb 2020, 21:13    Post subject:  

s243a wrote:
Posting from the netsurf browser now, installed via the package manager. I also tried installing firefox from the package manager. I got the error

libc.so.6 version `GLIBC_2.18 not found (required by /usr/lib/libsdc++.so.6)

So, I'll try the portable version of a browser next.

P.S. why isn't the portable browser install script included?

P.S #2 Here is some helpful info. Looks like we have to block some packages related to libc. I'm using precise 5.7.2

Code:

ages] $ ls -1 -a | grep .files
ca-certificates_20170717_16.04.2_all.files
firefox-16.0.1-i686-up.files
gcc-4.6-base_4.6.3-1ubuntu5.files
libc6_2.15-0ubuntu10.18.files
libc6_2.15-0ubuntu10.files
libc-bin_2.15-0ubuntu10.18.files
libc-bin_2.15-0ubuntu10.files
libgcc1_4.6.3-1ubuntu5.files
multiarch-support_2.15-0ubuntu10.18.files
multiarch-support_2.15-0ubuntu10.files
netsurf_2.8-2.files
netsurf-gtk_2.8-2.files
pkg-1.9.23-noarch.files
PortaBrowseInstall-i386-0.4.files
tzdata_2012b-1.files
tzdata_2016j-0ubuntu0.12.04.files
yad-0.40.3-i686_common32.files


I'll write a script to move the offending files out of my save folder.
Precise-light comes with glibc-2.20. I know it says 2.10 in woof-installed-packages, sloppy work on my part. I suspect firefox-16 is too old to accomodate that.

I thought I had taken care of the libc6_2.15 install problem but obviously not. Have you tried uninstalling the offending programs using PPM? It should remove all the installed files.

Just a suggestion, but if you're going to use a Save file/folder you should make a backup copy regularly, especially before installing new software, ask me how I know. Embarassed

You're right about the portable browser install script. It will be in the next update.

Cheers, J
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
s243a

Joined: 02 Sep 2014
Posts: 2478

PostPosted: Thu 13 Feb 2020, 01:35    Post subject:  

jrb wrote:
Quote:

After updating the certificate, the --no-check-certificate option isn't required.
Excellent work s243a! I ran through your procedure and it worked perfectly and I started to make a .pet using Debian Sid's ca-certificates figuring they would be the most up to date. Then I found this ca-certificates-2019-03-08.pet lurking in my Downloads. Can't remember downloading it and searches haven't found it. It's more up to date than Sid and it downloaded your test package with no argument.

I would like to give credit to the creator, maybe they will see this and step forward.

Will install this .pet in the next update.


Thankyou, I'm glad it's working for you. I was surprised that you were able to get such new certificates to work Smile


jrb wrote:
Quote:

I'll write a script to move the offending files out of my save folder.
Precise-light comes with glibc-2.20. I know it says 2.10 in woof-installed-packages, sloppy work on my part. I suspect firefox-16 is too old to accomodate that.


I'm not sure, whether firefox-16 can use this version of glibc or not. I created an adrv yesterday, by using my remaster sandbox script. The link is as follows:

adrv_precise_light-5.7.2.sfs

This "a drive" (aka adrv) has updated certificates, but not as new as the ones that you are using. It also has Sc0ttman's package manager (pkg) installed on it [1]. I went a little crazy with the repos, and added all of the precise repos.

Here is my ~/.pkg/pkgrc file:

Code:

WORKDIR=/root/pkg
REPONAME=precise-main
EX=deb
REPOFILE=Packages-ubuntu-precise-main
REPOURL1=http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/
REPOURL2=http://ftp.filearena.net/pub/ubuntu/
REPOURL3=
REPOURL4=
PKGSEARCH="list_pkg_names"
PKGSEARCHEXACT="pkg -ne"
DEPSEARCH="list_all_pkg_names"
DEPSEARCHEXACT="pkg -nea"
REPOFALLBACKS="noarch jessie-tor-main precise-multiverse precise-universe precise-restricted precise-security-main precise-security-multiverse precise-security-universe precise-security-restricted precise-updates-main precise-updates-universe precise-updates-multiverse precise-updates-restricted precise-backports-main precise-backports-universe precise-backports-multiverse precise-proposed-universe "
PKGSCOPE="one"
DEPSCOPE="all"
BLEDGE="no"
RDCHECK="yes"
AUTOCLEAN="no"
BUILDTOOL=petbuild


Notice the long list of fallback repos. I'm not sure what issues using so many repos might present. Something interesting though is the following:
Code:

sandbox# /usr/sbin/pkg --names-all firefox_
firefox_11.0+build1-0ubuntu4
firefox_52.0.2+build1-0ubuntu0.12.04.1

also
Code:

cd /var/packages
grep -rn . -e 'firefox_52' | cut -d '|' -f1
./Packages-ubuntu-precise-security-main:245:firefox_52.0.2+build1-0ubuntu0.12.04.1
./Packages-ubuntu-precise-updates-main:386:firefox_52.0.2+build1-0ubuntu0.12.04.1


So it looks like version 52 of firefox is available in the repos precise-security-main and also in precise-updates-main. I might give installing this a try. Note that I did the above commands in a sandbox. I tested booting with my adrv yesterday. pkg wasn't working even though it was on the adrv. Tonight I realized the problem is that the following files from my adrv:
Code:

/root/.pkg/sources
/root/.pkg/sources-all
/root/.pkg/pkgrc


appear to be different than what is on my adrv after the first run of pkg. I'm guessing pkg thinks that I'm doing a new install and overwrites these files. The solution is to replace these files with those found on my adrv. Note that the last file can be generated from the previous two by doing the command:
Code:

pkg --repo precise-main


I have "precise-main" set as the default repo because I suspect that it will likely have the greatest compatibility. PKG has an environmental variable called "BLEDGE" (for bleeding-edge) that will install the newest version of the pkg from all installed repos (verify?). I haven't tested this feature.

Anyway, I'll test pkg more on precise light and also see if I can figure out why these config files are overwritten on first run.

Another oddity, with my adrv is when I boot it the prompt says "sandbox"

Notes
-----------------------
1 - the version of pkg I installed on the adrv is a fork that is part of Merge Request #72.

Edit: I created a new version of my adrv
adrv_precise_light-5.7.2.sfs(not tested yet). I was installing the portable browser in a sandbox and it complained about the architecture being 64bits. This is because the sandbox was being run in a 64bit system. I think the solution to this is to create a wrapper function for uname.
, with libc6 blacklisted and possibly the portable browser installer included.

Edit 2: I figured out why the prompt says sandbox. See post.

_________________
Find me on minds and on pearltrees.

Last edited by s243a on Fri 14 Feb 2020, 00:07; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Fossil


Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 1161
Location: Gloucestershire, UK.

PostPosted: Thu 13 Feb 2020, 08:51    Post subject:  

jrb
Quote:
" ...Then I found this ca-certificates-2019-03-08.pet lurking in my Downloads. Can't remember downloading it and searches haven't found it. It's more up to date than Sid and it downloaded your test package with no argument.
I would like to give credit to the creator, maybe they will see this and step forward...."

ca-certificates-2019-03-08.pet can be found here:-
http://www.smokey01.com/OscarTalks/
Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
jrb


Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 1439
Location: Smithers, BC, Canada

PostPosted: Fri 14 Feb 2020, 09:08    Post subject:  

Fossil wrote:
jrb
Quote:
" ...Then I found this ca-certificates-2019-03-08.pet lurking in my Downloads. Can't remember downloading it and searches haven't found it. It's more up to date than Sid and it downloaded your test package with no argument.
I would like to give credit to the creator, maybe they will see this and step forward...."

ca-certificates-2019-03-08.pet can be found here:-
http://www.smokey01.com/OscarTalks/
Very Happy
Thanks very much Fossil and thanks to OscarTalks as well for another valuable Puppy asset. Cool

Cheers, J
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Moose On The Loose


Joined: 24 Feb 2011
Posts: 884

PostPosted: Sat 15 Feb 2020, 11:20    Post subject: New GCC Not ready for Prime time
Subject description: C++ 11 appears to be working
 

I noticed that there appears to be others making stuff so perhaps someone can do some of the testing for me.
I got the latest GCC-10-20200202 to compile with a few manual edits.
It isn't pretty but I think it is good enough to start to use.
I have made a SFS that you can load instead of the usual "dev" SFS.
It has compiled a few things at this point and they work.
I have it uploading to my google drive as I type this.
[... waiting 12 minutes for it to finish ...]

[url]
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sKTsqsUq0IJc9rix-7sQQedTBe6LSLa-
[/url]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
s243a

Joined: 02 Sep 2014
Posts: 2478

PostPosted: Sun 16 Feb 2020, 14:54    Post subject: Re: New GCC Not ready for Prime time
Subject description: C++ 11 appears to be working
 

Moose On The Loose wrote:
I noticed that there appears to be others making stuff so perhaps someone can do some of the testing for me.
I got the latest GCC-10-20200202 to compile with a few manual edits.
It isn't pretty but I think it is good enough to start to use.
I have made a SFS that you can load instead of the usual "dev" SFS.
It has compiled a few things at this point and they work.
I have it uploading to my google drive as I type this.
[... waiting 12 minutes for it to finish ...]

[url]
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sKTsqsUq0IJc9rix-7sQQedTBe6LSLa-
[/url]


Does it have the glibc headers to match the version of glibc that JRB is using?

_________________
Find me on minds and on pearltrees.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
s243a

Joined: 02 Sep 2014
Posts: 2478

PostPosted: Sun 16 Feb 2020, 15:02    Post subject:  

s243a wrote:


Here is my ~/.pkg/pkgrc file:

Code:

WORKDIR=/root/pkg
REPONAME=precise-main
EX=deb
REPOFILE=Packages-ubuntu-precise-main
REPOURL1=http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/
REPOURL2=http://ftp.filearena.net/pub/ubuntu/
REPOURL3=
REPOURL4=
PKGSEARCH="list_pkg_names"
PKGSEARCHEXACT="pkg -ne"
DEPSEARCH="list_all_pkg_names"
DEPSEARCHEXACT="pkg -nea"
REPOFALLBACKS="noarch jessie-tor-main precise-multiverse precise-universe precise-restricted precise-security-main precise-security-multiverse precise-security-universe precise-security-restricted precise-updates-main precise-updates-universe precise-updates-multiverse precise-updates-restricted precise-backports-main precise-backports-universe precise-backports-multiverse precise-proposed-universe "
PKGSCOPE="one"
DEPSCOPE="all"
BLEDGE="no"
RDCHECK="yes"
AUTOCLEAN="no"
BUILDTOOL=petbuild


Notice the long list of fallback repos. I'm not sure what issues using so many repos might present. Something interesting though is the following:
Code:

sandbox# /usr/sbin/pkg --names-all firefox_
firefox_11.0+build1-0ubuntu4
firefox_52.0.2+build1-0ubuntu0.12.04.1

also
Code:

cd /var/packages
grep -rn . -e 'firefox_52' | cut -d '|' -f1
./Packages-ubuntu-precise-security-main:245:firefox_52.0.2+build1-0ubuntu0.12.04.1
./Packages-ubuntu-precise-updates-main:386:firefox_52.0.2+build1-0ubuntu0.12.04.1


So it looks like version 52 of firefox is available in the repos precise-security-main and also in precise-updates-main. I might give installing this a try. Note that I did the above commands in a sandbox. I tested booting with my adrv yesterday. pkg wasn't working even though it was on the adrv. Tonight I realized the problem is that the following files from my adrv:
Code:

/root/.pkg/sources
/root/.pkg/sources-all
/root/.pkg/pkgrc


appear to be different than what is on my adrv after the first run of pkg. I'm guessing pkg thinks that I'm doing a new install and overwrites these files. The solution is to replace these files with those found on my adrv. Note that the last file can be generated from the previous two by doing the command:
Code:

pkg --repo precise-main


I have "precise-main" set as the default repo because I suspect that it will likely have the greatest compatibility. PKG has an environmental variable called "BLEDGE" (for bleeding-edge) that will install the newest version of the pkg from all installed repos (verify?). I haven't tested this feature.

Anyway, I'll test pkg more on precise light and also see if I can figure out why these config files are overwritten on first run.

Another oddity, with my adrv is when I boot it the prompt says "sandbox"

Notes
-----------------------
1 - the version of pkg I installed on the adrv is a fork that is part of Merge Request #72.

Edit: I created a new version of my adrv
adrv_precise_light-5.7.2.sfs(not tested yet). I was installing the portable browser in a sandbox and it complained about the architecture being 64bits. This is because the sandbox was being run in a 64bit system. I think the solution to this is to create a wrapper function for uname.
, with libc6 blacklisted and possibly the portable browser installer included.

Edit 2: I figured out why the prompt says sandbox. See post.

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1050261#1050261


I was able to install firefox_52.0.2+build1-0ubuntu0.12.04.1 with precise light running in a sandbox (using psandbox), over an ssh connection using pkg. I tested that firefox would start up properly using X11 forwarding but I didn't test it further.

Code:

pkg --repo precise-updates
pkg --get firefox_52.0.2+build1-0ubuntu0.12.04.1


For instructions on how to run a puppy in a sandbox over ssh see: SSH/sandbox/chroot folder

I tried rebooting with my save file and I got a kernal syncing error after selecting the save file. I think that perhaps I have to delete some files from my save folder. I think that puppies remaster script will give me clues on which files to delete.

P.S. I might re-consider the fallback order for precise-updates. I'm wondering if for precise-updates if the newer repos (e.g. precise-backports) should be checked first. Needless to say installing firefox worked with the current fallback order .

P.S. #2 The command "pkg --repo precise-updates" changes the ~/.pkg/pkgrc file to match the info about precise-updates.

_________________
Find me on minds and on pearltrees.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Moose On The Loose


Joined: 24 Feb 2011
Posts: 884

PostPosted: Mon 17 Feb 2020, 11:12    Post subject: Re: New GCC Not ready for Prime time
Subject description: C++ 11 appears to be working
 

s243a wrote:
Moose On The Loose wrote:
I noticed that there appears to be others making stuff so perhaps someone can do some of the testing for me.
I got the latest GCC-10-20200202 to compile with a few manual edits.
It isn't pretty but I think it is good enough to start to use.
I have made a SFS that you can load instead of the usual "dev" SFS.
It has compiled a few things at this point and they work.
I have it uploading to my google drive as I type this.
[... waiting 12 minutes for it to finish ...]

[url]
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sKTsqsUq0IJc9rix-7sQQedTBe6LSLa-
[/url]


Does it have the glibc headers to match the version of glibc that JRB is using?


This may answer your current question and some later ones:

The compile was done using the existing dev-xxxx SFS for Precise.
I then copied the contents of the dev SFS into a directory
The files generated in the compile were put in, over writing a few.
Then I made an SFS from the result.

To test I rebooted with the pfix=ram added the SFS and then compiled something.

So far my continuing tests say it is good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Moose On The Loose


Joined: 24 Feb 2011
Posts: 884

PostPosted: Mon 17 Feb 2020, 11:23    Post subject: The Octave language
Subject description: If you want matlab give this a try. If not try it anyway.
 

[url]
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NdspOiBzDv_i9S69iYw3kX76ujZCP5MX
[/url]

This is a down-rev version of Octave but it runs on Precise so I figured that the millions waiting to use Octave on Precise could get started with it.

For those who don't know:
Octave is a whole lot like a version of Basic where the variables hold matrixes just as easily as single values.

Code:

octave:1> X = [1, 2, 3]
X =

   1   2   3

octave:2> Y = X * 7;
octave:3> Z = Y - X;
octave:4> plot(Y,Z)
octave:5>


It has a fairly good but limited built in help.
It is very useful for doing the "one time" calculation projects that you may need to do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
theeastsun

Joined: 18 Feb 2020
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Wed 19 Feb 2020, 15:31    Post subject: install modem wifi  

how to install a wifi modem
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 31 of 32 [478 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 29, 30, 31, 32 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Puppy Derivatives
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1183s ][ Queries: 13 (0.0214s) ][ GZIP on ]