Re: long fsck [was Re: Apt should be called "inapt" (rhymes with "inept")]
Nothing, I apologise. Nathan E Norman wrote: > What does this have to do with the original topic anyway?
long fsck [was Re: Apt should be called "inapt" (rhymes with "inept")]
On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 01:05:56AM +0100, Jeff Green wrote: > Try remote rebooting a server with a 120Gig Raid array and 1GB Ram takes > several hours to come up if wants an fsck! Not if you're using reiserfs or some other journalling filesystem on the RAID array! What does this have to do with the original topic anyway? -- Nathan E Norman "Eschew Obfuscation" email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://incanus.net/~nnorman pgpNAqdj25brH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Apt should be called "inapt" (rhymes with "inept")
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:13:21 -0700, Joe Emenaker said: > > On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Joe Emenaker wrote: > > > > > and a couple of others. In other words, upon reboot, there was no > > > network connectivity and no way to GET network connectivity without > > > bringing in netbase and it's dependencies via floppy disk. > > > > So uh, why did you let it? > > I presume this would have been your response if I had reported that 'vi' had > deleted my kernel images, too? :) > > Why did I "let" it?!?! Because I was never asked. I asked apt to "install" > and I ended up without some critical packages. > > If I had said something like "remove" or "purge", I'd expect to have some > packages disappear without any further interaction on my part. However, when > the command from the user is *obviously* asking for *addition* of software, > if it requires the removal of anything, the user should be notified and be > given the option to cancel. > > Just today, I installed a couple of MS-Windows programs one some machines > and the first thing they did was warn me that the previous versions needed > to be removed and I was asked if that was okay. > > It seems so basic. When you say "apt-get install ..." the "plan" is clearly > the addition of software to the system. Removal is patently "not part of the > plan", unless explicitly acknowledged by the user. > > - Joe Your experience is the reason i always do apt-get -fus install. So i always know before time if i want to proceed with the install. -- gEEk||dOOd^Deb+ian&&XFce$everything goes(-_-)
Re: Apt should be called "inapt" (rhymes with "inept")
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 05:13:21PM -0700, Joe Emenaker wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Joe Emenaker wrote: > > So uh, why did you let it? > I presume this would have been your response if I had reported that 'vi' had > deleted my kernel images, too? :) > Why did I "let" it?!?! Because I was never asked. I asked apt to "install" > and I ended up without some critical packages. Were you running with --assume-yes or something similar? Normally if you try to apt-get install something that requires anything beyond the exact change specified on the command line you get a prompt like this: # apt-get install mesag-glide2-dev Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following extra packages will be installed: libglide2 libglide2-dev mesag3-glide2 The following packages will be REMOVED: libutahglx-dev libutahglx1 The following NEW packages will be installed: libglide2 libglide2-dev mesag-glide2-dev mesag3-glide2 0 packages upgraded, 4 newly installed, 2 to remove and 3 not upgraded. Need to get 1784kB of archives. After unpacking 4922kB will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] which appears to be exactly what you're asking for. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/ pgpmHbjA0grHx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Apt should be called "inapt" (rhymes with "inept")
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Joe Emenaker wrote: > It seems so basic. When you say "apt-get install ..." the "plan" is clearly > the addition of software to the system. Removal is patently "not part of the > plan", unless explicitly acknowledged by the user. If apt executed removals you were prompted and you did say yes to that prompt. If you weren't prompted I find it seriously doubtful that apt is the culprit here. Jason
Re: Apt should be called "inapt" (rhymes with "inept")
> Just out of curiosity; what did you install that conflicted with netbase and > friends? I was upgrading mysql-server, of all things. Granted, this was on a system that hadn't been refreshed in about 3 months or so, so there were about 100 packages that dselect wanted to bring up-to-date. That's why I used apt-get I didn't want to step through 100 yes/no questions from dselect when I just wanted to upgrade mysql. - Joe
Re: Apt should be called "inapt" (rhymes with "inept")
Just out of curiosity; what did you install that conflicted with netbase and friends? Brent
Re: Apt should be called "inapt" (rhymes with "inept")
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Joe Emenaker wrote: > > > and a couple of others. In other words, upon reboot, there was no > > network connectivity and no way to GET network connectivity without > > bringing in netbase and it's dependencies via floppy disk. > > So uh, why did you let it? I presume this would have been your response if I had reported that 'vi' had deleted my kernel images, too? :) Why did I "let" it?!?! Because I was never asked. I asked apt to "install" and I ended up without some critical packages. If I had said something like "remove" or "purge", I'd expect to have some packages disappear without any further interaction on my part. However, when the command from the user is *obviously* asking for *addition* of software, if it requires the removal of anything, the user should be notified and be given the option to cancel. Just today, I installed a couple of MS-Windows programs one some machines and the first thing they did was warn me that the previous versions needed to be removed and I was asked if that was okay. It seems so basic. When you say "apt-get install ..." the "plan" is clearly the addition of software to the system. Removal is patently "not part of the plan", unless explicitly acknowledged by the user. - Joe
Re: Apt should be called "inapt" (rhymes with "inept")
Try remote rebooting a server with a 120Gig Raid array and 1GB Ram takes
several hours to come up if wants an fsck!
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>
> another reason why you shouldnt reboot a box from remote :) when one of my
> servers needs a reboot i always make sure someone is nearby incase
> something goes bad. for the same reason i refuse to attempt a
> slink->potato upgrade from remote, too risky.
>
> of course i also pray whenever rebooting a server of any kind :) one time
> recently i rebooted my home multipurpose server and it took me 45minutes
> to get it to a state where it was fully functional again.(mostly not
> putting programs in startup scripts/having to recompile 3rd party modules
> for a new kernel, and rebooting many many times during the process to make
> sure it goes right).
>
> if i couldn't tune2fs -c0 i'd go mad!! :)
>
> nate
>
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Joe Emenaker wrote:
>
> joe >I tried to install a package using apt-get yesterday. It complained
> about dependencies for some stuff. It suggested that I use "apt-get -f
> install {packagename}".
> joe >
> joe >So I did
> joe >
> joe >It downloaded a bundle of packages, whizzed through the configurations
> for them in no time at all.
> joe >
> joe >Everything seemed to be fine. until I rebooted.
> joe >
> joe >It seems that apt-get decided to UNINSTALL:
> joe > o netkit-inetd
> joe > o ipchains
> joe > o netbase
> joe >
> joe >and a couple of others. In other words, upon reboot, there was no
> network connectivity and no way to GET network connectivity without bringing
> in netbase and it's dependencies via floppy disk.
> joe >
> joe >The man pages seemed to say that the "-f" option would install any
> dependencies needed to install what you originally asked for. However, it
> seems to have also deleted some packages that it felt should be removed.
> joe >
> joe >Is there an option for apt-get to tell it to install extra stuff it
> needs but to *not* remove anything?
> joe >
> joe >- Joe
> joe >
>
> :::
> http://www.aphroland.org/
> http://www.linuxpowered.net/
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 5:16pm up 32 days, 1:12, 3 users, load average: 0.08, 0.03, 0.01
>
> --
> Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
Re: Apt should be called "inapt" (rhymes with "inept")
another reason why you shouldnt reboot a box from remote :) when one of my
servers needs a reboot i always make sure someone is nearby incase
something goes bad. for the same reason i refuse to attempt a
slink->potato upgrade from remote, too risky.
of course i also pray whenever rebooting a server of any kind :) one time
recently i rebooted my home multipurpose server and it took me 45minutes
to get it to a state where it was fully functional again.(mostly not
putting programs in startup scripts/having to recompile 3rd party modules
for a new kernel, and rebooting many many times during the process to make
sure it goes right).
if i couldn't tune2fs -c0 i'd go mad!! :)
nate
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Joe Emenaker wrote:
joe >I tried to install a package using apt-get yesterday. It complained about
dependencies for some stuff. It suggested that I use "apt-get -f install
{packagename}".
joe >
joe >So I did
joe >
joe >It downloaded a bundle of packages, whizzed through the configurations for
them in no time at all.
joe >
joe >Everything seemed to be fine. until I rebooted.
joe >
joe >It seems that apt-get decided to UNINSTALL:
joe > o netkit-inetd
joe > o ipchains
joe > o netbase
joe >
joe >and a couple of others. In other words, upon reboot, there was no network
connectivity and no way to GET network connectivity without bringing in netbase
and it's dependencies via floppy disk.
joe >
joe >The man pages seemed to say that the "-f" option would install any
dependencies needed to install what you originally asked for. However, it seems
to have also deleted some packages that it felt should be removed.
joe >
joe >Is there an option for apt-get to tell it to install extra stuff it needs
but to *not* remove anything?
joe >
joe >- Joe
joe >
:::
http://www.aphroland.org/
http://www.linuxpowered.net/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
5:16pm up 32 days, 1:12, 3 users, load average: 0.08, 0.03, 0.01
Re: Apt should be called "inapt" (rhymes with "inept")
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Jeff Green wrote: > Surely a quick trip to /var/cache/apt/archives and a run of dpkg -i with > the right package names would have fixed this, if apt-get doesn't apt-get install with the right package names would have also fixed it, and told you when you finally got the right package names. Jason
Re: Apt should be called "inapt" (rhymes with "inept")
Surely a quick trip to /var/cache/apt/archives and a run of dpkg -i with
the right package names would have fixed this, if apt-get doesn't
install without some extra fiddling this is usually a message to you.
Make damn sure you know what it is doing, especially if you, like me are
several thousand miles away from some of your Debain boxes.
Jeff
> Joe Emenaker wrote:
>
> I tried to install a package using apt-get yesterday. It complained
> about dependencies for some stuff. It suggested that I use "apt-get -f
> install {packagename}".
>
> So I did
>
> It downloaded a bundle of packages, whizzed through the configurations
> for them in no time at all.
>
> Everything seemed to be fine. until I rebooted.
>
> It seems that apt-get decided to UNINSTALL:
> o netkit-inetd
> o ipchains
> o netbase
>
> and a couple of others. In other words, upon reboot, there was no
> network connectivity and no way to GET network connectivity without
> bringing in netbase and it's dependencies via floppy disk.
>
> The man pages seemed to say that the "-f" option would install any
> dependencies needed to install what you originally asked for. However,
> it seems to have also deleted some packages that it felt should be
> removed.
>
> Is there an option for apt-get to tell it to install extra stuff it
> needs but to *not* remove anything?
>
> - Joe
Re: Apt should be called "inapt" (rhymes with "inept")
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Joe Emenaker wrote: > It seems that apt-get decided to UNINSTALL: > o netkit-inetd > o ipchains > o netbase > and a couple of others. In other words, upon reboot, there was no > network connectivity and no way to GET network connectivity without > bringing in netbase and it's dependencies via floppy disk. So uh, why did you let it? > Is there an option for apt-get to tell it to install extra stuff it > needs but to *not* remove anything? In cases like this you need to either use dselect/capt/etc to interactively select packages or specify exactly what to do after the install command. This is only necessary if you have perviosly done something to mess up the dependencies in such a way that the automatic fixing algorithm chooses an undesirable solution. Jason
Apt should be called "inapt" (rhymes with "inept")
I tried to install a package using apt-get
yesterday. It complained about dependencies for some stuff. It suggested that I
use "apt-get -f install {packagename}".
So I did
It downloaded a bundle of packages, whizzed through
the configurations for them in no time at all.
Everything seemed to be fine. until I
rebooted.
It seems that apt-get decided to
UNINSTALL:
o netkit-inetd
o ipchains
o netbase
and a couple of others. In other words, upon
reboot, there was no network connectivity and no way to GET network connectivity
without bringing in netbase and it's dependencies via floppy disk.
The man pages seemed to say that the "-f" option
would install any dependencies needed to install what you originally asked for.
However, it seems to have also deleted some packages that it felt should be
removed.
Is there an option for apt-get to tell it to
install extra stuff it needs but to *not* remove anything?
- Joe
