On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 09:07 +0200, Maurits van Rees wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 05:54:19AM +, s. keeling wrote:
> > I'm having a bit of trouble here. My employer's op. is based on a vpn
> > running on Ensim (Pt!), within which is running a MySQL database.
&
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 05:54:19AM +, s. keeling wrote:
> I'm having a bit of trouble here. My employer's op. is based on a vpn
> running on Ensim (Pt!), within which is running a MySQL database.
> I've looked at several things (mysql-navigator 1.2.4-1, OpenOffic
I'm having a bit of trouble here. My employer's op. is based on a vpn
running on Ensim (Pt!), within which is running a MySQL database.
I've looked at several things (mysql-navigator 1.2.4-1, OpenOffice
1.1.4, ...) in order to connect remotely, to no effect. mysqladmin
do
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:03:33PM +0200, Joerg Rossdeutscher wrote:
> Am Montag, den 06.06.2005, 16:00 + schrieb Andy Smith:
> > /usr/bin/mysqlcheck: Got error: 1102: Incorrect database name
> > 'DATADIR.link' when selecting the database
>
> Me too.
>
Hi,
Am Montag, den 06.06.2005, 16:00 + schrieb Andy Smith:
> /usr/bin/mysqlcheck: Got error: 1102: Incorrect database name 'DATADIR.link'
> when selecting the database
Me too.
When I looked at /var/lib/mysql, there was a dead softlink with this
name. Maybe it has somethin
Every time I restart MySQL (mysql-server-4.1) on any of several of
my sarge machines I get the following email:
/usr/bin/mysqlcheck: Got error: 1102: Incorrect database name 'DATADIR.link'
when selecting the database
Improperly closed tables are also reported if clients are acce
Yikes, I did mean 200GB. That is what I get for responding after pulling an
all night installation/setup for testing.
Tim
-Original Message-
From: Ron Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:09 AM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: MySQL Performance
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 07:24:15 -0400
"Timothy Spear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> the pre-packaged MySQL. Again, no explanation as to why FYI, this
> database about 2GB with over a billion records split between the two primary
> transaction tables.
A 2GB DB with
Ron Johnson wrote:
The readahead on the Woody box is 8, it is 256 on the sarge box.
That's one difference.
Are both boxes only MySQL servers, and are you *sure* that the
Sarge box is quiescent when you run the test?
The sarge box is a production box, which runs the standard LAMP setup
Marty:
> Jochen Schulz wrote:
> >
> >Again, I think you are searching in the wrong direction. Your 'hdparm
> >-tT' results clearly showed that the great difference between your
> >servers doesn't lie in hard disk performance (48 to 43 MB/s), but in
> >Memory/CPU performance (278 to 58 MB/s).
>
> T
ed, just as one possible reason, however
unlikely. See Slashdot discussion on "Your hard drive lies to you":
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/13/0529252&tid=198&tid=128
)
When doing the same SQL query
several times the hard disk shouldn't be bothered much
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
There is no such thing as "raid caching". There is something
called "write caching", but that doesn't have anything to
do with reads.
I'm not trying to start a debate, but I don't follow this logic
at all.
What if the system tries to read back some write cached d
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jochen Schulz wrote:
>> Simon:
>>> Jacob S wrote:
>>>
>>> # hdparm /dev/hde
>>> [...]
>>> # hdparm /dev/hdg
>>
>> Again, I think you are searching in the wrong direction. Your 'hdparm
>> -tT' results clearly showed that the great
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 06:03:28PM +1200, Simon wrote:
> Jacob S wrote:
>
> The above raid consists of:
>
> # hdparm /dev/hde
>
> /dev/hde:
> multcount= 0 (off)
> I/O support = 0 (default 16-bit)
> unmaskirq= 0 (off)
> using_dma= 1 (on)
> keepsettings = 0 (off)
> nowerr
Late last year, I also found problems with MySQL 4 running on the Sarge 2.6
Kernels. The 2.4 Kernel on Sarge for the packaged MySQL was much faster, I
did not looked into why this is, since Sarge was not ready for release and
this was a test machine. On a second test machine, I did build MySQL
18240, start = 0
>
> # hdparm /dev/hdg
>
> /dev/hdg:
> multcount= 0 (off)
> IO_support = 0 (default 16-bit)
> unmaskirq= 0 (off)
> using_dma= 1 (on)
> keepsettings = 0 (off)
> readonly = 0 (off)
> readahead= 256 (on)
>
SQL query
several times the hard disk shouldn't be bothered much anyway since
either MySQL or a´t least Linux itself should have cached the data.
J.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to 43 MB/s), but in
Memory/CPU performance (278 to 58 MB/s). When doing the same SQL query
several times the hard disk shouldn't be bothered much anyway since
either MySQL or a´t least Linux itself should have cached the data.
J.
--
Nothing is as I planned it.
[Agree] [Disagree]
Jacob S wrote:
What does 'hdparm' return for the RAID drive on each server when you
don't give it any options (ie. 'hdparm /dev/hda')? You might also
include the same output for hdparm run each of the hard drives used
to make the array.
What are the specs on the hard drives/RAID setup on both
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Step 1. Switch to Postgres.
Life's far too short to waste time reading replies like that.
Why. I was serious. He has a database that is approaching 1 million
records. MySQL simply does not perform as well with large databases.
Thus, the most logical thi
On Tue, 31 May 2005 13:58:41 +1200
Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jacob S wrote:
>
> > What does 'hdparm' return for the RAID drive on each server when you
> > don't give it any options (ie. 'hdparm /dev/hda')? You might also
> > include the same output for hdparm run each of the hard drives
31, 2005 at 12:39:25PM +1200, Simon wrote:
> > > > > How do i start figuing out this issue?
> > > >
> > > > Step 1. Switch to Postgres.
> > >
> > > Life's far too short to waste time reading replies like that.
> >
> > Why.
Simon:
>
> The only difference i can find is that an htparm on the RAID drive:
>
> woody:
>
> Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.46 seconds =278.26 MB/sec
> Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 1.33 seconds = 48.12 MB/sec
>
> sarge:
>
> Timing cached reads: 196 MB in 3.38 seconds =
> > >
> > > Step 1. Switch to Postgres.
> >
> > Life's far too short to waste time reading replies like that.
>
> Why. I was serious. He has a database that is approaching 1 million
> records. MySQL simply does not perform as well with large data
t; Life's far too short to waste time reading replies like that.
>
Why. I was serious. He has a database that is approaching 1 million
records. MySQL simply does not perform as well with large databases.
Thus, the most logical thing to do to increase performance of the
database is to switch t
Incoming from Roberto C. Sanchez:
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 12:39:25PM +1200, Simon wrote:
> >
> > How do i start figuing out this issue?
>
> Step 1. Switch to Postgres.
Life's far too short to waste time reading replies like that.
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficient
On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:39:25 +1200
Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi There, I have a strange issue with mysql performance... We are
> running sarge on our production web server and woody on our dev
> server... MySQL is the only issue we have:
>
> Both servers are runn
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 12:39:25PM +1200, Simon wrote:
> Hi There, I have a strange issue with mysql performance... We are running
> sarge
> on our production web server and woody on our dev server... MySQL is the only
> issue we have:
>
> Both servers are running MySQL 4.
Hi There, I have a strange issue with mysql performance... We are
running sarge on our production web server and woody on our dev
server... MySQL is the only issue we have:
Both servers are running MySQL 4.0.24, one Debian_4 (woody) and one
Debian_5 (sarge)... Both my.cnf files are pretty
" does not exist
> - /etc/hostname does not exist
1 and 2 are in place, working and readable. Lo makes no difference - I have
tried with both, up and down.
However, after some more hours of trying I have found a fix in this way: just
commented the line (in my.cnf):
#bind-address =
Hello! I have been trying to solve this since this morning, but I seem to be
going nowhere :( Using debian testing, installed today. My computer is called
"firewall" and the command resolveip localhost or resolveip firewall
correctly return 127.0.0.1
When I try to start mysql from co
Can anyone please tell me where i can find mysql 5.x debian packages?
So i could easily install it via apt-get thanks!
_
Nyhet! Hotmail direkt i Mobilen! http://mobile.msn.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi List!
I have to connect with iodbc to mysql-4 server.
I tried all the setting I can imagine and I get
always "No DSN entered" error.
=
1: SQLDriverConnect = [MySQL][ODBC 3.51 Driver]No DSN entered (516)
SQLSTATE=HY000
1: OD
stan a écrit :
I need to make mysql accessable from all machines on my network.
How do I do this under Debian?
Curently if I just do "mysql" on the machine I've installed it on,
I get connected, but if I do "mysql -h foo" even on foo, I get:
ERROR 1045: Access denied fo
> > I'd like to use MySQL 5 on my Debian Sarge machines.
> >
> > Which should I download and how do I set it up?
> > http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/5.0.html
>
> For an easy time of it try www.dotdeb.org
But I'd like to use those from MySQL.
Thanks,
Jacob
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 02:50:39PM +0200, Jacob Friis Larsen wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I'd like to use MySQL 5 on my Debian Sarge machines.
>
> Which should I download and how do I set it up?
> http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/5.0.html
For an easy time of it try www.dotd
Hi.
I'd like to use MySQL 5 on my Debian Sarge machines.
Which should I download and how do I set it up?
http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/5.0.html
Thanks,
Jacob
Hola !
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 08:20:37AM -0400, stan wrote:
> I need to make mysql accessable from all machines on my network.
>
> How do I do this under Debian?
The same as under other distribution. :)
>
> Curently if I just do "mysql" on the machine I've inst
> I need to make mysql accessable from all machines on my network.
> How do I do this under Debian?
> Curently if I just do "mysql" on the machine I've installed it on,
> I get connected, but if I do "mysql -h foo" even on foo, I get:
> ERROR 1045: A
stan wrote:
> I need to make mysql accessable from all machines on my network.
>
> How do I do this under Debian?
>
> Curently if I just do "mysql" on the machine I've installed it on,
> I get connected, but if I do "mysql -h foo" even on foo, I g
I need to make mysql accessable from all machines on my network.
How do I do this under Debian?
Curently if I just do "mysql" on the machine I've installed it on,
I get connected, but if I do "mysql -h foo" even on foo, I get:
ERROR 1045: Access denied for user: &
schnitzel meister wrote:
# netstat -nalp|grep sql
tcp0 0 84.244.3.152:3306 0.0.0.0:*
LISTEN 714/mysqld
unix 2 [ ACC ] STREAM LISTENING 804845794 714/mysqld
/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock
I just noticed with this.. there aren't any other bind-addre
schnitzel meister wrote:
Can you check the mysqld.log/mysqld.err/syslog for anything? Also try
running mysqld_safe on its own and check the output.
Please also keep the discussion on-list. Thanks.
I don't have those files, but I do have mysql.err, which is empty.
syslog shows no mysql e
= localhost
> >>>
> >>>This does not work. netstat shows the server bound to both the public
> >>>and loopback ip addresses.
> >>>
> >>>I'm running "mysql Ver 14.7 Distrib 4.1.11, for pc-linux-gnu (i386) on
> >>>Sar
schnitzel meister wrote:
On 5/13/05, Robert Vangel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
schnitzelmeister wrote:
In my.cnf I have:
bind-address= localhost
This does not work. netstat shows the server bound to both the public
and loopback ip addresses.
I'm running "mysql Ver 14.
schnitzelmeister wrote:
In my.cnf I have:
bind-address= localhost
This does not work. netstat shows the server bound to both the public
and loopback ip addresses.
I'm running "mysql Ver 14.7 Distrib 4.1.11, for pc-linux-gnu (i386) on
Sarge.
Any ideas? Thanks
Where do yo
In my.cnf I have:
bind-address= localhost
This does not work. netstat shows the server bound to both the public
and loopback ip addresses.
I'm running "mysql Ver 14.7 Distrib 4.1.11, for pc-linux-gnu (i386) on
Sarge.
Any ideas? Thanks
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
--- Ms Linuz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> debian wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I always installed mysql from source, never had a
> problem.
> > Now i installed mysql via apt-get
> (mysql-common-4.1.0).
> > I get the message that it is
Simply type "mysql -u your_username -pyour_password" in the console
window (command line) and you will find yourself in MySQL
debian wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I always installed mysql from source, never had a problem.
> Now i installed mysql via apt-get (mysql-common-4.1.0).
> I get the message that it is installed but now i wonder where it is
> installed ??
> I don't find anything to start it a
Title: Starting/installing Mysql on debian
Hello,
I always installed mysql from source, never had a problem.
Now i installed mysql via apt-get (mysql-common-4.1.0).
I get the message that it is installed but now i wonder where it is installed ??
I don't find anything to start i
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:32:28PM -0400, Gallagher Timothy-TIMOTHYG wrote:
> I am trying to apt-get install mysql but I cannot find the software package
> deb. I get the error:
>
> Package mysql is not available, but is referred to by another package.
> This may mean that the pac
On Thursday 05 May 2005 03:32 pm, Gallagher Timothy-TIMOTHYG wrote:
> I am trying to apt-get install mysql but I cannot find the software package
> deb. I get the error:
>
> Package mysql is not available, but is referred to by another package.
> This may mean that the package
I am trying to apt-get install mysql but I cannot find the software package
deb. I get the error:
Package mysql is not available, but is referred to by another package.
This may mean that the package is missing, has been obsoleted, or
is only available from another source
E: Package mysql has no
Hi all,
I'm trying to configure maildrop to work with postfix and courier but i have
some problems:
I have postfix and courier working with a mysql database alright,
but i want to use maildrop in order to be able to use quota.
I don't see where i can configure courier-maildrop to
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:31:18 -0700, Nathan Zabaldo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I hope I am posting to the correct list for this question.
>
> I have recently apt-get'd dbmail-mysql from testing so I am running mysql
> 4.022. It has not been compiles with
Hello,
I hope I am posting to the correct list for this question.
I have recently apt-get'd dbmail-mysql from testing so I am running mysql
4.022. It has not been compiles with innodb support and I need it. Is
there a way to enable innodb support after installing the mysql-server
pa
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:11:22 -0300, Guilherme B. Viebig
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Merry Christmas and a happy new year...
>
> I´m using sarge, and my courier-imap don´t work with Mysql 4.x, but,
> perfectly with 3.x
>
> I need to kn
Hi all,
Merry Christmas and a happy new
year...
I´m using sarge, and my courier-imap don´t work
with Mysql 4.x, but, perfectly with 3.x
I need to know if there is a way to use mysql
3.23.xx in my sarge, or a updated courier-imap that supports mysql
4.x.
Thank you in advance
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 04:35:13PM -0500, Matt Price wrote:
> hi folks,
>
> after a certain amount of pain and suffering I have achieved the
> following:
>
> OOo 1.1.3 works fine.
> MySQL works fine
> unixODBC connects to MySQL without trouble using isql
> Within O
hi folks,
after a certain amount of pain and suffering I have achieved the
following:
OOo 1.1.3 works fine.
MySQL works fine
unixODBC connects to MySQL without trouble using isql
Within OOo, odbc reads mysql tables perfectly, and I can make forms
using the forms autopilot.
but, I can't
> $ mysqld_safe --user=mysql &
> [1] 687
> $ Starting mysqld daemon with databases from /var/lib/mysql
> /usr/bin/mysqld_safe: line 300: /var/log/mysql/mysql.err: Permission
> denied
> /usr/bin/mysqld_safe: line 1: /var/log/mysql/mysql.err: Permission denied
> tee:
Jacob S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 01 Dec 2004 17:25:31 -0500
> rb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I installed mysql-server 4.0.17 a while ago (Unstable).
>
> This part makes me assume you installed it via apt-get, using the deb
> from Uns
On 01 Dec 2004 17:25:31 -0500
rb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I installed mysql-server 4.0.17 a while ago (Unstable).
This part makes me assume you installed it via apt-get, using the deb
from Unstable's mirrors. Is that right?
> When I try to start the server, I
I installed mysql-server 4.0.17 a while ago (Unstable). When I try to
start the server, I get the following:
$ mysqld_safe --user=mysql &
[1] 687
$ Starting mysqld daemon with databases from /var/lib/mysql
/usr/bin/mysqld_safe: line 300: /var/log/mysql/mysql.err: Permission denied
/usr
It's a bug in 'dpkg-reconfigure snort-mysql' for woody. I installed
Sarge and its works in it. Thanks for the help.
-Nabil.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Mestnik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 5:58 PM
To: Nabil MALIK / KTEFH - OTAS; [
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 11:08:23AM -0800, Curtis Vaughan wrote:
> I am totally new to mysql so please forgive me if this question has a
> very simple solution.
>
> Someone sent me a mysql database file dumped from phpmyadmin. I have
> installed and configured phpmyadmin to conne
I am totally new to mysql so please forgive me if this question has a
very simple solution.
Someone sent me a mysql database file dumped from phpmyadmin. I have
installed and configured phpmyadmin to connect to the mysql server.
Using phpmyadmin I created a database, but how do I now import
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Fellows,
>
> Can you guide me or point me to some document(s) that would allow me to
/usr/share/doc//
http://localhost/doc/
> setup snort/acid on Debian. I am especially interested on running snort
> and acid (apache/mysql etc) on the same
Fellows,
Can you guide me or point me to some document(s) that would allow me to
setup snort/acid on Debian. I am especially interested on running snort
and acid (apache/mysql etc) on the same machine.
If you have time, here is the problem that I am facing...
I am not able to log into mysql. I
On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 01:31, Brian Nelson wrote:
> I don't promote aptitude in particular; I just discourage the use of
> apt-get, especially for newbies. I don't think aptitude is a
> particularly good choice for newbies since its interface can be as
> vexing as dselect's at times. Still, it's
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 12:14:42AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 01:54:19PM +, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > What dpkg does is broken. It has no business storing that stuff in the
> > status file.
>
> Now you're echoing Colin Watson.
And we all know what a poor source of wi
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 01:54:19PM +, Brian Nelson wrote:
> What dpkg does is broken. It has no business storing that stuff in the
> status file.
Now you're echoing Colin Watson. WHY is it that it has no business
storing that information in the status file? A package's installation
state sh
Steve Lamb([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said:
> Marc Wilson wrote:
> >Try it... put a package on hold with the normal tools (dpkg, dselect), then
>
> Hrm, works fine here. Of course it helps to note that my "normal
> tools" is aptitude. If one is using aptitude why would one b
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 11:26:07AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 11:14:54AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > So, is the consensus to stick with 'apt'? Or at least to choose one and
> > stick with that and not to mix apt and aptitude (it sounds to me as though
> > Marc is sa
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 11:52:19AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 07:21:34PM +, Chris Lale wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 16:00, Jon Dowland wrote:
> > > On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:21:54 + (GMT), Thomas Adam
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I can see no adv
On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 20:04, Wim De Smet wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:26:07 -0800, Marc Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 11:14:54AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > What *dpkg* does is the standard. If aptitude doesn't honor it, it's
> > broken. If aptitude
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 09:04:34PM +0100, Wim De Smet wrote:
> This is true, but if you only use aptitude it's a minor problem (eg.
> you can probably not even set a package on hold without the curses
> interface).
Oh? Try reading aptitude's man page. The question isn't whether aptitude
is featu
Wim De Smet wrote:
This is true, but if you only use aptitude it's a minor problem (eg.
you can probably not even set a package on hold without the curses
interface).
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~} aptitude --help
aptitude 0.2.15.8
Usage: aptitude [-S fname] [-u|-i]
aptitude [options] ...
Actions (
On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 21:04 +0100, Wim De Smet wrote:
--snip--
> I tried it with dselect, but the first thing dselect did was select a
> bunch of packages I didn't want. Does dselect have yet another status
> list? In any case, I had the same behaviour (about). Somebody should
> patch this one day.
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:26:07 -0800, Marc Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 11:14:54AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > So, is the consensus to stick with 'apt'? Or at least to choose one and
> > stick with that and not to mix apt and aptitude (it sounds to me as though
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 11:49:33AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> And no, most of what it can do, you can do from the command line or the
> ncurses interface.
s/or the ncurses interface//
That's what I get for not re-reading before saving.
--
Marc Wilson | Paranoids are people, too; they hav
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 07:21:34PM +, Chris Lale wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 16:00, Jon Dowland wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:21:54 + (GMT), Thomas Adam
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I can see no advantages to using aptitude over apt-get.
> >
> > If I'm not mistaken, d-i
On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 11:29 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Marc Wilson wrote:
> > Try it... put a package on hold with the normal tools (dpkg, dselect), then
>
> Hrm, works fine here. Of course it helps to note that my "normal tools"
> is aptitude. If one is using aptitude why would one be usi
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 11:37:58PM +, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 10:33:32PM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > It ignores the status file in favor of its own re-implementation of it.
>
> That's not really a problem, other than #137771, which I assume will be
> fixed some day.
Fi
Marc Wilson wrote:
Try it... put a package on hold with the normal tools (dpkg, dselect), then
Hrm, works fine here. Of course it helps to note that my "normal tools"
is aptitude. If one is using aptitude why would one be using dselect? dpkg I
can see when installing third party applicatio
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 11:14:54AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So, is the consensus to stick with 'apt'? Or at least to choose one and
> stick with that and not to mix apt and aptitude (it sounds to me as though
> Marc is saying if you mix you'll end up with 2 out of date lists of what
> has/
On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 16:00, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:21:54 + (GMT), Thomas Adam
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I can see no advantages to using aptitude over apt-get.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, d-i uses aptitude (or maybe its a cut-down fork
> or something). If a user in
--- Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:21:54 + (GMT), Thomas Adam
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I can see no advantages to using aptitude over apt-get.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, d-i uses aptitude (or maybe its a cut-down fork
> or something). If a user inst
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:21:54 + (GMT), Thomas Adam
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can see no advantages to using aptitude over apt-get.
If I'm not mistaken, d-i uses aptitude (or maybe its a cut-down fork
or something). If a user installs using the new d-i, opts for manual
package configuratio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, is the consensus to stick with 'apt'? Or at least to choose one and
stick with that and not to mix apt and aptitude (it sounds to me as though
Marc is saying if you mix you'll end up with 2 out of date lists of what
has/hasn't been inst-ed)
I say choose one and stic
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:14:54 - (GMT),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> So, is the consensus to stick with 'apt'? Or at least to choose one and
> stick with that and not to mix apt and aptitude (it sounds to me as though
> Marc is saying if you mix you'll end up with 2 out of date
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ Another top-poster. Don't do it, please ]
> So, is the consensus to stick with 'apt'? Or at least to choose one and
> stick with that and not to mix apt and aptitude (it sounds to me as
> though
> Marc is saying if you mix you'll end up with 2 out of date lists of
So, is the consensus to stick with 'apt'? Or at least to choose one and
stick with that and not to mix apt and aptitude (it sounds to me as though
Marc is saying if you mix you'll end up with 2 out of date lists of what
has/hasn't been inst-ed)
Cheers, Michael
>> > Aptitude shouldn't be used unti
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 10:33:32PM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 01:43:38PM +, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 11:36:00AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 01:12:47AM +, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > > Aptitude does an OK job in this r
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 01:43:38PM +, Brian Nelson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 11:36:00AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 01:12:47AM +, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > > Aptitude does an OK job in this respect. It doesn't make conflict
> > > resolution completely obvious
Marc Wilson wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 09:48:53PM +0700, David Garamond wrote:
Why does the mysql-server package depend on mailx? I don't see something
like this on Redhat's package, for example.
Because of the checks for corrupt database tables that the initscript for
it make
On Sunday 14 November 2004 19:36, Marc Wilson wrote:
> Aptitude shouldn't be used until its fundamental breakages are resolved.
What sort of statement is that? I use aptitude all the time - I can't see
anything broken with it.
--
Alan Chandler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
First they ignore you, then the
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 11:36:00AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 01:12:47AM +, Brian Nelson wrote:
> > Aptitude does an OK job in this respect. It doesn't make conflict
> > resolution completely obvious, but the information is there.
>
> Aptitude shouldn't be used until
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 09:48:53PM +0700, David Garamond wrote:
> Why does the mysql-server package depend on mailx? I don't see something
> like this on Redhat's package, for example.
Because of the checks for corrupt database tables that the initscript for
it makes on every st
1101 - 1200 of 1927 matches
Mail list logo
