obsolete package base
I notice I have a package installed called base 1.1.0-14 and it is considered obsolete by dselect. However, dpkg --remove base doesn't work, it says it's an essential package. Do I need to remove this package? How can I do it? Thanks, Chris. Chris R. Martin email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computer Engineeringweb: http://http.tamu.edu/~crm7479/ Texas AM University... I'm a 21st century digital boy, I don't know how to read but I've got a lot of toys. -- Bad Relgion -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: 1.3.1 upgrade: getting rid of the package base 1.1.0-13 -- dselect and downgrading dosemu
From: Eloy A. Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] ! At 04:45 PM 7/11/97 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote: ! ! However, edit /var/lib/dpkg/status and remove the paragraph ! about the base package, and that will effectively purge it. ! Forcing dpkg to remove the package removes all of the files in /dev. ! It's my error, sorry. ! ! But removing this paragraph by hand will still leave the files ! ! base.conffiles ! base.list ! base.postinst ! ! in /var/lib/dpkg/info, right? Well, I won't tell if you won't :-) Nothing bad happens if you remove them at that point. Thanks Bruce -- Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502 Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key. PGP fingerprint = 88 6A 15 D0 65 D4 A3 A6 1F 89 6A 76 95 24 87 B3 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: 1.3.1 upgrade: getting rid of the package base 1.1.0-13 -- dselect and downgrading dosemu
Hi, At 04:45 PM 7/11/97 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote: However, edit /var/lib/dpkg/status and remove the paragraph about the base package, and that will effectively purge it. Forcing dpkg to remove the package removes all of the files in /dev. It's my error, sorry. But removing this paragraph by hand will still leave the files base.conffiles base.list base.postinst in /var/lib/dpkg/info, right? Regards, E.- -- Eloy A. Paris Information Technology Department Rockwell Automation de Venezuela Telephone: +58-2-9432311 Fax: +58-2-9431645 Cel.: +58-16-234700 Where does this path lead? said Alice Depends on where you want to go. Said the cat (Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll.) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: 1.3.1 upgrade: getting rid of the package base 1.1.0-13 -- dselect and downgrading dosemu
However, edit /var/lib/dpkg/status and remove the paragraph about the base package, and that will effectively purge it. Forcing dpkg to remove the package removes all of the files in /dev. It's my error, sorry. Bruce -- Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502 Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key. PGP fingerprint = 88 6A 15 D0 65 D4 A3 A6 1F 89 6A 76 95 24 87 B3 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
1.3.1 upgrade: getting rid of the package base 1.1.0-13 -- dselect and downgrading dosemu
Hi, i first installed Debian 1.1 (how was it called btw ?) and then upgraded some packages from rex, bo and hamm. I did not upgrade the whole system with deselect as i had neither a CD reader nor a network connection. So i could only use floppy disks to get and install some packages with dpkg. Among the packages i upgraded were base 1.2 and base 1.3. Now i have upgraded with dselect from a 1.3.1 CD and everything is going well except for two minor details: - dselect reports the package base 1.1.0-13 as obsolete but will not purge it (neither will dpkg --purge) because it is an essential package. It does not stop me from working but it would be cleaner if i could remove it. Removing its entry from the status file would it be safe ? - dselect did not downgrade the packages i had installed from hamm except for dosemu. I had dosemu_0.66.6-1 and now i have dosemu_0.66.3-1 (the version in bo). -- Laurent. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: 1.3.1 upgrade: getting rid of the package base 1.1.0-13 -- dselect and downgrading dosemu
Hi, i first installed Debian 1.1 (how was it called btw ?) and then upgraded some packages from rex, bo and hamm. I did not upgrade the whole system with deselect as i had neither a CD reader nor a network connection. So i could only use floppy disks to get and install some packages with dpkg. Among the packages i upgraded were base 1.2 and base 1.3. Now i have upgraded with dselect from a 1.3.1 CD and everything is going well except for two minor details: - dselect reports the package base 1.1.0-13 as obsolete but will not purge it (neither will dpkg --purge) because it is an essential package. It does not stop me from working but it would be cleaner if i could remove it. Removing its entry from the status file would it be safe ? NO NO NO!! Don't try removing this package. It owns all of your device files. Removing it will leave your system in a completely unusable state. Just leave that package as it is. - dselect did not downgrade the packages i had installed from hamm except for dosemu. I had dosemu_0.66.6-1 and now i have dosemu_0.66.3-1 (the version in bo). you can just upgrade back to hamm version. -- Proudly running Debian Linux! Linux vs. Windows is a no-Win situation Igor Grobman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: 1.3.1 upgrade: getting rid of the package base 1.1.0-13 -- dselect and downgrading dosemu
Hi, Laurent Bonnaud ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: : i first installed Debian 1.1 (how was it called btw ?) Buzz (Lightyear) was the name of Debian 1.1. Cool name. : - dselect reports the package base 1.1.0-13 as obsolete but will not :purge it (neither will dpkg --purge) because it is an essential :package. It does not stop me from working but it would be cleaner :if i could remove it. Removing its entry from the status file would :it be safe ? I have had the same problem since 1.1. I'm in 1.2 and haven't upgraded to 1.3 yet because our production servers are mission critical so I am waiting for something like 1.3.x where x 1. Any way, I heard in the list that upgrading to 1.3 won't get rid of this undesirable package or solve the problem. I wish one of the developers give an explanation of why this happened and if we will have to live forever with this obsolete package (unless we re-install from scratch that in my case is not an option and would make my selection of Debian, because of its upgradability, senseless.) I've seen several messages in the list regarding this problem but never have seen a satisfactory answer. I think I recall someone said not to remove this package as the consequences would be fatal. E.- -- Eloy A. Paris Information Technology Department Rockwell Automation de Venezuela Telephone: +58-2-9432311 Fax: +58-2-9430323 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: 1.3.1 upgrade: getting rid of the package base 1.1.0-13 -- dselect and downgrading dosemu
Igor == Igor Grobman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Igor Igor NO NO NO!! Don't try removing this package. It owns all of your device Igor files. Removing it will leave your system in a completely unusable state. Igor Just leave that package as it is. Yes, that's what i see when i list the files owned by this package. However, removing it from the status file will not remove the files. And after that, i might be able to reinstall another package which would take ownership of the files. In a freshly installed Debian 1.3 which package owns the device files ? Igor you can just upgrade back to hamm version. OK but it does not explain this strange behaviour (bug ?) of dselect. Should i report it as a bug ? -- Laurent. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: 1.3.1 upgrade: getting rid of the package base 1.1.0-13 -- dselect and downgrading dosemu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Note that it is possible to remove base (see one of my messages in the -user or -devel archive), but I don't recommend it if you don't know what you're doing. You can by installing al the replacement packages first (make sure you have the makedev package), then --force-remove-essential --purge base and _immediately afterwards_ run /dev/MAKEDEV . But it is *highly dangerous*. Is that the best way? I did it something like this: echo -n /var/lib/dpkg/info/base.files echo -n /var/lib/dpkg/info/base.conffiles dpkg --force-remove-essential --purge base This way, it never tries to delete the device files. -- see shy jo -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: 1.3.1 upgrade: getting rid of the package base 1.1.0-13 -- dselect and downgrading dosemu
On Jul 10, Laurent Bonnaud wrote Igor == Igor Grobman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Igor Igor NO NO NO!! Don't try removing this package. It owns all of your device Igor files. Removing it will leave your system in a completely unusable state. Igor Just leave that package as it is. Yes, that's what i see when i list the files owned by this package. However, removing it from the status file will not remove the files. And after that, i might be able to reinstall another package which would take ownership of the files. In a freshly installed Debian 1.3 which package owns the device files ? None. Precisely because of the trouble with base, the device files were taken out of the package system. Note that it is possible to remove base (see one of my messages in the -user or -devel archive), but I don't recommend it if you don't know what you're doing. base-files replaced base, but we cannot get rid of the old base. You can by installing al the replacement packages first (make sure you have the makedev package), then --force-remove-essential --purge base and _immediately afterwards_ run /dev/MAKEDEV . But it is *highly dangerous*. Ray -- Obsig: developing a new sig -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: purged package base while update to Debian 1.2.2
Rick == Rick Macdonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rick If I remember correctly, I just went into Rick /var/lib/dpkg/status and set the status line for them to Rick purge. I think I did the same with the old base package, Rick so it looks like this: RickPackage: base RickEssential: yes RickStatus: purge ok not-installed Rick I didn't notice any problems, and it cleaned up the dselect Rick sections. I didn't manually delete any files that had Rick anything to do with base. I did the same thing to get rid of an old kernel-source package that wouldn't go away. It kept telling me Danger, Package in a Severe Unstable State, and that I needed to reinstall it to be able to get rid of it, but since dpkg considers each new kernel-source package a completely new and different package, and the kernel-source-2.0.0 package was no longer on ftp.debian.org, I had to do the above manual editing process to get rid of the messages. -- Nathan L. Cutler Linux Enthusiast http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~nlc -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
purged package base while update to Debian 1.2.2
Hi, during an update form Debian 1.1 to Debian 1.2.2 I purged the base package base from Debian 1.1 (dselect show this package as obsolete) Afterwards all files in /dev where missing. Are there any substitutions for this package? Which package must I reinstall to get everything working? What to do with other obsolete packages? Thanks Dirk -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: purged package base while update to Debian 1.2.2
Dirk Luetjens wrote: during an update form Debian 1.1 to Debian 1.2.2 I purged the base package base from Debian 1.1 (dselect show this package as obsolete) Afterwards all files in /dev where missing. Are there any substitutions for this package? Which package must I reinstall to get everything working? What to do with other obsolete packages? I had some obsolete packages that dselect couldn't do anything about. Using locate, I determined that either there weren't any files left on the system for those packages anyway, or I manually deleted them. If I remember correctly, I just went into /var/lib/dpkg/status and set the status line for them to purge. I think I did the same with the old base package, so it looks like this: Package: base Essential: yes Status: purge ok not-installed I didn't notice any problems, and it cleaned up the dselect sections. I didn't manually delete any files that had anything to do with base. -- ...RickM... -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: purged package base while update to Debian 1.2.2
Dirk Luetjens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: during an update form Debian 1.1 to Debian 1.2.2 I purged the base package base from Debian 1.1 (dselect show this package as obsolete) Afterwards all files in /dev where missing. Are there any substitutions for this package? Which package must I reinstall to get everything working? makedev. Then run `/dev/MAKEDEV update' to create the standard stuff, and `/dev/MAKEDEV nameofdevice' to create any devices you need. Guy -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Package: Base
On 15 Dec 1996, Kevin Dalley wrote: This bug has already been reported--twice. It is #5729 and 5657. Bruce's response follow: It's OK for base to still be on the system. All of its files are taken over by other packages. Uhm.. its not that BASE is there, its that base version 1.2.x is NOT there.. the smartlist package needs to point to another package. -- Daniel Stringfield mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jax-inter.net/users/servo Send email for more information on the Jacksonville Linux Users Group! -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Package: Base
I need to make base-files provide the virtual package base. Next upload. Thanks Bruce -- Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key. PGP fingerprint = 88 6A 15 D0 65 D4 A3 A6 1F 89 6A 76 95 24 87 B3 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Package: Base
Daniel Stringfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Dale Scheetz wrote: Which package? Smartlist. The 1.2 system has replaced base with base-files. However base-files doesn't remove base during an upgrade, but doesn't provide base either, so a new installation will appear to have no base support. Don't know what Bruce plans to do to fix this. I guess this could be a bug for the base/base-files. Hmm.. how does one file a bug report debian style? (Never done it before) This bug has already been reported--twice. It is #5729 and 5657. Bruce's response follow: It's OK for base to still be on the system. All of its files are taken over by other packages. Some people disagree. To report and look up bugs, go to: http://www.debian.org and look for bugs. Just follow the links and you will find everything you need to know about -- Kevin Dalley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: Base
I'm trying to upgrade a package that requires base (= 1.2.0-3) and says I have an older version. (1.1 something) but I can not find a package named base anywhere. Any clues to what happened to this package? -- Daniel Stringfield mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jax-inter.net/users/servo Send email for more information on the Jacksonville Linux Users Group! -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Package: Base
Some of base is renamed base-files. Other parts have split up further. You should file a bug against the package which you are downloading which still depends upon base, if one hasn't already been filed against it. -- Kevin Dalley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Package: Base
On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Daniel Stringfield wrote: I'm trying to upgrade a package that requires base (= 1.2.0-3) and says I have an older version. (1.1 something) but I can not find a package named base anywhere. Any clues to what happened to this package? Which package? The 1.2 system has replaced base with base-files. However base-files doesn't remove base during an upgrade, but doesn't provide base either, so a new installation will appear to have no base support. Don't know what Bruce plans to do to fix this. Luck, Dwarf -- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 877-0257 Flexible Software Fax: NONE Black Creek Critters e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you don't see what you want, just ask -- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Package: Base
On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Dale Scheetz wrote: Which package? Smartlist. The 1.2 system has replaced base with base-files. However base-files doesn't remove base during an upgrade, but doesn't provide base either, so a new installation will appear to have no base support. Don't know what Bruce plans to do to fix this. I guess this could be a bug for the base/base-files. Hmm.. how does one file a bug report debian style? (Never done it before) -- Daniel Stringfield mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jax-inter.net/users/servo Send email for more information on the Jacksonville Linux Users Group! -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
