Re: 'apt-get dist-upgrade' tries to install unneeded packages

[Karl Schmidt]

Corey Hickey wrote:

I don't have anything non-default in /etc/apt/apt.conf.d.


They made a change (a very bad change in my mind) that has it install recommended files and 
suggested  files by default.


To go back to the sane old way:

Create a file called local in /etc/apt/apt.conf.d

edit  that file and put in the following:

APT::Default-Release "lenny";
APT::Install-Recommends "0";
APT::Install-Suggests "0";


To further clarify this for the interested:

Use wajig instead of apt-get to get a better user interface.

to do a distupgrade with wajig :

$ wajig distupgrade

If you want to install a package

$ wajig install package-name

if you want to install more than just the package change install to one of 
these:

 installr   Install package and associated recommended packages
 installrs  Install package and recommended and suggested packages
 installs   Install package and associated suggested packages

One effect of this change is that it will bog down the servers updating files that are never used. 
If you don't know about this setting you will fill your disk with crud.





Karl Schmidt EMail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Transtronics, Inc. WEB http://xtronics.com
3209 West 9th StreetPh (785) 841-3089
Lawrence, KS 66049 FAX (785) 841-0434

Assumption is the mother of mistakes
Buckaroo Banzai




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: How would I get debian unstable?

[Heikki Levanto]

On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 11:40:35AM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> Argh! %s/Linux/Linus (almost did it again again).  Why couldn't he call
> it LSD (Linus Software Distribution) instead of Linux?

Because I already have LSD - Levanto Software Development ;-)

-H

-- 
Heikki Levanto   "In Murphy We Turst" heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: How would I get debian unstable?

[Damon L. Chesser]

On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 11:40 -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:

snip
> > 
> 
> Argh! %s/Linux/Linus (almost did it again again).  Why couldn't he call
> it LSD (Linus Software Distribution) instead of Linux?
> 
> Doug.

Well, IF he did that, then the dyslectic and the type-lectic would get
it confused with the LDS.  "Hey, have you tried LDS yet?"  "No way!
Never, I just am not religious". Then LSD would never have gotten a foot
hold.  Not to say anything about The War On Drugs (US Centric).  Think
of the confusion, think of the poor law enforcement agents trying to
track all the LSD communication!  Oh! The humanity!  
> 
> 
-- 
Damon L. Chesser
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dchesser


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: How would I get debian unstable?

[Douglas A. Tutty]

On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 10:07:00AM -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
> Douglas A. Tutty escreveu:
> >On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 01:54:35AM -0400, Robert Isaac wrote:
> >  
> >>>Do you know the difference between Unix and Linux?  Short answer is that
> >>>Linux wrote Linux when he needed a Unix but Unix was caught in the Unix
> >>>wars and there wasn't one available that wasn't tied up in legal
> >>>wrangling and rewriting to remove copywritten code.
> >>>  
> >>So the kernel wrote itself?  How is that possible?  Has it become so
> >>advanced in the future that it is capable of time travel and traveled
> >>back to 1991 to self replicate?  Should we be worried about
> >>consciousness within the Linux kernel?  Or did you mean Linus wrote
> >>Linux?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Ha!  I thought I was careful to use "s" instead of "x", but I'm not at
> >my IBM clicky keyboard.  I hate "modern" keyboards.
> >
> >Yes, Linux wrote Linux when BSD wasn't available.  I've read a quote
> >somewhere that if BSD had been available he wouldn't have bothered with
> >Linux.
> >  
> 
> I have to point that out that you just did it again. :-)
> 

Argh! %s/Linux/Linus (almost did it again again).  Why couldn't he call
it LSD (Linus Software Distribution) instead of Linux?

Doug.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 'apt-get dist-upgrade' tries to install unneeded packages

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 12:25:19PM +0200, Wolfgang Mader wrote:
> in deed the documentation is very clear concerning the command line options. 
> What I was not able to figure out is what aptitude performs in gui mode when 
> I 
> hit U to schedule all upgradeable packages for an upgrade. I guess upgrade 
> (which is equivalent to safe-upgrade) is used. Does s.o. know for sure?

aptitude has configuration options.  You can configure it to install
recommend by default and even suggests by default.  I think it actually
does recommends by default out of the box, although you can turn that
off.

-- 
Len Sorensen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: How would I get debian unstable?

[Robert Isaac]

>> Yes, Linux wrote Linux when BSD wasn't available.  I've read a quote
>> somewhere that if BSD had been available he wouldn't have bothered with
>> Linux.
>>
>
> I have to point that out that you just did it again. :-)
>
>

Don't worry, we'll just be used as lubricants when the kernel fulfills
its mission of human subjugation.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: AMD 64 motherboard support

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 01:30:02AM -0700, Risto Maennena wrote:
> I have put together a computer using an AMD 64 processor with a Gigabyte 
> GA-M57SLI-S4 motherboard. I was wondering what I can do in the way of testing 
> to be able to add this to your list of compatible motherboards?

Ehm, make sure IDE/SATA/audio all work as well as any other feature of
the board.  I suspect any nforce 570 based board should work fairly well
with Lenny or Sid, but may not work so well with Etch.

I would be curious if the firewire interface works.  T.I. has been the
crappiest maker of firewire ports historically (they were the only one
to not follow the UHCI standard for a long time).

-- 
Len Sorensen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: How would I get debian unstable?

[Eduardo M KALINOWSKI]

Douglas A. Tutty escreveu:

On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 01:54:35AM -0400, Robert Isaac wrote:
  

Do you know the difference between Unix and Linux?  Short answer is that
Linux wrote Linux when he needed a Unix but Unix was caught in the Unix
wars and there wasn't one available that wasn't tied up in legal
wrangling and rewriting to remove copywritten code.
  

So the kernel wrote itself?  How is that possible?  Has it become so
advanced in the future that it is capable of time travel and traveled
back to 1991 to self replicate?  Should we be worried about
consciousness within the Linux kernel?  Or did you mean Linus wrote
Linux?




Ha!  I thought I was careful to use "s" instead of "x", but I'm not at
my IBM clicky keyboard.  I hate "modern" keyboards.

Yes, Linux wrote Linux when BSD wasn't available.  I've read a quote
somewhere that if BSD had been available he wouldn't have bothered with
Linux.
  


I have to point that out that you just did it again. :-)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: How would I get debian unstable?

[Douglas A. Tutty]

On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 01:46:35AM -0400, Robert Isaac wrote:
> >
> > Note that the reason that OpenBSD can claim only two security holes in
> > the default install in the past 10 years is that there are no services
> > active in a default install (you have to add commands to the startup
> > script to enable them).
> 
> Except they don't make that claim, OpenBSD claims two _remote_
> security holes in the last ten years, which is entirely different from
> only two security holes.  They aren't making any claims about local
> exploits.

I'll have to look into that and see what it was exactly.
> >
> > People reoutinely built appliances like routers using OpenBSD and e.g. a
> > Soekris box and put it on the shelf.  They may only update it when a
> > security bug happens (rarely).  Since there are simple HOWTOs for making
> > OpenBSD on a CF card, updating the appliance consists of swapping the CF
> > card.
> 
> People do the same thing using variants of the Linux kernel.  The bsd
> kernel is nothing special in that regard :)

Well, I suppose the difference is that you can do it with a stock
OpenBSD kernel with all the security audits happening to it, where as
with linux its a "variant" with who-knows doing the audit.  Then there's
the licensing thing: have to supply the source for the kernel variant
and everything else (GPL).  Even if that's not a philisophical problem,
it may be a logistical one.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: How would I get debian unstable?

[Douglas A. Tutty]

On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 01:54:35AM -0400, Robert Isaac wrote:
> > Do you know the difference between Unix and Linux?  Short answer is that
> > Linux wrote Linux when he needed a Unix but Unix was caught in the Unix
> > wars and there wasn't one available that wasn't tied up in legal
> > wrangling and rewriting to remove copywritten code.
> 
> So the kernel wrote itself?  How is that possible?  Has it become so
> advanced in the future that it is capable of time travel and traveled
> back to 1991 to self replicate?  Should we be worried about
> consciousness within the Linux kernel?  Or did you mean Linus wrote
> Linux?
> 

Ha!  I thought I was careful to use "s" instead of "x", but I'm not at
my IBM clicky keyboard.  I hate "modern" keyboards.

Yes, Linux wrote Linux when BSD wasn't available.  I've read a quote
somewhere that if BSD had been available he wouldn't have bothered with
Linux.

Doug.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: 'apt-get dist-upgrade' tries to install unneeded packages

[Wolfgang Mader]

Hello,

in deed the documentation is very clear concerning the command line options. 
What I was not able to figure out is what aptitude performs in gui mode when I 
hit U to schedule all upgradeable packages for an upgrade. I guess upgrade 
(which is equivalent to safe-upgrade) is used. Does s.o. know for sure?

 Thanks, Wolfgang.

On Friday 06 June 2008 11:43:06 Jochen Schulz wrote:
> Lionel Elie Mamane:
> > On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 01:39:34PM -0700, Corey Hickey wrote:
> >> I have my system fully updated right now. When I run 'apt-get
> >> upgrade', no packages are ready to install or held back because of
> >> dependencies.  When I run 'apt-get dist-upgrade', though, I get a
> >> list of 73 packages that are to be installed.
> >
> > Maybe dist-upgrade tries to satisfy recommends?
>
> No, dist-upgrade doesn't behave different than upgrade in that regard.
>
> Seriously, why do so many people speculate wildly about what upgrade and
> dist-upgrade do on a regular basis? It's clearly documented and it is
> not even especially complicated.
>
> Quoting 'man aptitude' (since aptitude is the recommended package
> management tool since sarge):
>
> upgrade
>   Upgrades installed packages to their most recent version. Installed
>   packages will not be removed unless they are unused (see the section
>   “Managing Automatically Installed Packages” in the aptitude reference
>   manual); packages which are not currently installed will not be
>   installed.
>
>   If a package cannot be upgraded without violating these constraints,
>   it will be kept at its current version. Use the dist-upgrade command
>   to upgrade these packages as well.
>
> dist-upgrade
>   Upgrades installed packages to their most recent version, removing or
>   installing packages as necessary. This command is less conservative
>   than upgrade and thus more likely to perform unwanted actions.  Users
>   are advised to either use upgrade instead or to carefully inspect the
>   list of packages to be installed and removed.
>
> This makles it also clear why you should not use dist-upgrade by default
> unless you make sure to check scheduled actions very closely.
>
> J.




signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: 'apt-get dist-upgrade' tries to install unneeded packages

[Jochen Schulz]

Lionel Elie Mamane:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 01:39:34PM -0700, Corey Hickey wrote:
> 
>> I have my system fully updated right now. When I run 'apt-get
>> upgrade', no packages are ready to install or held back because of
>> dependencies.  When I run 'apt-get dist-upgrade', though, I get a
>> list of 73 packages that are to be installed.
> 
> Maybe dist-upgrade tries to satisfy recommends?

No, dist-upgrade doesn't behave different than upgrade in that regard.

Seriously, why do so many people speculate wildly about what upgrade and
dist-upgrade do on a regular basis? It's clearly documented and it is
not even especially complicated.

Quoting 'man aptitude' (since aptitude is the recommended package
management tool since sarge):

upgrade
  Upgrades installed packages to their most recent version. Installed
  packages will not be removed unless they are unused (see the section
  “Managing Automatically Installed Packages” in the aptitude reference
  manual); packages which are not currently installed will not be
  installed.

  If a package cannot be upgraded without violating these constraints,
  it will be kept at its current version. Use the dist-upgrade command
  to upgrade these packages as well.

dist-upgrade
  Upgrades installed packages to their most recent version, removing or
  installing packages as necessary. This command is less conservative
  than upgrade and thus more likely to perform unwanted actions.  Users
  are advised to either use upgrade instead or to carefully inspect the
  list of packages to be installed and removed.

This makles it also clear why you should not use dist-upgrade by default
unless you make sure to check scheduled actions very closely.

J.
-- 
I am very intolerant with other drivers.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

AMD 64 motherboard support

[Risto Maennena]

I have put together a computer using an AMD 64 processor with a Gigabyte 
GA-M57SLI-S4 motherboard. I was wondering what I can do in the way of testing 
to be able to add this to your list of compatible motherboards?

Sincerely,
Risto Mäennenä
[EMAIL PROTECTED]