Re: numpy - scipy circular build requires makes both packages unbuildable on ia64 and x32
Hi Mattias! On Mon, 2023-01-30 at 17:21 +0100, Mattias Ellert wrote: > Dependency installability problem for numpy on ia64: > > numpy build-depends on: > - python3-scipy:ia64 > python3-scipy depends on missing: > - python3:ia64 (< 3.11) > > Dependency installability problem for numpy on x32: > > numpy build-depends on: > - python3-scipy:x32 > python3-scipy depends on missing: > - python3:x32 (< 3.11) > (...) > Can something be done about this? I just built and uploaded numpy for x32 manually, I will do that for ia64 later, as the porterbox is currently offline (should be back up shortly). Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer `. `' Physicist `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
numpy - scipy circular build requires makes both packages unbuildable on ia64 and x32
(According to https://wiki.debian.org/X32Port x32 issues should be sent to the debian-amd64 list.) https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=numpy=sid Dependency installability problem for numpy on ia64: numpy build-depends on: - python3-scipy:ia64 python3-scipy depends on missing: - python3:ia64 (< 3.11) Dependency installability problem for numpy on x32: numpy build-depends on: - python3-scipy:x32 python3-scipy depends on missing: - python3:x32 (< 3.11) https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=scipy=sid Dependency installability problem for scipy on ia64: scipy build-depends on: - python3-numpy:ia64 (>= 1:1.21.4) python3-numpy depends on missing: - python3:ia64 (< 3.11) Dependency installability problem for scipy on x32: scipy build-depends on: - python3-numpy:x32 (>= 1:1.21.4) python3-numpy depends on missing: - python3:x32 (< 3.11) Can something be done about this? Mattias signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
How to get d-i udeb packages for hppa-only back into unstable?
Hello list, maybe some can help me on this? To be able to create a debian-install-cd two udeb packages (partman-palo and palo-installer - both are related to the bootloader of the hppa architecture) need to be in unstable, since the debian-installer will not look in unreleased and unstable at the same time and as such the installer will not find those udebs. Side-note: Both packages were in the standard debian repo years back, but were dropped when hppa was dropped as official debian arch and moved to debian-ports. My main problem: Since both packages are intended for hppa only, the .changes file lists both as: Architecture: source hppa Question: Can such a package be uploaded to debian master ftp if I go through the standard ITP process? If not, is there a way to make this happen on debian-ports somehow? Helge -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5363e8e8.6060...@gmx.de
Re: How to get d-i udeb packages for hppa-only back into unstable?
Helge Deller dixit: Can such a package be uploaded to debian master ftp if I go through the standard ITP process? No. If not, is there a way to make this happen on debian-ports somehow? Not in unstable, only in unreleased. We have the same problem on m68k with e.g. bootloader packages. This needs to be addressed on d-i side; we need better support for the dpo 'unreleased' suite there. Sorry, //mirabilos -- igli exceptions: a truly awful implementation of quite a nice idea. igli just about the worst way you could do something like that, afaic. igli it's like anti-design. mirabilos that too… may I quote you on that? igli sure, tho i doubt anyone will listen ;) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/pine.bsm.4.64l.1405021909120.22...@herc.mirbsd.org
Re: How to get d-i udeb packages for hppa-only back into unstable?
On 05/02/2014 09:10 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Helge Deller dixit: Can such a package be uploaded to debian master ftp if I go through the standard ITP process? No. Ok, I assumed that. If not, is there a way to make this happen on debian-ports somehow? Not in unstable, only in unreleased. We have the same problem on m68k with e.g. bootloader packages. Yes, it's the bootloader packages on hppa too. This needs to be addressed on d-i side; we need better support for the dpo 'unreleased' suite there. Sounds not very simple or clean. How did you solved that on m68k then? The only simple way I see is then to set up an own repository (cloned from debian-ports), add the packages there and then instruct the installer to load the installation packages from there. This is at least how I got it to work sucessfully once. Alternatively one could play around with preseeding? Helge -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5363fa95.3040...@gmx.de
Re: How to get d-i udeb packages for hppa-only back into unstable?
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz dixit: On 05/02/2014 10:05 PM, Helge Deller wrote: This needs to be addressed on d-i side; we need better support for the dpo 'unreleased' suite there. Sounds not very simple or clean. How did you solved that on m68k then? Not yet. I’m not a big friend of d-i myself (but recognise its need, of course), so I’ve not done any work in that area. Some debootstrap patches exist, and IIRC Wouter has done/planned something on the d-i side, but he also stopped due to lack of time. We didn't yet :(. You have to partition the disk manually and copy a root filesystem onto it. Either that or debootstrap, yes. I agree with Thorsten, this is a fundamental problem with Debian ports that needs to be addressed, especially when you look at the stats how ACK. Maybe this problem gets more attention within the rest of Debian when sparc, which has recently been dropped from testing, will move to the ports side. Since there are still many people running Debian on sparc, there might be an incentive to solve this problem. Absolutely no: everyone who was using sparc post-etch will just change to sparc64, and people using a real sparc (as opposed to sparc64) have… other venues… open to them which are OT on this list ;-) The only simple way I see is then to set up an own repository (cloned from debian-ports), add the packages there and then instruct the installer to load the installation packages from there. This is at least how I got it to work sucessfully once. No, you don't need that. You can work with unstable+unreleased, if you just tell it to merge the Packages lists in the proper place, and if the mirror carries both. That being said: it is not, generally, possible to install (using either debootstrap or d-i) from “unstable”, even in Debian proper, due to missing dependencies, library transitions, etc. (which the dpo-minidak bug that doesn’t keep libraries around for as long as they’re used makes only worse). We need some sort of “testing”-lookalike suite, and a way for ports to opt-in to have packages from “unreleased” migrate into it. (This is for ports staying on dpo. Ports bootstrapping on dpo and intending to get into the main archive from there will, of course, need to have zero packages in “unreleased”, and as such, their “testing”-alike (I’d call it a different name though, and ideally one per arch¹) would have only packages from unstable too.) ① if for no other reason that, even when taking only from unstable, (binary) package version will differ, adding the need to track different versions of source packages too bye, //mirabilos -- 16:47⎜«mika:#grml» .oO(mira ist einfach gut) 23:22⎜«mikap:#grml» mirabilos: und dein bootloader ist geil :)23:29⎜«mikap:#grml» und ich finds saugeil dass ich ein bsd zum booten mit grml hab, das muss ich dann gleich mal auf usb-stick installieren -- Michael Prokop über MirOS bsd4grml -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/pine.bsm.4.64l.1405022200020.22...@herc.mirbsd.org
Re: Re: packages requiring ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk
Hello everybody, As googleearth-package maintainer, I'd like to give more details on this situation/it's current condition, as well give you some news regarding its development. I'm aware of the multiarch problem for some time now, and have made and finished the new version of package which deals with this matter. I have package laying around for some time, it's just that I haven't uploaded it yet. The biggest reason why I didn't get to upload it is because I've just moved to Amsterdam last week and was/am incredibly busy. As this version fixes vast number of bugs and brings many new improvements. I still want to do some minor tweaks before I upload it. Regardless, I will give my best to push this new version (googleearth-package v1.0) this upcoming weekend. Thank you for your understanding. Regards, Adnan
Re: packages requiring ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk
Many thanks for your suggestions !
Klaus,
I d/l the latest i386 package ('current') then after the package is loaded into
the database (by dpkg -i) it still can not be configured, as expected, because:
/tmp r: dpkg --configure google-earth-stable
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of google-earth-stable:
google-earth-stable depends on lsb-core (= 3.2).
I tried apt-get install -f but at that stage, it does:
The following packages will be REMOVED:
alien binutils bsd-mailx build-essential chkrootkit cpp-4.4 cpp-4.5 cpp-4.6
cron
debhelper dpkg-dev ed exim4-base exim4-daemon-light flashplugin-nonfree g++
g++-4.7
gcc gcc-4.2 gcc-4.4 gcc-4.5 gcc-4.6 gcc-4.7 gedit gedit-plugins
gir1.2-peas-1.0
google-earth-stable:i386 hugin libpeas-1.0-0 libseed-gtk3-0 libstdc++6-4.7-dev
linux-headers-2.6.39-2-amd64 linux-headers-3.2.0-2-amd64
linux-headers-3.2.0-4-amd64
make misdn-source nvidia-kernel-source quilt texlive-binaries
which a bit too heavy, for me.
So i wonder how you (Klaus) did the trick ?
Goswin,
2) See if you can't get google-earth to accept lsb-core:amd64 instead
or replace the dependency with the actual packages it needs (which can
then be Multi-Arch: foreign).
Is there any file within the .deb package that specifies the lsb-core arch. I
looked into the package with midnight commander (mc) but couldn't find
anything. Or generally, how do i change the dependency ?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130406212359.5e9e5...@mirrors.kernel.org
Re: packages requiring ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk
Goswin, I tried your other suggestion (DEB_BUILD_ARCH=i386 make-googleearth-package) and created the i386 debian package. Es expected it installed only unconfigured, with /tmp r: dpkg --configure googleearth dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of googleearth: googleearth depends on libfreeimage3. googleearth depends on lsb-core. googleearth depends on libqtcore4. googleearth depends on libgl1-mesa-glx. which at first glance looks a lot better than before. Then i proceeded with Klaus' suggestion, and apt-get install -f produced this: The following extra packages will be installed: libc6:i386 libc6-i686:i386 libdrm-intel1:i386 libdrm-nouveau1a:i386 libdrm-radeon1:i386 libdrm2:i386 libexpat1:i386 libffi5:i386 libfreeimage3:i386 libgcc1:i386 libgl1-mesa-dri:i386 libgl1-mesa-glx:i386 libglapi-mesa:i386 libglib2.0-0:i386 libgomp1:i386 libilmbase6:i386 libjasper1:i386 libjpeg8:i386 liblcms1:i386 liblcms2-2:i386 libmng1:i386 libopenexr6:i386 libopenjpeg2:i386 libpciaccess0:i386 libpcre3:i386 libpng12-0:i386 libqtcore4:i386 libraw5:i386 libselinux1:i386 libstdc++6:i386 libx11-6:i386 libx11-xcb1:i386 libxau6:i386 libxcb-glx0:i386 libxcb1:i386 libxdamage1:i386 libxdmcp6:i386 libxext6:i386 libxfixes3:i386 libxxf86vm1:i386 zlib1g:i386 Suggested packages: glibc-doc:i386 libglide3:i386 libjasper-runtime:i386 liblcms-utils:i386 liblcms2-utils:i386 libthai0:i386 libicu48:i386 The following packages will be REMOVED: alien binutils bsd-mailx build-essential chkrootkit cron debhelper dpkg-dev ed exim4-base exim4-daemon-light flashplugin-nonfree g++ g++-4.7 gcc gcc-4.2 gcc-4.4 gcc-4.5 gcc-4.6 gcc-4.7 googleearth:i386 googleearth-package hugin libstdc++6-4.7-dev linux-headers-2.6.39-2-amd64 linux-headers-3.2.0-2-amd64 linux-headers-3.2.0-4-amd64 make misdn-source nvidia-kernel-source quilt texlive-binaries The following NEW packages will be installed: libc6:i386 libc6-i686:i386 libdrm-intel1:i386 libdrm-nouveau1a:i386 libdrm-radeon1:i386 libdrm2:i386 libexpat1:i386 libffi5:i386 libfreeimage3:i386 libgcc1:i386 libgl1-mesa-dri:i386 libgl1-mesa-glx:i386 libglapi-mesa:i386 libglib2.0-0:i386 libgomp1:i386 libilmbase6:i386 libjasper1:i386 libjpeg8:i386 liblcms1:i386 liblcms2-2:i386 libmng1:i386 libopenexr6:i386 libopenjpeg2:i386 libpciaccess0:i386 libpcre3:i386 libpng12-0:i386 libqtcore4:i386 libraw5:i386 libselinux1:i386 libstdc++6:i386 libx11-6:i386 libx11-xcb1:i386 libxau6:i386 libxcb-glx0:i386 libxcb1:i386 libxdamage1:i386 libxdmcp6:i386 libxext6:i386 libxfixes3:i386 libxxf86vm1:i386 zlib1g:i386 0 upgraded, 41 newly installed, 32 to remove and 0 not upgraded. 1 not fully installed or removed. As you can see g.e. would be removed too, that way. I tried to fix the package manually (with aptitude) but it ends up with the lsb-core:i386 trouble again. I tried dpkg -i --force all which configured it but it's still broken, for example /usr/lib/googleearth/googleearth-bin does not get installed. (How would you call that state?) My last try was this: /tmp r: dpkg --force all --ignore-depends googleearth_6.0.3.2197+0.7.0-1_i386.deb -i googleearth_6.0.3.2197+0.7.0-1_i386.deb Selecting previously unselected package googleearth. (Reading database ... 209298 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking googleearth (from googleearth_6.0.3.2197+0.7.0-1_i386.deb) ... dpkg: googleearth: dependency problems, but configuring anyway as you requested: googleearth depends on libfreeimage3. googleearth depends on lsb-core. googleearth depends on libqtcore4; however: Package libqtcore4 is not installed. googleearth depends on libgl1-mesa-glx; however: Package libgl1-mesa-glx is not installed. Setting up googleearth (6.0.3.2197+0.7.0-1) ... Processing triggers for shared-mime-info ... Unknown media type in type 'all/all' Unknown media type in type 'all/allfiles' Unknown media type in type 'uri/mms' Unknown media type in type 'uri/mmst' Unknown media type in type 'uri/mmsu' Unknown media type in type 'uri/pnm' Unknown media type in type 'uri/rtspt' Unknown media type in type 'uri/rtspu' Processing triggers for gnome-menus ... Processing triggers for desktop-file-utils ... Processing triggers for menu ... Processing triggers for mime-support ... As you can see it ran through even processing the triggers, but did not actually set up a link in /usr/bin and trying to launch /usr/lib/googleearth/googleearth-bin fails because the script can't find some unspecified file. Somehow this looks like it was really the lsb-core part which did not work. I'm not so confident with dpkg internals as to know how to proceed from here on. - Q: Can i modify the already installed amd64 lsb-core package in the dpkg database, so that it just lies about it's architecture ? Like, making it arch:all ? Would g.e. then be satisfied with it ? Is there any advantage above modifying the g.e. package ? I know this would be a crude hack which blows up
Re: packages requiring ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk
On a close look, it appeared that somewhere in my installation experiments, lsb-core (amd64) was deinstalled completely. I fixed that, but the result is nearly exactly the same, with one exception. If i start this, it say that now: /usr/lib/googleearth/googleearth-bin: error while loading shared libraries: libgoogleearth_free.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory I dunno about this lib but experimentally installed only those missing dependencies of the broken g.e. package, besides lsb-core (like libfreeimage3:i386) and these actually installed, along an awful lot i386 dependencies. it did not remove anything though, except for the broken g.e. package (naturally) too so i had to repeat the forced dpkg installation afterward. But it did not change the above error. Now it seemed to be time for Klaus' suggestion again: apt-get install -f, which again removed the g.e. package. I could reinstall it again and do apt-get -f again in cycles, until any dependency was satisfied except for lsb-core. But still the binary could not be found in place (usr/bin) and the 7usr/lib binary did either not work, or was absent completely. It really sticks with lsb-core! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130407021539.077d2...@mirrors.kernel.org
Re: packages requiring ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk
Now my packages are somewhat in a mess, and please allow me to ask this a little off-topic (but not completely): (1) how can i apply a 'purge' to all packages that are 'c' half-configured ? There are hundreds it seems. (2) how can i search for _installed_ i386 packages explicitly (and maybe altogether remove them) ? If there is no easy solution for apt command, then a way to do this from aptitude would be ok too of course. it's just i can not search for hundreds of packages manually. I wanted to ask this since long. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130407022527.4dc26...@mirrors.kernel.org
Re: packages requiring ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:32:16PM +0100, Michael wrote: I guess you meant i should download the i386 deb directly from google ? I didn't mean that but rather fixing the google earth package in debian to behave like your installing on i386 even if you are on amd64. The dependencies it generates are for amd64 before multiarch. But one can fool it into building for i386: mrvn@frosties:~% DEB_BUILD_ARCH=i386 make-googleearth-package ... Package: googleearth Version: 6.0.3.2197+0.7.0-1 Section: non-free/science Priority: optional Maintainer: mrvn@frosties Architecture: i386 Depends: ttf-dejavu | ttf-bitstream-vera | msttcorefonts, libfreeimage3, lsb-core, libqtcore4, libgl1-mesa-glx Suggests: Description: Google Earth, a 3D map/planet viewer Package built with googleearth-package. dpkg-deb: building package `googleearth' in `./googleearth_6.0.3.2197+0.7.0-1_i386.deb'. Success! You can now install the package with e.g. sudo dpkg -i package.deb Unfortunately that also creates a package that depends on lsb-core:i386. But downloading the deb directly should (in the future) work too. This seems to end up in dependency hell too :) google-earth requires lsb-core:i386 which does not recognize the already installed alien v 8.88 (which is arch:all), but still insists on alien = 8.36 (but no arch specified). That will be due to alien not being Multi-Arch: foreign. (I wonder what prevents lsb-core from being arch:all.) There seems to be at least one other problem because (commandline) 'ap-get install lsb-core:i386' yields The following packages have unmet dependencies: lsb-core:i386 : Depends: lsb-invalid-mta:i386 (= 4.1+Debian9) but it is not installable or mail-transport-agent:i386 Depends: binutils:i386 but it is not going to be installed Depends: bsdmainutils:i386 but it is not going to be installed Depends: cron:i386 or cron-daemon:i386 Depends: make:i386 but it is not going to be installed Depends: psmisc:i386 but it is not going to be installed Depends: alien:i386 (= 8.36) but it is not installable Depends: python:i386 (= 2.6.6-7~) but it is not going to be installed Depends: time:i386 but it is not going to be installed E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. This is with debian testing / unstable. Any suggestions ? lsb-core is a rather difficult package for multiarch. Most of the depends should work as multiarch (even if they aren't all multiarchified yet). But then there is binutils and python. Binutils can't be multiarchified because a foreign binutils would produce different output. And python is a script language with bindings in binary form. It's one of those few packages that are both architecture independent and architecture depended at the same time. I believe you are out of luck there with lsb-core:i386 for now. There are 3 ways out of that: 1) install lsb-core:i386 with all the i386 packges it depends on. This will replace amd64 package (like binutils) with i386 ones and might need quite a lot of packages in 32bit to get to a sane state again. It's hard to say how much without trying. But given that binutils is included that would be disruptive to compiling stuff. So for me that wouldn't be an option. 2) See if you can't get google-earth to accept lsb-core:amd64 instead or replace the dependency with the actual packages it needs (which can then be Multi-Arch: foreign). I certain there is nothing from lsb-core:i386 that google-earth needs that isn't in lsb-core:amd64. But that can't currently (in wheezy) be expressed as dependencies. As a quick fix I would edit /usr/bin/make-googleearth-package to remove the lsb-core dependency and then use DEB_BUILD_ARCH=i386 make-googleearth-package to build an i386 package. 3) Stick with the pre-multiarch amd64 package that make-googlearth-package builds. googleearth_6.0.3.2197+0.7.0-1_amd64.deb installed fine for me and I could start it. MfG Goswin PS: you might also want to file a bugreport for googlearth-package to support multiarch. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130318091914.GA27927@frosties
Re: packages requiring ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk
On Thursday 14 March 2013, Michael wrote: This seems to end up in dependency hell too :) google-earth requires lsb-core:i386 which does not recognize the already installed alien v 8.88 (which is arch:all), but still insists on alien = 8.36 (but no arch specified). This is with debian testing / unstable. Any suggestions ? 1. Re-compile the application yourself, as a proper 64-bit application. 2. If they won't let you have the Source Code (which should be enough, in and of itself, to raise a huge red flag in your mind; just what are they trying to conceal from you?), run it in a 32-bit chroot. -- AJS delta echo bravo six four at earthshod dot co dot uk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201303150857.44603.de...@earthshod.co.uk
Re: packages requiring ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk
Le jeudi 14 mars 2013 22:32:16, Michael a écrit : This seems to end up in dependency hell too :) google-earth requires lsb-core:i386 which does not recognize the already installed alien v 8.88 (which is arch:all), but still insists on alien = 8.36 (but no arch specified). (I wonder what prevents lsb-core from being arch:all.) There seems to be at least one other problem because (commandline) 'ap-get install lsb-core:i386' yields The following packages have unmet dependencies: lsb-core:i386 : Depends: lsb-invalid-mta:i386 (= 4.1+Debian9) but it is not installable or mail-transport-agent:i386 Depends: binutils:i386 but it is not going to be installed Depends: bsdmainutils:i386 but it is not going to be installed Depends: cron:i386 or cron-daemon:i386 Depends: make:i386 but it is not going to be installed Depends: psmisc:i386 but it is not going to be installed Depends: alien:i386 (= 8.36) but it is not installable Depends: python:i386 (= 2.6.6-7~) but it is not going to be installed Depends: time:i386 but it is not going to be installed E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. This is with debian testing / unstable. Any suggestions ? Hi, apt-get -f install will propose you a solution. I could install google-earth this way in unstable on AMD64 yesterday. Some applications were uninstalled, but I could reinstall them afterwards. If you are very carefull, make a backup of your system before, for example avec fsarchiver (works fine). cheers Klaus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201303151642.53174.colon...@free.fr
Re: packages requiring ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk
Goswin, If your package is depending on ia32-libs then you are not using the right package for multiarch. Only the amd64 package would depend on ia32-libs. Use the i386 package instead. The i386 package of what ? I've got an amd64. My sources suck testing and unstable and i have multiarch (amd64, i386). googleearth-package (v0.7) naturally is arch 'all' and 'make-googleearth-package' downloads the ge package, but has no option for choosing arch. So how can i choose the i386 package ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130314200400.10eda...@mirrors.kernel.org
Re: packages requiring ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk
Ah ! I was too focused on apt. I guess you meant i should download the i386 deb directly from google ? ok i'll do that now. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130314201511.59eb1...@mirrors.kernel.org
Re: packages requiring ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk
This seems to end up in dependency hell too :) google-earth requires lsb-core:i386 which does not recognize the already installed alien v 8.88 (which is arch:all), but still insists on alien = 8.36 (but no arch specified). (I wonder what prevents lsb-core from being arch:all.) There seems to be at least one other problem because (commandline) 'ap-get install lsb-core:i386' yields The following packages have unmet dependencies: lsb-core:i386 : Depends: lsb-invalid-mta:i386 (= 4.1+Debian9) but it is not installable or mail-transport-agent:i386 Depends: binutils:i386 but it is not going to be installed Depends: bsdmainutils:i386 but it is not going to be installed Depends: cron:i386 or cron-daemon:i386 Depends: make:i386 but it is not going to be installed Depends: psmisc:i386 but it is not going to be installed Depends: alien:i386 (= 8.36) but it is not installable Depends: python:i386 (= 2.6.6-7~) but it is not going to be installed Depends: time:i386 but it is not going to be installed E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. This is with debian testing / unstable. Any suggestions ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130314223216.4cef2...@mirrors.kernel.org
Re: packages requiring ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 03:43:47AM +0100, Michael wrote: On my Athlon PC, multiarch (amd64,i386) is enabled and all packages are latest update 'testing', none broken. I've downgraded to testing, downloaded the latest googleearth version (6.0.3) and installed all dependencies, including ia32-libs. If your package is depending on ia32-libs then you are not using the right package for multiarch. Only the amd64 package would depend on ia32-libs. Use the i386 package instead. Now still i get /usr/lib/googleearth/googleearth-bin: error while loading shared libraries: libGL.so.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory when i start googleearth from commandline. Is there a libGL.so.1 in /usr/lib/i486-linux-gnu/? What does ldd /usr/lib/googleearth/googleearth-bin say? Look for anything not found with apt-file or on packages.debian.org. It should be noted that the package requires libgl1-mesa-glx but recommends libgl1-nvidia-glx-ia32, which should be in question for this computer with nvidia GeForce GPU. To provide this, i had to move to 386 with some more packages, like from nvidia-glx to nvidia-glx-ia32 along some other libraries as well. It endet up requiring move whole xorg to i386, which did not work because xorg-core requires keyboard-configuration which is not available as i386. libgl1-nvidia-glx-ia32 and nvidia-glx-ia32 would be the old biarch packages. Instead what you want is libgl1-nvidia-glx:i386 and nvidia-glx:i386. The packages are Multi-Arch: same so I assume the maintainer has tested them under multiarch. Anyway, i doubt the chain would have endet with xorg; i guess kernel was next and i'd end up with a complete i386 system. Am i supposed to do this just to run one application ? Wouldn't it mean the whole multiarch thing doesn't work for googleearth ? It can't work if you use the wrong package. The ia32-libs and ia32-libs-gtk metapackages are an attempt to keep the old biarch packages working but it seems to fail in case of googleearth. I'm not sure if that is only due to the recommends being required for your architecture and the libgl1-nvidia-glx-ia32 being broken (not my fault then) or if something deeper is going on. But please test with google earth for i386 to make sure it works at all before we try fo fix metapackages that might not even be the problem. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130228143920.GB6829@frosties
Re: packages requiring ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk
On my Athlon PC, multiarch (amd64,i386) is enabled and all packages are latest update 'testing', none broken. I've downgraded to testing, downloaded the latest googleearth version (6.0.3) and installed all dependencies, including ia32-libs. Now still i get /usr/lib/googleearth/googleearth-bin: error while loading shared libraries: libGL.so.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory when i start googleearth from commandline. It should be noted that the package requires libgl1-mesa-glx but recommends libgl1-nvidia-glx-ia32, which should be in question for this computer with nvidia GeForce GPU. To provide this, i had to move to 386 with some more packages, like from nvidia-glx to nvidia-glx-ia32 along some other libraries as well. It endet up requiring move whole xorg to i386, which did not work because xorg-core requires keyboard-configuration which is not available as i386. Anyway, i doubt the chain would have endet with xorg; i guess kernel was next and i'd end up with a complete i386 system. Am i supposed to do this just to run one application ? Wouldn't it mean the whole multiarch thing doesn't work for googleearth ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130210034347.7e899...@mirrors.kernel.org
Re: packages requiring ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:28:47PM -0500, Seb wrote: On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:00:00 -0500, Seb splu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Packages ia32-libs and ia32-libs-gtk are not installable in sid, and this prevents installation of some packages like the Debian amd64 version provided by Skype and google-earth-stable. How do we get around this? I was able to install the testing version of these two packages and then Skype amd64 can install in sid amd64. So what was the error on unstable? Note: ia32-libs and ia32-libs-gtk are transitional packages to make upgrades easier. With multiarch enabled you should not be installing the skype amd64 package but the skype i386 package instead. That will then depend on the specific 32bit libs needed instead of the huge metapackage and thereby reduce the risk of dependency problems. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130205084951.GA26156@frosties
Re: packages requiring ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk
Hello, I am running testing/unstable. I just enabled i386 multiarch mode, installed package ia32-libs and all its dependencies, and then run make-googleearth-package, which d/l version 6.0.3. All through with no errors. Now when i launch the binary, it responds with: /usr/lib/googleearth/googleearth-bin: error while loading shared libraries: libGL.so.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory Indeed there is no libgl link in /lib32 although i've got the meta-package libgl1 (both amd64/i386) installed, which in turn installs libgl1-mesa-glx. So, anybody have any idea what is missing ? Here is a excerpt of maybe relevant packages: libc6:amd64 2.13-35 libc6:i386 2.13-35 ia32-libs 1:0.3 ia32-libs-gtk 1:0.1 ia32-libs-gtk-i386 1:0.1 ia32-libs-i386 1:0.3 libgl1-mesa-dri:amd64 8.0.4-2 libgl1-mesa-dri:i3868.0.4-2 libgl1-mesa-glx:amd64 8.0.4-2 libgl1-mesa-glx:i3868.0.4-2 libgl1-nvidia-alternatives 304.60-1 libgl1-nvidia-glx:amd64 304.60-1 libgl1-nvidia-alternatives 304.60-1 libgl1-nvidia-glx:amd64 304.60-1 libglx-nvidia-alternatives 304.60-1 nvidia-alternative 304.60-1 nvidia-glx 304.60-1 nvidia-installer-cleanup20120630+3 nvidia-kernel-2.6.39-2-amd64290.10-1+2.6.39-3 nvidia-kernel-3.2.0-2-amd64 304.60-1+3.2.18-1 nvidia-kernel-common20120630+3 nvidia-kernel-dkms 304.60-1 nvidia-kernel-source304.60-1 nvidia-settings 304.48-1 nvidia-support 20120630+3 nvidia-vdpau-driver:amd64 304.60-1 -- Micha -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121021020049.18ce6...@mirrors.kernel.org
Fwd: packages requiring ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk
Sorry, I forgot the list -- Forwarded message -- From: Francesco Pietra chiendar...@gmail.com Date: Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:39 AM Subject: Re: packages requiring ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk To: Lennart Sorensen lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca There is a general problem of the unavailability of libmotif4 in amd64 wheezy. It seems that a bug has been forwarded to the package maintainer, however, nothing happened. There are 32bit OpenGL-libmotif3-based old codes, quite useful in science, and which are difficult to run on amd64, requiring perhaps the installation of also the i386 version. I took the opportunity to remind at large the problem. Thanks francesco pietra On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Lennart Sorensen lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:00:00PM -0500, Seb wrote: Packages ia32-libs and ia32-libs-gtk are not installable in sid, and this prevents installation of some packages like the Debian amd64 version provided by Skype and google-earth-stable. How do we get around this? Well one option might be to use equivs to create a fake package, assuming the actual libraries can be installed already using multiarch. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121015192740.gd18...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAEv0nmsp6Ybyw-0MQ7YvxxgHAaygw8iKz5wn2wspM5u=cx+...@mail.gmail.com
packages requiring ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk
Hi, Packages ia32-libs and ia32-libs-gtk are not installable in sid, and this prevents installation of some packages like the Debian amd64 version provided by Skype and google-earth-stable. How do we get around this? Thanks, -- Seb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87391f1ryn@kolob.subpolar.dyndns.org
Re: packages requiring ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:00:00PM -0500, Seb wrote: Packages ia32-libs and ia32-libs-gtk are not installable in sid, and this prevents installation of some packages like the Debian amd64 version provided by Skype and google-earth-stable. How do we get around this? Well one option might be to use equivs to create a fake package, assuming the actual libraries can be installed already using multiarch. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121015192740.gd18...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Re: packages requiring ia32-libs ia32-libs-gtk
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 14:00:00 -0500, Seb splu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Packages ia32-libs and ia32-libs-gtk are not installable in sid, and this prevents installation of some packages like the Debian amd64 version provided by Skype and google-earth-stable. How do we get around this? I was able to install the testing version of these two packages and then Skype amd64 can install in sid amd64. -- Seb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87y5j7zg9c@kolob.subpolar.dyndns.org
autodock packages
Hello: The suite autodock (docking small molecules onto a macromolecule) is a GNU fast evolving code. In Debian testing we find in fact the latest version 4.3. In Debian stable the autodock version is at 4.0, which is no more in use, drastically obsolete. However, in computational chemistry/biology it is Debian stable which is used. Especially with big machines one can't rely on unstable OS. I have squeeze only for my desktop. Sometimes it fails to print and I have no time (or capability) to remedy. I wait until with apt-get upgrade one day it starts printing again. Something that could not be accepted for computational chemistry/biology. What that means? That one tries with binary offered by autodock. It may well not run, and in fact it does not on my amd6a/dualopteron-based machine. Thus, one has to compile autodok from source. Nothing unusual because many computational codes in chemistry/biology are only offered as source. But this also means that no one will ever use the latest versions of autodock deb packages, while being prevented from using the old versions of autodock. Once Debian testing will become stable, the compilation of autodock will become obsolete, and so on. I (vaguely) know the reasons for all that, being intrinsic to the rules of Debian. However, it remains that such deb compilations are a waste of time from both the side of the maintainers and the users. I hope a day will come when a general arrangement will be found to save time from both sides. Greetings from an affectinated Debian user francesco pietra -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktikfp-mrwt_kyuwdnq0gi+ivhaprszrez96mt...@mail.gmail.com
Re: autodock packages
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 09:55:49PM +0100, Francesco Pietra wrote: The suite autodock (docking small molecules onto a macromolecule) is a GNU fast evolving code. In Debian testing we find in fact the latest version 4.3. In Debian stable the autodock version is at 4.0, which is no more in use, drastically obsolete. Why do you consider it obsolete? Is the old version no longer functional? Does it use an outdated file format? Does it output broken results? Does it have a security bug? If the only reason it's obsolete is because there is a newer version with more features, then you're probably not going to find a lot of support for adding new versions to stable. What that means? That one tries with binary offered by autodock. It may well not run, and in fact it does not on my amd6a/dualopteron-based machine. The upstream binaries are for i386 and ia64. Neither one of those is amd64, although it's possible that the i386 binary may run with ia32-libs installed. I (vaguely) know the reasons for all that, being intrinsic to the rules of Debian. However, it remains that such deb compilations are a waste of time from both the side of the maintainers and the users. I hope a day will come when a general arrangement will be found to save time from both sides. If you think the package should not be included in a stable release, feel free to contact the package maintainer. The volatile archive may be a more appropriate place for this. It's really up to the maintainers whether they want to maintain it in volatile vs. stable. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: autodock packages
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 09:45:14PM +, brian m. carlson wrote: I (vaguely) know the reasons for all that, being intrinsic to the rules of Debian. However, it remains that such deb compilations are a waste of time from both the side of the maintainers and the users. I hope a day will come when a general arrangement will be found to save time from both sides. If you think the package should not be included in a stable release, feel free to contact the package maintainer. The volatile archive may be a more appropriate place for this. It's really up to the maintainers whether they want to maintain it in volatile vs. stable. Or maybe it belongs in backports? -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110120013246.gb8...@topoi.pooq.com
misconfiguration or bug? (nvidia packages)
Dear maintainers, on my amd64 system I discovered in syslog this entry: Feb 21 10:08:23 localhost console-kit-daemon[6040]: WARNING: Unable to spawn /usr/lib/ConsoleKit/run-seat.d/nvidia_helper.ck: Failed to execute child process /usr/lib/ConsoleKit/run-seat.d/nvidia_helper.ck (Permission denied) Feb 21 10:08:25 localhost udevd-work[20614]: exec of program '/lib/udev/nvidia_helper' failed It seems, the nvidia-package is not packed as for debian structured. To get it correctly running, here is my workaround: 1. move usr/lib/ConsoleKit/run-seat.d/nvidia_helper.ck to /lib/udev/ and make it executable (root:root/ rwx r-x r-x) 2. go to /usr/lib/ConsoleKit/run-seat.d/ and create a symlink for the file doing ln -s /lib/udev/nvidia_helper.ck nvidia_helper.ck 3. Reboot Maybe you want to change it in the next package-version? I do not know, if this behaviour is on i386-machines, too, as I my only machine with an Nvidia card is an amd64 machine. Have fun! Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201002211255.37715.hans.ullr...@loop.de
Re: misconfiguration or bug? (nvidia packages)
Ive just started seeing that same thing, but running sid i dont jump to much unless a problem doesnt go away within a month or so. I havent had any adverse affects... Hopefully an updated package will come through soon? Dean Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: Dear maintainers, on my amd64 system I discovered in syslog this entry: Feb 21 10:08:23 localhost console-kit-daemon[6040]: WARNING: Unable to spawn /usr/lib/ConsoleKit/run-seat.d/nvidia_helper.ck: Failed to execute child process /usr/lib/ConsoleKit/run-seat.d/nvidia_helper.ck (Permission denied) Feb 21 10:08:25 localhost udevd-work[20614]: exec of program '/lib/udev/nvidia_helper' failed It seems, the nvidia-package is not packed as for debian structured. To get it correctly running, here is my workaround: 1. move usr/lib/ConsoleKit/run-seat.d/nvidia_helper.ck to /lib/udev/ and make it executable (root:root/ rwx r-x r-x) 2. go to /usr/lib/ConsoleKit/run-seat.d/ and create a symlink for the file doing ln -s /lib/udev/nvidia_helper.ck nvidia_helper.ck 3. Reboot Maybe you want to change it in the next package-version? I do not know, if this behaviour is on i386-machines, too, as I my only machine with an Nvidia card is an amd64 machine. Have fun! Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4b812043.6080...@fragfest.com.au
Re: strange packages - Question
Hi, Sorry if this is a stupid question, but with regard to this I was also wondering why linux-image-amd64 is pointing to linux-image-2.6.32-trunk-amd64 and not to linux-image-2.6.32-2-amd64, which seems to be the latest kernel (my X session hangs when running the former). Thanks, JP Am Friday 12 February 2010 22:04:57 schrieb Hans-J. Ullrich: Hi all, Moin, I wondered what is the difference between the two packages linux-image-amd64 and linux-image-2.6-amd64. Both seem to be meta- packages, and both want to install the same kernel. Is there a difference at all? If yes, which one is preferred for which purposes? linux-image-amd64 will install 2.8.x and 3.0.x also, linux-image-2.6-amd64 will only install 2.6.x kernels. Regards Hans dirk -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1266237602.2879.3988.ca...@localhost
Re: strange packages - Question
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 01:40:02PM +0100, Juan P. Rigol Sanchez wrote: Sorry if this is a stupid question, but with regard to this I was also wondering why linux-image-amd64 is pointing to linux-image-2.6.32-trunk-amd64 and not to linux-image-2.6.32-2-amd64, which seems to be the latest kernel (my X session hangs when running the former). As the kernel team why they didn't update that package yet. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70 `- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100215125235.gf5...@rene-engelhard.de
strange packages
Hi all, I wondered what is the difference between the two packages linux-image-amd64 and linux-image-2.6-amd64. Both seem to be meta- packages, and both want to install the same kernel. Is there a difference at all? If yes, which one is preferred for which purposes? Regards Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: strange packages
Am 12.02.2010 um 22:04:57 schrieb Hans-J. Ullrich: Hi all, I wondered what is the difference between the two packages linux-image-amd64 and linux-image-2.6-amd64. Both seem to be meta- packages, and both want to install the same kernel. Is there a difference at all? If yes, which one is preferred for which purposes? the first one is more generic. it could some day upgrade to a 2.8 kernel. the other one is more specific the actual package of the 2.6-kernel tree. both apply only for the amd64 architecture. bye, Michael. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: strange packages
Am Friday 12 February 2010 22:04:57 schrieb Hans-J. Ullrich: Hi all, Moin, I wondered what is the difference between the two packages linux-image-amd64 and linux-image-2.6-amd64. Both seem to be meta- packages, and both want to install the same kernel. Is there a difference at all? If yes, which one is preferred for which purposes? linux-image-amd64 will install 2.8.x and 3.0.x also, linux-image-2.6-amd64 will only install 2.6.x kernels. Regards Hans dirk -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
is there a way to revert to a previous, known working set of debian packages?
I'm comfortable using Debian/Unstable. I accept that things can go wrong, and I'm willing to file bugreports. However, I do wonder if there is any way to make snapshot of the current versions of all packages, then update, and then, if necessary, revert back to the previous snapshot. I seem to have upgraded to a non-working X last evening, where xserver-xorg-core depends on something that isn't release yet. I don't mind doing without X for a few days, but I did wonder if there is an easier way to say 'just get back to this known-working list of packages', instead of trying to install the correct versions manually, which gets rather tiresome when there's a lot of packages. The internet revealed 'apt-clone', which comes close, but seems to work only with ZFS and more like a general rollback tool, than just packages. How do other users do this? Thanks, Jurriaan -- Wefkins are unimaginative. Zocco, for instance, envisions a future of blissful ease, with never a pang of discomfort. Right or wrong? He is wrong indeed. Jack Vance - Lyonesse III - Madouc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: is there a way to revert to a previous, known working set of debian packages?
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:23:44 + Jurriaan thund...@xs4all.nl wrote: However, I do wonder if there is any way to make snapshot of the current versions of all packages, then update, and then, if necessary, revert back to the previous snapshot. I do my upgrades using a little script. #!/bin/sh # /root/bin/getafix # Script to save packages to be upgraded in /root/lib/upgrade/$DATE # using dpkg-repack # In case something goes wrong, whilst upgrading, a simple dpkg -i /root/lib/upgrade/$DATE/* # will (hopefully) rebuild a working system. #set -x apt-get update # d-ated dir-ectory DDIR=/root/lib/upgrades/`date +%Y-%m-%d_%H:%M:%S` echo $DDIR # p-ackages t-o b-e u-pgraded PTBU=`apt-get -s upgrade | grep The following packages will be upgraded: --after-context=1 | grep ^ ` echo PTBU=-$PTBU- if [[ -n $PTBU ]]; then # PTBU non-zero mkdir $DDIR cd $DDIR dpkg-repack $PTBU else echo No upgrades fi So if anything goes wrong i only have to cd /root/lib/upgrades/`date +%Y-%m-%d_%H:%M:%S` and dpkg -i * When dist-upgrading this will probably produce tons of packages in /root/lib/upgrades/ Another way would be to simply copy the partitions involved (with dd) make the upgrade and write them back i anything goes wrong. Cheers Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: is there a way to revert to a previous, known working set of debian packages?
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 02:21:11PM +0100, Michael Dominok wrote: On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:23:44 + Jurriaan thund...@xs4all.nl wrote: However, I do wonder if there is any way to make snapshot of the current versions of all packages, then update, and then, if necessary, revert back to the previous snapshot. I do my upgrades using a little script. #!/bin/sh # /root/bin/getafix # Script to save packages to be upgraded in /root/lib/upgrade/$DATE # using dpkg-repack # In case something goes wrong, whilst upgrading, a simple dpkg -i /root/lib/upgrade/$DATE/* # will (hopefully) rebuild a working system. #set -x apt-get update # d-ated dir-ectory DDIR=/root/lib/upgrades/`date +%Y-%m-%d_%H:%M:%S` echo $DDIR # p-ackages t-o b-e u-pgraded PTBU=`apt-get -s upgrade | grep The following packages will be upgraded: --after-context=1 | grep ^ ` echo PTBU=-$PTBU- if [[ -n $PTBU ]]; then # PTBU non-zero mkdir $DDIR cd $DDIR dpkg-repack $PTBU else echo No upgrades fi So if anything goes wrong i only have to cd /root/lib/upgrades/`date +%Y-%m-%d_%H:%M:%S` and dpkg -i * When dist-upgrading this will probably produce tons of packages in /root/lib/upgrades/ Another way would be to simply copy the partitions involved (with dd) make the upgrade and write them back i anything goes wrong. rdiff-backup might save you some disk space, but make sure you have at least a minimal spare Linux around to run rdiff-backup again to do the restore. rdiff-backup is also capable of restoring older versions. So you could even back up the broken system and still restore the older working version incase you wanted to have the broken one around too. -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: is there a way to revert to a previous, known working set of debian packages?
On Fri 08 January 2010 05:23:44 am Jurriaan wrote: I'm comfortable using Debian/Unstable. I accept that things can go wrong, and I'm willing to file bugreports. However, I do wonder if there is any way to make snapshot of the current versions of all packages, then update, and then, if necessary, revert back to the previous snapshot. I seem to have upgraded to a non-working X last evening, where xserver-xorg-core depends on something that isn't release yet. I don't mind doing without X for a few days, but I did wonder if there is an easier way to say 'just get back to this known-working list of packages', instead of trying to install the correct versions manually, which gets rather tiresome when there's a lot of packages. The internet revealed 'apt-clone', which comes close, but seems to work only with ZFS and more like a general rollback tool, than just packages. How do other users do this? Thanks, Jurriaan -- Wefkins are unimaginative. Zocco, for instance, envisions a future of blissful ease, with never a pang of discomfort. Right or wrong? He is wrong indeed. Jack Vance - Lyonesse III - Madouc Hi Jurriaan, I use a cron script log the output of the following programs daily: aptitude search '~i' apt-show-versions dpkg --get-selections With these logs apropriate backups I can restore my system to it's previous state, whether it's rolling back an upgrade or restoring from a crash. I would think that something similar would work for you. Cheers! cmr - -- Debian 'Etch' - Registered Linux User #241964 More laws, less justice. -- Marcus Tullius Ciceroca, 42 BC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Does anyone have older amd64 versions of fglrx-* packages?
Hi, I upgraded my proprietary ATI driver to version 9-9, but it does not work, all I get is a black screen and a frozen computer. My card is a Radon HD 3650. The free radeon/radeonhd drivers work, but they apparently don't even support Xvideo. I cannot run the geeqie image viewer either, apparently it requires 3d acceleration or something like that. I was using version 9-5 and it worked. Unfortunately, that version was not available anymore in my /var/cache/apt/archives. snapshot.debian.net couldn't help either. Does anyone have that version, or another version older that 9-5 of the amd64 packages? -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all. -- Nathaniel Branden Eduardo M KALINOWSKI edua...@kalinowski.com.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: 97 ia32 packages on an amd64
Nuno Magalhães nunomagalh...@eu.ipp.pt writes: Greetings, I know with the latest changes came a new APT that can handle both 32 and 64 packages, which is great. However, i barely need 32bit packages and yet i have 97 ia32* packages installed. Most of them are libs, but i also have ia32-at-spi, ia32-gtk2-engines, ia32-gtk2-engines-pixbuf and ia32-xaw3dg installed. The only 32bit app i use, barely, is Skype. I occasionaly compile stuff for i386 with -m32 but it's not a necessity. I also noticed that even though i have only two servers on my /etc/apt/sources.list, apt is updating from three servers and there are a whole bunch of files under /etc/apt/sources.list.d/, including many ia32*. That sounds like you have an older version of ia32-apt-get installed and you forgot to run /usr/share/ia32-apt-get/convert-all-sources.list. The question is: how can i keep ia32 stuff to a minimum? TIA Just uninstall as much as you can untill it wants to remove skype as well. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
97 ia32 packages on an amd64
Greetings, I know with the latest changes came a new APT that can handle both 32 and 64 packages, which is great. However, i barely need 32bit packages and yet i have 97 ia32* packages installed. Most of them are libs, but i also have ia32-at-spi, ia32-gtk2-engines, ia32-gtk2-engines-pixbuf and ia32-xaw3dg installed. The only 32bit app i use, barely, is Skype. I occasionaly compile stuff for i386 with -m32 but it's not a necessity. I also noticed that even though i have only two servers on my /etc/apt/sources.list, apt is updating from three servers and there are a whole bunch of files under /etc/apt/sources.list.d/, including many ia32*. The question is: how can i keep ia32 stuff to a minimum? TIA -- () ascii-rubanda kampajno - kontraŭ html-a retpoŝto /\ ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
What are these packages doing ?
Hello ! What are these packages good for ? linux-image-amd64 linux-image-2.6-amd64 Are these meta-packages ? Or are these packages intend to let aptitude or apt-get automatically install the newest kernel-versions ? (If yes, then these are the packages I am looking for) Regards Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What are these packages doing ?
What are these packages good for ? linux-image-amd64 linux-image-2.6-amd64 Are these meta-packages ? Or are these packages intend to let aptitude or apt-get automatically install the newest kernel-versions ? (If yes, then these are the packages I am looking for) for sure linux-image-2.6-amd64 lets you have always the latest 2.6 kernel for amd64 installed. apt-cache show it and check Depends line: it should have (if your machine is enough up-to-date) the version 2.6.25-2. Kindly, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, Morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What are these packages doing ?
Hi tas, for sure linux-image-2.6-amd64 lets you have always the latest 2.6 kernel for amd64 installed. apt-cache show it and check Depends line: it should have (if your machine is enough up-to-date) the version 2.6.25-2. On etch it will install 2.6.18+6etch3 (2.6.25+14~bpo40+1 from backports is also available). thanks for clarify it! I was referring to sid, while for stable it's correct what you said. I CCed the list, since it might be of help to someone else. Cheers, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, Morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What are these packages doing ?
Saturday 09 August 2008, Sandro Tosi wrote : What are these packages good for ? linux-image-amd64 linux-image-2.6-amd64 Are these meta-packages ? Or are these packages intend to let aptitude or apt-get automatically install the newest kernel-versions ? (If yes, then these are the packages I am looking for) for sure linux-image-2.6-amd64 lets you have always the latest 2.6 kernel for amd64 installed. apt-cache show it and check Depends line: it should have (if your machine is enough up-to-date) the version 2.6.25-2. And linux-image-amd64 as a dependance on the latest linux branch (here linux-image-2.6.amd64). If one day Linux jump to 2.8 version, then linux-image-amd64 dependance will be modified accordingly. Kindly, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, Morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi Regards, Thomas Preud'homme -- Why Debian : http://www.debian.org/intro/why_debian signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: 'apt-get dist-upgrade' tries to install unneeded packages
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) writes: 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. By default it uses the apt configuration and that defaults to installing recommends. MfG Goswin -- 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
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? -- Lionel -- 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
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: 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? Good idea, but it doesn't appear to be what's happening here. To be sure, I just removed a package: gimp-gnomevfs, recommended by gimp. The list of packages dist-upgrade tries to install is unchanged; gimp-gnomevfs isn't there. -Corey -- 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
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] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: 'apt-get dist-upgrade' tries to install unneeded packages
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
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: 'apt-get dist-upgrade' tries to install unneeded packages
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]
'apt-get dist-upgrade' tries to install unneeded packages
I don't know if this is amd64-specific, but it's only happening on my
amd64 Sid system, so I'm asking here first.
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. I don't want any of them, and I don't know why
apt-get wants to install them.
'aptitude full-upgrade' doesn't have this problem. If all else fails
I'll just switch to aptitude, but I'd rather know what's going on.
I don't have anything non-default in /etc/apt/apt.conf.d.
'apt-get -f install' doesn't try to do anything.
The following is a log of upgrading and the contents of /etc/apt/apt.conf.d.
Thanks,
Corey
bugfood:~# apt-get upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
bugfood:~# apt-get dist-upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
The following NEW packages will be installed:
avahi-daemon bash-completion busybox enscript esound-clients exiv2
gnokii-common hal hal-info initramfs-tools kaddressbook kamera
kcontrol kdebase-data kdebase-kio-plugins kdeeject
kdemultimedia-kio-plugins kdepim-kio-plugins kdepim-kresources
kdeprint kdesktop kfind kghostview kicker kipi-plugins klibc-utils
kmail konqueror kooka korganizer libavahi-core5 libbluetooth2
libccid libdaemon0 libexiv2-2 libgnokii3 libgpgme11 libgpod-common
libgpod3-nogtk libical0 libkcal2b libkcddb1 libkdcraw3 libkdepim1a
libkexiv2-3 libkleopatra1 libklibc libkmime2 libkpimexchange1
libkpimidentities1 libkscan1 libksieve0 libktnef1 libmimelib1c2a
libnss-mdns libpcsclite1 libsgutils1 libsmbios-bin libsmbios1
libsmbiosxml1 libsplashy1 ocrad pcscd pm-utils pmount poster
powermgmt-base psutils radeontool sane-utils sg3-utils uswsusp
vbetool
0 upgraded, 73 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 44.6MB of archives.
After this operation, 131MB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]? n
Abort.
bugfood:~# cat /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/*
APT
{
NeverAutoRemove
{
^linux-image.*;
^linux-restricted-modules.*;
};
};
DPkg::Pre-Install-Pkgs { /usr/bin/apt-listchanges --apt || test $? -ne
10; };
DPkg::Tools::Options::/usr/bin/apt-listchanges::Version 2;
// Pre-configure all packages with debconf before they are installed.
// If you don't like it, comment it out.
DPkg::Pre-Install-Pkgs {/usr/sbin/dpkg-preconfigure --apt || true;};
DPkg::Post-Invoke { if [ -x /usr/bin/debsums ]; then /usr/bin/debsums
--generate=nocheck -sp /var/cache/apt/archives; fi; };
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing own packages with aptitude
Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: Hi all, I would like to install some selfmade or downloaded packages on my system using apt or aptitude. These are packages, which are experimental or 3rd-party (like my printer driver), and which is no repository for. All packages are installable with dpkg -i by hand, and all packages shall reside in a special directory (i.e. /var/cache/apt/archive2/ ). How must be the syntax in /etc/apt/sources.list ? I suppose, it is something like deb file:///var/cache/apt/archive2/ ./ Another question: Is there a way to install those packages, even it has the wrong architecture ? If I do it manually this is working of course, (using dpkg -i --force-architecture) , but is there a way to handle it automatically ? The background is, that the closed-source-driver for my printer (Brother MFC210c) is only available as an I386-package, but not as an amd64-package. Although, it is working perfectly on amd64-systems ! Best regards Hans This is not my best effort: I sent this to Hans by mistake, resent it but to the wrong list. Now, hopefully, I have sent this to the right list. Original messages following: Hans, Sorry I sent this to you by mistake. I resent this to the list: Hans, I only know one part of what you ask: dpkg -i --force-architecture package.deb see dpkg --help and dpkg --force-help I use this to install skype (ony 32bit version available) and a few things which it depends on (also 32bit versions) HTH -- Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing own packages with aptitude
On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 11:12:16AM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote: Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: Hi all, I would like to install some selfmade or downloaded packages on my system using apt or aptitude. These are packages, which are experimental or 3rd-party (like my printer driver), and which is no repository for. All packages are installable with dpkg -i by hand, and all packages shall reside in a special directory (i.e. /var/cache/apt/archive2/ ). How must be the syntax in /etc/apt/sources.list ? I suppose, it is something like deb file:///var/cache/apt/archive2/ ./ do a man sources.list their example is deb file:/home/jason/debian stable main contrib non-free Another question: Is there a way to install those packages, even it has the wrong architecture ? If I do it manually this is working of course, (using dpkg -i --force-architecture) , but is there a way to handle it automatically ? The background is, that the closed-source-driver for my printer (Brother MFC210c) is only available as an I386-package, but not as an amd64-package. Although, it is working perfectly on amd64-systems ! Best regards Hans This is not my best effort: I sent this to Hans by mistake, resent it but to the wrong list. Now, hopefully, I have sent this to the right list. Original messages following: Hans, Sorry I sent this to you by mistake. I resent this to the list: Hans, I only know one part of what you ask: dpkg -i --force-architecture package.deb see dpkg --help and dpkg --force-help I use this to install skype (ony 32bit version available) and a few things which it depends on (also 32bit versions) HTH -- Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Signs of crime: screaming or cries for help. -- The Brown University Security Crime Prevention Pamphlet signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Installing own packages with aptitude
El ds 08 de 03 del 2008 a les 11:12 -0500, en/na Damon L. Chesser va escriure: I use this to install skype (ony 32bit version available) I've recently added the libraries needed for skype. You may want to give a try if you're running testing. Bye. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing own packages with aptitude
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 08:07:32AM +1100, Alex Samad wrote: On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 11:12:16AM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote: Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: Hi all, I would like to install some selfmade or downloaded packages on my system using apt or aptitude. These are packages, which are experimental or 3rd-party (like my printer driver), and which is no repository for. All packages are installable with dpkg -i by hand, and all packages shall reside in a special directory (i.e. /var/cache/apt/archive2/ ). How must be the syntax in /etc/apt/sources.list ? I suppose, it is something like deb file:///var/cache/apt/archive2/./ do a man sources.list their example is deb file:/home/jason/debian stable main contrib non-free There is a reqiurement to prepare some kind of index, I believe. I'm not sure of the details, but there's a utilitu that does this. -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing own packages with aptitude
On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 06:25:18PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 08:07:32AM +1100, Alex Samad wrote: On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 11:12:16AM -0500, Damon L. Chesser wrote: Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: Hi all, I would like to install some selfmade or downloaded packages on my system using apt or aptitude. These are packages, which are experimental or 3rd-party (like my printer driver), and which is no repository for. All packages are installable with dpkg -i by hand, and all packages shall reside in a special directory (i.e. /var/cache/apt/archive2/ ). How must be the syntax in /etc/apt/sources.list ? I suppose, it is something like deb file:///var/cache/apt/archive2/ ./ do a man sources.list their example is deb file:/home/jason/debian stable main contrib non-free There is a reqiurement to prepare some kind of index, I believe. I'm not sure of the details, but there's a utilitu that does this. there are a couple, the one i use is reprepro but this is for publishing on a ftp or http access (can be used for local file reps as well). I think you can get rid of the stable main contrib non-free and use ./ -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The point now is how do we work together to achieve important goals. And one such goal is a democracy in Germany - George W. Bush 05/05/2006 Washington, DC signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Installing own packages with aptitude
Hi all, I would like to install some selfmade or downloaded packages on my system using apt or aptitude. These are packages, which are experimental or 3rd-party (like my printer driver), and which is no repository for. All packages are installable with dpkg -i by hand, and all packages shall reside in a special directory (i.e. /var/cache/apt/archive2/ ). How must be the syntax in /etc/apt/sources.list ? I suppose, it is something like deb file:///var/cache/apt/archive2/ ./ Another question: Is there a way to install those packages, even it has the wrong architecture ? If I do it manually this is working of course, (using dpkg -i --force-architecture) , but is there a way to handle it automatically ? The background is, that the closed-source-driver for my printer (Brother MFC210c) is only available as an I386-package, but not as an amd64-package. Although, it is working perfectly on amd64-systems ! Best regards Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing own packages with aptitude
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 04:14:45PM +0100, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: I would like to install some selfmade or downloaded packages on my system using apt or aptitude. These are packages, which are experimental or 3rd-party (like my printer driver), and which is no repository for. All packages are installable with dpkg -i by hand, and all packages shall reside in a special directory (i.e. /var/cache/apt/archive2/ ). How must be the syntax in /etc/apt/sources.list ? I suppose, it is something like deb file:///var/cache/apt/archive2/ ./ Another question: Is there a way to install those packages, even it has the wrong architecture ? If I do it manually this is working of course, (using dpkg -i --force-architecture) , but is there a way to handle it automatically ? The background is, that the closed-source-driver for my printer (Brother MFC210c) is only available as an I386-package, but not as an amd64-package. Although, it is working perfectly on amd64-systems ! Apt (and as a result aptitude, synaptic, etc) only works with repositories. You either make your own repository (see apt-ftparchive tool) or you use dpkg -i manually. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packages.
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 10:35:42PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 05:51:13PM -0200, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: Nuno Magalh?es wrote: Another thing that you can try is simply ask the package to be removed. If you get broken packages or other things are being removed, then the package is needed by something else. If you use aptitude interactively, it gives you a chance to back out of the removal before it goes ahead with it (I think with a control-U). But once you go ahead with it, you're stuck. Also, under Aptitude's options menu, tell it not to treat Recommends as strong dependancies. Otherwise you will get lots of cruft. My routine is to install a base system with nothing installed with tasksel during install. Then fire up aptitude, adjust the options as above, and go down the list of installed packages (they will all be marked as manually installed) and mark as 'A'uto anything you don't specifically want. Then hit 'g' and edit the list as appropriate, then 'g' again to clean up the cruft that comes with a 'minimal' install. After this, use aptitude interactivly for everything. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packages.
Teodor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What about debfoster? That's another option, and also features full or partial (multi-level) undo support within a session. I actually use it along with aptitude and deborphan, as they all take slightly different approaches and each can catch extraneous packages the others miss. -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Building lib32-style packages
Alex Malinovich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The 64-bit version of this is provided by libasound2-plugins. Unfortunately, while there is a lib32asound2 package, there is no lib32asound2-plugins package, so I'm trying to create one. You'd first need lib32-ized versions of all dependencies. I'd be tempted to cheat and just symlink the chroot's copy of libasound_module_pcm_pulse.so into /emul. -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http://stuff.mit.edu/cgi/finger/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Building lib32-style packages
On Sun, 2007-12-10 at 14:53 -0500, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: Alex Malinovich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The 64-bit version of this is provided by libasound2-plugins. Unfortunately, while there is a lib32asound2 package, there is no lib32asound2-plugins package, so I'm trying to create one. You'd first need lib32-ized versions of all dependencies. I'd be tempted to cheat and just symlink the chroot's copy of libasound_module_pcm_pulse.so into /emul. I actually tried that but with no luck. I even went so far as to symlink the entire /usr/lib from the chroot into /emul and still no luck. I was able to manually hack up the configure script in the package to disable a few dependencies that I didn't really need (jack support, for example) but the other dependencies are still causing a problem. One of these days I'll see about sitting down and creating all of the dependency packages as well, but for the time being I'm just grudgingly using the chroot. The number of partitions that I have mounted in different portions of the filesystem makes the chroot a real pain to use though. -- Alex Malinovich Support Free Software, delete your Windows partition TODAY! Encrypted mail preferred. You can get my public key from any of the pgp.net keyservers. Key ID: A6D24837 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Building lib32-style packages
I've been looking around online and I've found a bunch of places that offer hints for how to build i386 packages on and amd64 system, but that's for native i386 packages. I'm wanting to create a local lib32 package (lib32asound2-plugins to be exact) and I can't find any info on how to go about it. Are there any simple tools for doing this? For a bit of background of what I'm trying to accomplish here: I have a bunch of apps that work great in my chroot. I also have a number of 32-bit apps that work great in the native amd64 environment with the appropriate lib32 packages installed. One thing that doesn't work for me, however, is sound. Specifically, 32-bit apps running outside of the chroot that don't natively support pulseaudio. Any 32-bit apps running outside of the chroot that try to use the pulse driver in ALSA end up failing with: ALSA lib ../../../src/pcm/pcm.c:2106:(snd_pcm_open_conf) Cannot open shared library /emul/ia32-linux/usr/lib/alsa-lib/libasound_module_pcm_pulse.so The 64-bit version of this is provided by libasound2-plugins. Unfortunately, while there is a lib32asound2 package, there is no lib32asound2-plugins package, so I'm trying to create one. If I'm going about this all wrong and there's an easy way to accomplish the desired effect, please feel free to let me know. I just want sound to work. :) (using padsp/pasuspender doesn't count as a solution btw :) ) -- Alex Malinovich Support Free Software, delete your Windows partition TODAY! Encrypted mail preferred. You can get my public key from any of the pgp.net keyservers. Key ID: A6D24837 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Packages.
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 08:29:31AM +0200, Teodor wrote: On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 22:35:42 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you use aptitude interactively, it gives you a chance to back out of the removal before it goes ahead with it (I think with a control-U). But once you go ahead with it, you're stuck. What about debfoster? I've never used or needed to use debfoster that I know of. Maybe someone else can answer this? It's possible that I've always needed it but never knew. -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Packages.
Hi. Whenever i install Debian, i always use the netinst and select nothing but the base system. Then it's apt al the way: first X, then a lightweight WM plus whatever i need. However, even with a minimal install there are always a bunch of packages that i didn't choose and that (apparently) aren't used by any other package. This time i decided to nstall X from the installer menu, so i got X+GNOME. I still had to work around the xorg.conf to get it working (framebuffer). The thing is, i'm allergic to unused packages and i dislike big desktop enviroments like GNOME or KDE. And i know that if i do apt-get remove --purge gnome* there will still be leftovers, like Evolution. I don't think neither apt nor aptitude (or even synaptic, another usual leftover) have this, but is there a way to know if a package is depended upon? Automagically removing it if not? Actually my favourite is apt, i dislike the other two. I'm going through the list of installed packages and their descriptions in the debian site, i even have a fortune-cookies package! Wtf? And i skipped all the lib* and x* ones... How can i get rid of everything gnome? Just wishfull thinking in the wrong list, but it would be nice if developers of mamoths like X, GNOME and KDE would develop installers which let you choose what you want to install and/or that only install componets whcih are really necessart. I already have openoffice, i don't need gnumeric; nor do i need 30 graphics drivers when i'll only use one. Any constructive suggestions would be much appreciated. -- Fica bem, porta-te mal. Be well, misbehave. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packages.
Nuno Magalhães wrote: Hi. Whenever i install Debian, i always use the netinst and select nothing but the base system. Same here. Then it's apt al the way: first X, then a lightweight WM plus whatever i need. However, even with a minimal install there are always a bunch of packages that i didn't choose and that (apparently) aren't used by any other package. This did not happen to me, though. This time i decided to nstall X from the installer menu, so i got X+GNOME. I still had to work around the xorg.conf to get it working (framebuffer). The thing is, i'm allergic to unused packages and i dislike big desktop enviroments like GNOME or KDE. And i know that if i do apt-get remove --purge gnome* there will still be leftovers, like Evolution. I don't think neither apt nor aptitude (or even synaptic, another usual leftover) have this, but is there a way to know if a package is depended upon? Automagically removing it if not? Actually my favourite is apt, i dislike the other two. deborphan shows packages that are orphaned, that is, nothing depends on them. I'm not sure if it can automatically remove them, but that's easy to do anyway. However, I'd do that via aptitude, see below. I'm going through the list of installed packages and their descriptions in the debian site, i even have a fortune-cookies package! Wtf? And i skipped all the lib* and x* ones... How can i get rid of everything gnome? What I recomend is to use aptitude, and press M (or was it m? well, whatever) to mark the packages you feel you don't need as automatically installed. Then if nothing depends on them, they will be removed. You might want to press 'l' and enter something like this !~pimportant!~prequired!~M to get a list of packages that are not marked as automatically installed (that is, they are not a dependency of something else that got automatically pulled in) and are not marked 'important' or 'required'. And aptitude lets you see quickly what a package is for. Another thing that you can try is simply ask the package to be removed. If you get broken packages or other things are being removed, then the package is needed by something else. -- Opportunities are usually disguised as hard work, so most people don't recognize them. Eduardo M KALINOWSKI [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://move.to/hpkb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packages.
Hi, Nuno On Saturday 08 December 2007 12:40, Nuno Magalhães wrote: Hi. Whenever i install Debian, i always use the netinst and select nothing but the base system. Then it's apt al the way: first X, then a lightweight WM plus whatever i need. However, even with a minimal install there are always a bunch of packages that i didn't choose and that (apparently) aren't used by any other package. This time i decided to nstall X from the installer menu, so i got X+GNOME. I still had to work around the xorg.conf to get it working (framebuffer). The thing is, i'm allergic to unused packages and i dislike big desktop enviroments like GNOME or KDE. And i know that if i do apt-get remove --purge gnome* there will still be leftovers, like Evolution. I don't think neither apt nor aptitude (or even synaptic, another usual leftover) have this, but is there a way to know if a package is depended upon? Automagically removing it if not? Actually my favourite is apt, i dislike the other two. I agree with you that the fewer packages the better. I know of no single program which will identify and automatically remove unwanted, unneeded packages, but two which will help are deborphan and aptitude. Deborphan is self-explanatory and fairly straight forward to use, but WRT to aptitude what I found helpful is: `aptitude search '~i'`. Issue this command on the command line and you will receive a list of all installed packages such as: i acpid - Utilities for using ACPI power management i adduser - add and remove users and groups i A akregator - RSS feed aggregator for KDE i A alien - convert and install rpm and other packages The A indicates that the package was installed automatically, presumably due to a dependency. A more detailed examination using aptitude or `apt-cache rdepends package_name` can show you the dependencies. HTH! cmr I'm going through the list of installed packages and their descriptions in the debian site, i even have a fortune-cookies package! Wtf? And i skipped all the lib* and x* ones... How can i get rid of everything gnome? Just wishfull thinking in the wrong list, but it would be nice if developers of mamoths like X, GNOME and KDE would develop installers which let you choose what you want to install and/or that only install componets whcih are really necessart. I already have openoffice, i don't need gnumeric; nor do i need 30 graphics drivers when i'll only use one. Any constructive suggestions would be much appreciated. -- Fica bem, porta-te mal. Be well, misbehave. -- Debian 'Etch' - Registered Linux User #241964 More laws, less justice. -- Marcus Tullius Ciceroca, 42 BC
Re: Packages.
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 05:51:13PM -0200, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: Nuno Magalhães wrote: Hi. Whenever i install Debian, i always use the netinst and select nothing but the base system. Same here. Then it's apt al the way: first X, then a lightweight WM plus whatever i need. However, even with a minimal install there are always a bunch of packages that i didn't choose and that (apparently) aren't used by any other package. This did not happen to me, though. This time i decided to nstall X from the installer menu, so i got X+GNOME. I still had to work around the xorg.conf to get it working (framebuffer). The thing is, i'm allergic to unused packages and i dislike big desktop enviroments like GNOME or KDE. And i know that if i do apt-get remove --purge gnome* there will still be leftovers, like Evolution. I don't think neither apt nor aptitude (or even synaptic, another usual leftover) have this, but is there a way to know if a package is depended upon? Automagically removing it if not? Actually my favourite is apt, i dislike the other two. deborphan shows packages that are orphaned, that is, nothing depends on them. I'm not sure if it can automatically remove them, but that's easy to do anyway. However, I'd do that via aptitude, see below. I'm going through the list of installed packages and their descriptions in the debian site, i even have a fortune-cookies package! Wtf? And i skipped all the lib* and x* ones... How can i get rid of everything gnome? What I recomend is to use aptitude, and press M (or was it m? well, whatever) to mark the packages you feel you don't need as automatically installed. Then if nothing depends on them, they will be removed. You might want to press 'l' and enter something like this !~pimportant!~prequired!~M to get a list of packages that are not marked as automatically installed (that is, they are not a dependency of something else that got automatically pulled in) and are not marked 'important' or 'required'. And aptitude lets you see quickly what a package is for. Another thing that you can try is simply ask the package to be removed. If you get broken packages or other things are being removed, then the package is needed by something else. If you use aptitude interactively, it gives you a chance to back out of the removal before it goes ahead with it (I think with a control-U). But once you go ahead with it, you're stuck. -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packages.
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 22:35:42 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you use aptitude interactively, it gives you a chance to back out of the removal before it goes ahead with it (I think with a control-U). But once you go ahead with it, you're stuck. What about debfoster? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Building i386 Packages on a AMD64 machine
On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 10:17:25PM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 09:06:05AM +1100, Alex Samad wrote: I need to be able to build i386 packages on a amd64 machine, they are really only meta packages. Just need dependencies and some config stuff, but the only think I can find how to do it is http://wiki.debian.org/DebianAMD64Faq and that means I need to populate my chroot with all the tools I have in my amd64 world ? Is it possible to build a i386 package on a amd64 system, I am guessing it is, cause how are all the other platform linux-kernel images built. Kernel images are a special case (The makefiles are setup for cross compiling), but in general debian does NOT cross compile packages. The simpelst way really is a chroot since you need the header files and libraries and everything else from i386 to build i386 packages. You can build 32bit binaries by just calling gcc with -m32, but that doesn't solve the rest of the problems. looks like that is the way to go, I updated my chroot and it seems to be working -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Building i386 Packages on a AMD64 machine
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 09:06:05AM +1100, Alex Samad wrote: I need to be able to build i386 packages on a amd64 machine, they are really only meta packages. Just need dependencies and some config stuff, but the only think I can find how to do it is http://wiki.debian.org/DebianAMD64Faq and that means I need to populate my chroot with all the tools I have in my amd64 world ? Is it possible to build a i386 package on a amd64 system, I am guessing it is, cause how are all the other platform linux-kernel images built. Kernel images are a special case (The makefiles are setup for cross compiling), but in general debian does NOT cross compile packages. The simpelst way really is a chroot since you need the header files and libraries and everything else from i386 to build i386 packages. You can build 32bit binaries by just calling gcc with -m32, but that doesn't solve the rest of the problems. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Building i386 Packages on a AMD64 machine
Hi I need to be able to build i386 packages on a amd64 machine, they are really only meta packages. Just need dependencies and some config stuff, but the only think I can find how to do it is http://wiki.debian.org/DebianAMD64Faq and that means I need to populate my chroot with all the tools I have in my amd64 world ? Is it possible to build a i386 package on a amd64 system, I am guessing it is, cause how are all the other platform linux-kernel images built. Thanks Alex signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: purging packages from 32 bit chroot
Seb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, I noticed that chroot inside my AMD64 system, and I see that some packages have residual configuration files (according to synaptic). But if I do 'apt-get remove --purge package', apt tells me that the package is not installed and nothing is done. This does work in my main AMD64 system for purging packages. Any ideas? Thanks. That afaik never worked for removed packages. You can use dpkg --purge there. MfG Goswin PS: you can make --purge default for apt so you don't get into this state in the first palce. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: purging packages from 32 bit chroot
Am Montag 18 Juni 2007 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow: Seb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, I noticed that chroot inside my AMD64 system, and I see that some packages have residual configuration files (according to synaptic). But if I do 'apt-get remove --purge package', apt tells me that the package I guess, the sysntax is wrong. Type: apt-get --purge remove package, so that apt does not search after a package named --purge. is not installed and nothing is done. This does work in my main AMD64 system for purging packages. Any ideas? Thanks. That afaik never worked for removed packages. You can use dpkg --purge there. MfG Goswin PS: you can make --purge default for apt so you don't get into this state in the first palce. Regards Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
purging packages from 32 bit chroot
Hi, I noticed that chroot inside my AMD64 system, and I see that some packages have residual configuration files (according to synaptic). But if I do 'apt-get remove --purge package', apt tells me that the package is not installed and nothing is done. This does work in my main AMD64 system for purging packages. Any ideas? Thanks. -- Seb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ekiga 2.0.9 packages for Etch and Sid
Ciao a tutti, today I found packages for amd64! thanks a lot! -- Ciao leandro Un esteso e normale uso della crittografia è il sistema più forte per rivendicare il diritto alla privacy nelle comunicazioni telematiche: come tutti i diritti e come i muscoli se non viene esercitato costantemente si atrofizza e va perso. pgp0yjQSrmHLn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Ekiga 2.0.9 packages for Etch and Sid
Hi, Ekiga 2.0.9 is out and have packages for Debian Etch and Sid AMD64! Check here for Etch: http://ekiga.org/index.php?rub=5path=debian/etch_amd64 And here for Sid: http://ekiga.org/index.php?rub=5path=debian/sid_amd64 Soon, there will be a repository for, hopefuly, automatic update to last Ekiga stable. Regards, Yannick -- Me joindre en téléphonie IP / vidéoconférence ? sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ekiga 2.0.9 packages for Etch and Sid
yannick ha scritto: [...] And here for Sid: http://ekiga.org/index.php?rub=5path=debian/sid_amd64 Here I get this: [IMG]libpt-plugins-v4l2_1.10.7-0.sid0_i386.deb [IMG]libpt-plugins-v4l_1.10.7-0.sid0_i386.deb [IMG]libpt-plugins-dc_1.10.7-0.sid0_i386.deb [IMG]libopal-2.2.0_2.2.8-0.sid0_i386.deb [IMG]libpt-1.10.0_1.10.7-0.sid0_i386.deb [IMG]libpt-plugins-alsa_1.10.7-0.sid0_i386.deb [IMG]libpt-plugins-avc_1.10.7-0.sid0_i386.deb [IMG]ekiga_2.0.9-0.sid0_i386.deb Everything for i386? -- Ciao leandro Un esteso e normale uso della crittografia è il sistema più forte per rivendicare il diritto alla privacy nelle comunicazioni telematiche: come tutti i diritti e come i muscoli se non viene esercitato costantemente si atrofizza e va perso. pgpwKr5qh6wCs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: keep specific versions of packages
Francesco Pietra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I want to avoid any modification from apt-get commands to mpqc 2.3.1-0.2 specially compiled for amd64 with libint (which is not included in the package of same version on debian repositories) and installed with dpkg. I.e., I want to avoid downgrading to a version without libint. From apt-cache show mpqc version installed 2.3..1-0.2, though the list of dependencies does not show libint (which is in, because the software deals correctly with integrals that only libint allows to do) According to Silva's APT HOWTO I should manage with /etc/apt/preferences, though there is no such file or directory on my debiam amd64 etch, linux-image-2.6.18-3-amd64. Should I build a file preferences from scratch? I must say that I am not familiar with this aspect of apt. Thanks for advice francesco pietra There are a few things you can do. One already discussed is pinning. Here are some other options (in order of safety, lowest first): 1. Put mpqc on hold with dpkg or in dselect. apt will not change packages on hold unless you specifically ask for it. 2. Set an epoch of 666 and recompile mpqc. It will surley have a higher version. Without pining the highest version will be installed. But this might interfere with packages with Depends: mpqc (= 2.4.0) or similar. 3. Create a pseudo package Package: mypackages Version: 20070108-1 Priority: Required Essential: yes Depends: mpqc (= 2.3.1-0.2) Updating mpqc would remove mypackages and that will ask you to type in a long sentence to confirm. Apt tries real hard not to remove essential packages. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep specific versions of packages
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006, Francesco Pietra wrote: dselect recognizes the mpqc 2.3.1-0.2 installation and I could place H on that. that's ok. You should actually put on hold all packages which come from the mpqc source package. To see what packages come from a given source package you can use the apt-cache command, as in apt-cache showsrc mpqc. This will tell you that the mpqc source package generates the binary packages: mpqc, libsc7, libsc-doc, libsc-dev, mpqc-support. You therefore ought to have produced a 2.3.1-0.2 version of all of them as well, when you compiled your personal mpqc. Install them and put them on hold as well. As to libint, is it a library which is included in mpqc? A system library? A library you compiled yourself as well which is not part of available debian packages? In any case, I don't think you should need to do anything special about it. Moreover, simply placing H on the mpqc package does prevent upgradind dependencies, or is that immaterial to mpqc functioning? Not necessarily. In any case, the only dependencies you should worry about and put on hold are the ones on libraries coming from mpqc itself. In principle it is possible that an upgrade to another library may cause problems to mpqc, but changes which make a library incompatible with previous versions are a very rare occurrence, avoided whenever possible (even in unstable) due to the havoc such things may easily wreak. Ciao Giacomo -- _ Giacomo Mulas [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ OSSERVATORIO ASTRONOMICO DI CAGLIARI Str. 54, Loc. Poggio dei Pini * 09012 Capoterra (CA) Tel. (OAC): +39 070 71180 248 Fax : +39 070 71180 222 Tel. (UNICA): +39 070 675 4916 _ When the storms are raging around you, stay right where you are (Freddy Mercury) _ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep specific versions of packages
--- Giacomo Mulas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Francesco Pietra wrote: I want to avoid any modification from apt-get commands to mpqc 2.3.1-0.2 Ciao Francesco. There are many ways to achieve what you want. The simplest one is just to put the mpqc packages in hold state. You can do that using any of the frontends (e.g. from dselect to synaptic just to name two). This will prevent _any_ automatic upgrade of mpqc. You will still be able to upgrade it, if needed, using a explicit command, but not with a general upgrade of the system. I have no gui on amd64 etch. Aptitude does not recognize the installation of mpqc 2.3.1-0.2, which was carried out with dpkg without uninstalling mpqc 2.3.1-1. At least not on science, where it recognizes only mpqc-support 2.3.1-1 from apt-get previous installation. dselect recognizes the mpqc 2.3.1-0.2 installation and I could place H on that. My only remaining concern (I am not in a hurry to command a apt-get upgrade) is about the dependencies, which are shown by apt-show mpqc. I have not checked them against those for mpqc 2.3.1-1 still existing on debian repositories, though libint was surely expressely introduced for the new version 0.2. Therefore, is placing H for mpqc 2.3.1-1 0.2 enough to prevent it being touched during apt-get upgrade if the same version appears on debian repositiries (I fear that the new version on debian repositories will not be compiled for libint, because this serves very special procedures only). Moreover, simply placing H on the mpqc package does prevent upgradind dependencies, or is that immaterial to mpqc functioning? This clarification will serve also for any future similar case. Thanks a lot francesco Another option: if you obtained those packages from a repository which includes release information, you can use the pin functionality of apt to force apt-get to always obtain a well-defined revision. This is achieved by adding stanzas to the file /etc/apt/preferences, such as Package: mpqc* Pin: release a=whateveritisinthatrepository Pin-Priority: higherthandefault where you should substitute whateveritisinthatrepository with the release name for packages in the repository you use, and higherthandefault with a number higher than the default and than any other general matching stanza (if you have others), to avoid your mpqc packages to be taken from another source. You should find more information about how to handle this functionality in the /usr/share/doc/Debian/apt-howto directory. Read it, it's worth the time you will spend with it, since you will probably save you quite a bit more time in solving trivial problems in the future. If necessary, install some apt-howto package (I think there is also one in Italian). If you compile your mpqc packages yourself and did not set up a full-fledged repository with release fields for it, you will probably be better off with the first option, i.e. put the packages on hold, but I also offer you a small suggestion from my own experience in maintaining locally a number of backported packages: when compiling your own packages, edit the debian/changelog to bump up your compiled version from the currently available one you are tracking (from unstable, perhaps?). I usually just add a .1 to the version number. Then install your local packages and put them on hold. This has 2 effects: the first one, as explained above, they will not be automatically upgraded; the second one, they will not even show up in the list of packages for which a newer version is available, until this is really the case, i.e. when a new version is release in debian. Therefore, it will not be automatically upgraded but you will know there was a new version released, possibly with bug fixes, and you will decide whether it's worth recompiling a new local version with those bug fixes. Have fun Giacomo P.S.: Buon Natale (in ritardo) e felice anno nuovo -- _ Giacomo Mulas [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ OSSERVATORIO ASTRONOMICO DI CAGLIARI Str. 54, Loc. Poggio dei Pini * 09012 Capoterra (CA) Tel. (OAC): +39 070 71180 248 Fax : +39 070 71180 222 Tel. (UNICA): +39 070 675 4916 _ When the storms are raging around you, stay right where you are (Freddy Mercury) _ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
Re: keep specific versions of packages
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Francesco Pietra wrote: I want to avoid any modification from apt-get commands to mpqc 2.3.1-0.2 Ciao Francesco. There are many ways to achieve what you want. The simplest one is just to put the mpqc packages in hold state. You can do that using any of the frontends (e.g. from dselect to synaptic just to name two). This will prevent _any_ automatic upgrade of mpqc. You will still be able to upgrade it, if needed, using a explicit command, but not with a general upgrade of the system. Another option: if you obtained those packages from a repository which includes release information, you can use the pin functionality of apt to force apt-get to always obtain a well-defined revision. This is achieved by adding stanzas to the file /etc/apt/preferences, such as Package: mpqc* Pin: release a=whateveritisinthatrepository Pin-Priority: higherthandefault where you should substitute whateveritisinthatrepository with the release name for packages in the repository you use, and higherthandefault with a number higher than the default and than any other general matching stanza (if you have others), to avoid your mpqc packages to be taken from another source. You should find more information about how to handle this functionality in the /usr/share/doc/Debian/apt-howto directory. Read it, it's worth the time you will spend with it, since you will probably save you quite a bit more time in solving trivial problems in the future. If necessary, install some apt-howto package (I think there is also one in Italian). If you compile your mpqc packages yourself and did not set up a full-fledged repository with release fields for it, you will probably be better off with the first option, i.e. put the packages on hold, but I also offer you a small suggestion from my own experience in maintaining locally a number of backported packages: when compiling your own packages, edit the debian/changelog to bump up your compiled version from the currently available one you are tracking (from unstable, perhaps?). I usually just add a .1 to the version number. Then install your local packages and put them on hold. This has 2 effects: the first one, as explained above, they will not be automatically upgraded; the second one, they will not even show up in the list of packages for which a newer version is available, until this is really the case, i.e. when a new version is release in debian. Therefore, it will not be automatically upgraded but you will know there was a new version released, possibly with bug fixes, and you will decide whether it's worth recompiling a new local version with those bug fixes. Have fun Giacomo P.S.: Buon Natale (in ritardo) e felice anno nuovo -- _ Giacomo Mulas [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ OSSERVATORIO ASTRONOMICO DI CAGLIARI Str. 54, Loc. Poggio dei Pini * 09012 Capoterra (CA) Tel. (OAC): +39 070 71180 248 Fax : +39 070 71180 222 Tel. (UNICA): +39 070 675 4916 _ When the storms are raging around you, stay right where you are (Freddy Mercury) _ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep specific versions of packages
Francesco, On Wednesday 27 December 2006 01:54, Francesco Pietra wrote: --- Mike Reinehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 24 December 2006 09:03, Francesco Pietra wrote: I want to avoid any modification from apt-get commands to mpqc 2.3.1-0.2 specially compiled for amd64 with libint (which is not included in the package of same version on debian repositories) and installed with dpkg. I.e., I want to avoid downgrading to a version without libint. From apt-cache show mpqc version installed 2.3..1-0.2, though the list of dependencies does not show libint (which is in, because the software deals correctly with integrals that only libint allows to do) According to Silva's APT HOWTO I should manage with /etc/apt/preferences, though there is no such file or directory on my debiam amd64 etch, linux-image-2.6.18-3-amd64. Should I build a file preferences from scratch? I must say that I am not familiar with this aspect of apt. Thanks for advice francesco pietra Francesco, I've been trying to understand pinning from the time I first used Debian, several years now, and still feel that I'm missing something, but I think your problem has a simple solution. I believe all that you need in your /etc/apt/preferences file are the following three lines: Package: mpqc Pin: version 2.3.1-0.2 Pin-Priority: 1000 As I wrote, there is no preferences file on my system. Create from scratch? Yes, as root with a text editor, i.e., vi, vim, ed, ... and mode 0644. -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 245 Sep 2 17:06 /etc/apt/preferences See man apt_preferences for details. Besides this, what happens to the libraries if I free a package? For example, I wanted to check the stage of development of ghemical on GNOME, though it ptretends to install mpqc too, which is not compiled for the libraries I need (in part lower, in part lacking). If I understand you correctly, then, if you decided to remove ghemical and mpqc was marked as having been installed automatically to satisfy the dependencies of ghemical, it too would be removed, otherwise, not. If you attempted to upgrade ghemical to a newer version, it appears that apt would do so without complaint as the dependency does not appear to mandate any particular version of mpqc, as it does with some of the other dependencies. Thanks for answering francesco pietra HTH! cmr Hope this helps, but no warranty is express or implied! :-) cmr -- Debian 'Etch': Registered Linux User #241964 More laws, less justice. -- Marcus Tullius Ciceroca, 42 BC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- Debian 'Etch': Registered Linux User #241964 More laws, less justice. -- Marcus Tullius Ciceroca, 42 BC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep specific versions of packages
--- Mike Reinehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 24 December 2006 09:03, Francesco Pietra wrote: I want to avoid any modification from apt-get commands to mpqc 2.3.1-0.2 specially compiled for amd64 with libint (which is not included in the package of same version on debian repositories) and installed with dpkg. I.e., I want to avoid downgrading to a version without libint. From apt-cache show mpqc version installed 2.3..1-0.2, though the list of dependencies does not show libint (which is in, because the software deals correctly with integrals that only libint allows to do) According to Silva's APT HOWTO I should manage with /etc/apt/preferences, though there is no such file or directory on my debiam amd64 etch, linux-image-2.6.18-3-amd64. Should I build a file preferences from scratch? I must say that I am not familiar with this aspect of apt. Thanks for advice francesco pietra Francesco, I've been trying to understand pinning from the time I first used Debian, several years now, and still feel that I'm missing something, but I think your problem has a simple solution. I believe all that you need in your /etc/apt/preferences file are the following three lines: Package: mpqc Pin: version 2.3.1-0.2 Pin-Priority: 1000 As I wrote, there is no preferences file on my system. Create from scratch? Besides this, what happens to the libraries if I free a package? For example, I wanted to check the stage of development of ghemical on GNOME, though it ptretends to install mpqc too, which is not compiled for the libraries I need (in part lower, in part lacking). Thanks for answering francesco pietra Hope this helps, but no warranty is express or implied! :-) cmr -- Debian 'Etch': Registered Linux User #241964 More laws, less justice. -- Marcus Tullius Ciceroca, 42 BC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
keep specific versions of packages
I want to avoid any modification from apt-get commands to mpqc 2.3.1-0.2 specially compiled for amd64 with libint (which is not included in the package of same version on debian repositories) and installed with dpkg. I.e., I want to avoid downgrading to a version without libint. From apt-cache show mpqc version installed 2.3..1-0.2, though the list of dependencies does not show libint (which is in, because the software deals correctly with integrals that only libint allows to do) According to Silva's APT HOWTO I should manage with /etc/apt/preferences, though there is no such file or directory on my debiam amd64 etch, linux-image-2.6.18-3-amd64. Should I build a file preferences from scratch? I must say that I am not familiar with this aspect of apt. Thanks for advice francesco pietra __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: keep specific versions of packages
On Sunday 24 December 2006 09:03, Francesco Pietra wrote: I want to avoid any modification from apt-get commands to mpqc 2.3.1-0.2 specially compiled for amd64 with libint (which is not included in the package of same version on debian repositories) and installed with dpkg. I.e., I want to avoid downgrading to a version without libint. From apt-cache show mpqc version installed 2.3..1-0.2, though the list of dependencies does not show libint (which is in, because the software deals correctly with integrals that only libint allows to do) According to Silva's APT HOWTO I should manage with /etc/apt/preferences, though there is no such file or directory on my debiam amd64 etch, linux-image-2.6.18-3-amd64. Should I build a file preferences from scratch? I must say that I am not familiar with this aspect of apt. Thanks for advice francesco pietra Francesco, I've been trying to understand pinning from the time I first used Debian, several years now, and still feel that I'm missing something, but I think your problem has a simple solution. I believe all that you need in your /etc/apt/preferences file are the following three lines: Package: mpqc Pin: version 2.3.1-0.2 Pin-Priority: 1000 Hope this helps, but no warranty is express or implied! :-) cmr -- Debian 'Etch': Registered Linux User #241964 More laws, less justice. -- Marcus Tullius Ciceroca, 42 BC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian AMD64 Linux 2.6.19-rc5 custom packages
Dear friends, I prepared custom Linux 2.6.19-rc5 packages for people experiencing freezes with nvidia chipser under AMD64: http://www.poure.com/img/linux-image-2.6.19-rc5_2.6.19-rc5-10.00.Custom_amd64.deb http://www.poure.com/img/linux-headers-2.6.19-rc5_2.6.19-rc5-10.00.Custom_amd64.deb The packages were prepared with Debian 2.6.18 normal settings. I don't know how to sign these packages. If someone explains me how to sign packages, I will also publish the source packages. I have been working with 2.6.19-rc4 and rc5 for a week without any freeze. The only restriction is that I could not compile alsa-source Debian packages using m-a (module-assistant). But very few people should need the latest alsa packages from unstable, compiled with m-a. If you need any other option in the kernel, please let me know. I would really like the 2.6.19-rc5 kernel to hit experimental, so that people stop complaining about AMD64x2 and Nvidia chipset. Kind regards, Jean-Michel Pouré -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian AMD64 Linux 2.6.19-rc5 custom packages
Le jeudi 09 novembre 2006 à 19:00 +0100, pietia .moo a écrit : So, in this kernel are not patches for realtek ethernet cards, bcm wifi cards for example? will Etch in December be have these patches in kernel ? No this is the stock 2.6.19-r5 kernel from kernel.org, not a Debian pre-release kernel. It is intended only for people like me having 20 freezes a day, and who cannot wait for the 2.6.19 release. Kind regards, Jean-Michel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some very experimental packages
Hi I have been making some packages because of need and curiousity and I am keeping them on my private server: deb http://mve035.mc2.chalmers.se/~gudjon/debian/amd64/ ./ The following packages can be found kdenlive(The mlt library needs to be compiled with the --disable-motion_est option so some functionality is lost but everything else seems to work). I will suggest to Marillat that he adds the amd64 to the list of supported platform. (Unless you prove me wrong:) gnuplot 4.1 (There is much to much new useful function to wait for that program) wxmaxima(This package is recompiled and it can even factorise 10!. Refer to older mails on the list) You need to install maxima and wxmaxima to try it out. openoffice.org 2.0.4 (More for fun but please use it and report bugs where they shall go to) ngspice and easyspice (These have been quite useful to me) If you find it interesting, please remember that you are using it at your own risk. I will spend more time on it during Christmas. (Now I need to do some real work). Regards Gudjon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Some very experimental packages
Downloading OO right now.. I guess it's rebuilt from the sources in Experimental, right? Thnk you! El Domingo, 17 de Septiembre de 2006 10:59, Gudjon I. Gudjonsson escribió: Hi I have been making some packages because of need and curiousity and I am keeping them on my private server: deb http://mve035.mc2.chalmers.se/~gudjon/debian/amd64/ ./ The following packages can be found kdenlive (The mlt library needs to be compiled with the --disable-motion_est option so some functionality is lost but everything else seems to work). I will suggest to Marillat that he adds the amd64 to the list of supported platform. (Unless you prove me wrong:) gnuplot 4.1 (There is much to much new useful function to wait for that program) wxmaxima (This package is recompiled and it can even factorise 10!. Refer to older mails on the list) You need to install maxima and wxmaxima to try it out. openoffice.org 2.0.4 (More for fun but please use it and report bugs where they shall go to) ngspice and easyspice (These have been quite useful to me) If you find it interesting, please remember that you are using it at your own risk. I will spend more time on it during Christmas. (Now I need to do some real work). Regards Gudjon -- Rafael Rodríguez http://unrincon.blogspot.com http://cornerofcode.blogspot.com
How to search for needelessly installed library packages ?
It's not as is my disk is full, but every now and then I like to cleanup a bit. Over the years I have accumulated many packages the were installed because of some dependancy that no longer applies. Anybody here that can either give a quick course, or give a pointer to information on how to search for packages that are libraries with no dependancies other than their own docs and/or their -dev version ? I had a look at cruft, but that only checks for file which do not appear in the package database. This is is good for cleaning up too, but not for search for packages which are perfectly well installed but which have no usefull dependancy. Actually, _is_ there some kind of mark on packages which were installed only to satisfy a dependancy ? Cheers, Ernest. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to search for needelessly installed library packages ?
On Saturday 09 September 2006 13:13, Ernest jw ter Kuile wrote: It's not as is my disk is full, but every now and then I like to cleanup a bit. Over the years I have accumulated many packages the were installed because of some dependancy that no longer applies. Anybody here that can either give a quick course, or give a pointer to information on how to search for packages that are libraries with no dependancies other than their own docs and/or their -dev version ? hmm, try a: aptitude --purge-unused upgrade in general, if you try to use aptitude, it has automatic removal of unused packages, every time you install, upgrade or remove something. Both command-line and gui are wonderful! Cheers, Dimitris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to search for needelessly installed library packages ?
Try deborphan Later Lee Begg On Saturday 09 September 2006 23:13, Ernest jw ter Kuile wrote: It's not as is my disk is full, but every now and then I like to cleanup a bit. Over the years I have accumulated many packages the were installed because of some dependancy that no longer applies. Anybody here that can either give a quick course, or give a pointer to information on how to search for packages that are libraries with no dependancies other than their own docs and/or their -dev version ? I had a look at cruft, but that only checks for file which do not appear in the package database. This is is good for cleaning up too, but not for search for packages which are perfectly well installed but which have no usefull dependancy. Actually, _is_ there some kind of mark on packages which were installed only to satisfy a dependancy ? Cheers, Ernest. pgpnIthNo6o7S.pgp Description: PGP signature
Where are the packages ?
Hello all, I wondered, why some packages cannot be found by apt, although they are still on the Debian-servers in the repository. (in my case I looked for chntpw in the non-free branch) Did I miss some change ? This my sources.list entry: -- snip -- deb http://security.debian.org/ etch/updates main contrib non-free deb http://debian.tu-bs.de/debian/ testing main contrib non-free deb-src http://debian.tu-bs.de/debian/ testing main contrib non-free deb http://debian.tu-bs.de/debian/ sid main contrib non-free deb-src http://debian.tu-bs.de/debian/ sid main contrib non-free # deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/ experimental main contrib non-free # deb-src http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/ experimental main contrib non-free # MPlayer # deb ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/ sid main # deb-src ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/ sid main deb http://www.debian-multimedia.org sid main # deb http://spello.sscnet.ucla.edu/marillat/ sid main # JAVA deb ftp://ftp.tux.org/java/debian/ sid non-free # Goswins # deb file:///var/lib/amd64-archive/ sid main contrib non-free # deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ dists/sid/main/binary-i386/ # NVidia # deb http://people.debian.org/~rdonald/nvidia/ unstable/amd64/ # deb http://people.debian.org/~rdonald/nvidia/ unstable/all/ # NX-Client # deb http://debian.tu-bs.de/knoppix/nx/slh-debian/ ./ # KDETV # deb http://bonca.hu./~rizsanyi/debian/ sid/ # deb-src http://bonca.hu./~rizsanyi/debian/ sid/ # bootsplash # deb http://debian.bootsplash.de/ unstable main # deb-src http://debian.bootsplash.de/ unstable main # suspend2 # deb http://debian.madduck.net/ ~madduck/packages/stage/kernel-patch-suspend2/ # deb-src http://debian.madduck.net/ ~madduck/packages/stage/kernel-patch-suspend2/ # Openoffice2.org # deb ftp://ftp-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/debian/oo64/ ./ deb http://people.debian.org/~rene/openoffice.org/2.0.3/amd64/ ./ - snap Whats the mistake Regards Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where are the packages ?
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 10:01:44AM +0200, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: I wondered, why some packages cannot be found by apt, although they are still on the Debian-servers in the repository. (in my case I looked for chntpw in the non-free branch) Did I miss some change ? It doesn't seem to be built for anything but amd64. Probably because Debian does not auto-build non-free. It appears that you could build it yourself; apt-get install build-essential apt-get build-dep chntpw apt-get source chntpw cd chntpw-... dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -uc -b Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where are the packages ?
Am Freitag, 8. September 2006 10:24 schrieb Hamish Moffatt: On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 10:01:44AM +0200, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: I wondered, why some packages cannot be found by apt, although they are still on the Debian-servers in the repository. (in my case I looked for chntpw in the non-free branch) Did I miss some change ? It doesn't seem to be built for anything but amd64. Probably because Debian does not auto-build non-free. Yes, that does it explain ! I didn´t know this. Thanks for the info !!! It appears that you could build it yourself; apt-get install build-essential apt-get build-dep chntpw apt-get source chntpw cd chntpw-... dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -uc -b Yeah, this worked with no problems. Best regards Hans Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where are the packages ?
Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 10:01:44AM +0200, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: I wondered, why some packages cannot be found by apt, although they are still on the Debian-servers in the repository. (in my case I looked for chntpw in the non-free branch) Did I miss some change ? It doesn't seem to be built for anything but amd64. Probably because Debian does not auto-build non-free. Which is partly wrong. Debian has non-free autobuilders but there is a very smal white-list of package it auto builds. Non-free packages can have restrictions making autobuilding and distribution of the result illegal so only packages known to be free of such are white-listed. There are obviously a lot of packages missing in that list where just nobody has taken the time to check the licens. If you find such a package please ask the maintainer to double check and report to Andreas Barth to include it. It appears that you could build it yourself; apt-get install build-essential apt-get build-dep chntpw apt-get source chntpw cd chntpw-... dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -uc -b apt-get install build-essential apt-get build-dep chntpw apt-get -b source chntpw MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
