Re: Apt-get question
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 01:08:52PM -0300, Renaud OLGIATI wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 14:21:04 +0100 > wrote: > > > If that's a genuine question, and if that interests others, I'd be glad to > > post my upgrade notes. There are many resources out there, of which I'd > > recommend (at least): > > > > https://wiki.debian.org/systemd#Installing_without_systemd > > http://noone.org/talks/debian-ohne-systemd/debian-ohne-systemd-clt.html > > Yes please, and thanks. > Simplest method: Start with a wheezy box. Create /etc/apt/preferences.d/no-systemd contents: Package: systemd-sysv Pin: release o=Debian pin-Priority: -1 now you can upgrade as per normal: - change references in /etc/apt/sources.list and sources.list.d/* from wheezy to jessie - apt-get update - apt-get dist-upgrade You may be more comfortable pre-installing the new kernel and its dependencies, then rebooting, then doing the dist-upgrade, then rebooting again. In any case, reboot once you've finished. Then it's time to look around for problems. -dsr-
Re: Apt-get question
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 14:21:04 +0100 wrote: > If that's a genuine question, and if that interests others, I'd be glad to > post my upgrade notes. There are many resources out there, of which I'd > recommend (at least): > > https://wiki.debian.org/systemd#Installing_without_systemd > http://noone.org/talks/debian-ohne-systemd/debian-ohne-systemd-clt.html Yes please, and thanks. Cheers, Ron. -- We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths. -- Walt Disney -- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org --
Re: Apt-get question
On Tuesday 16 February 2016 14:20:19 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 02:08:53PM +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Tuesday 16 February 2016 13:21:04 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > if that interests others, I'd be glad to > > > post my upgrade notes > > > > Yes, please. > > OK. It might take me a couple of days, since there are some > hand-written snippets I've not yet converted to digital, but > I'll do. Thank you. Lisi
Re: Apt-get question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 02:08:53PM +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 16 February 2016 13:21:04 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > if that interests others, I'd be glad to > > post my upgrade notes > > Yes, please. OK. It might take me a couple of days, since there are some hand-written snippets I've not yet converted to digital, but I'll do. regards - -- t -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlbDMCMACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZQ7gCfTqXM8JWPUDSXLWYb9Vsx+u/I vIwAnjKls1jzNz/eII+rxegwz5xZ/Rtl =cWyB -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Apt-get question
On Tuesday 16 February 2016 13:21:04 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > if that interests others, I'd be glad to > post my upgrade notes Yes, please. Lisi
Re: Apt-get question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 09:59:55AM -0300, Renaud OLGIATI wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:53:41 + > Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > Want to stay with GNU-Linux, not ready to switch to Systemd-Linux. > > > > Jessie without systemd? > > How do you install that ? If that's a genuine question, and if that interests others, I'd be glad to post my upgrade notes. There are many resources out there, of which I'd recommend (at least): https://wiki.debian.org/systemd#Installing_without_systemd http://noone.org/talks/debian-ohne-systemd/debian-ohne-systemd-clt.html ... and many more. Note that "fat" desktop environments are becoming more and more dependent on systemd: no idea whether the Devuan people are doing something about that. I don't use a desktop environment (just a window manager), so I'm unaware of problems there. There are a few little snags, but all of them surmountable (X server is one. I'd have to check my notes, but ISTR you need an xserver-xorg-legacy package (installing a setuid wrapper for the X server, a role picked up by systemd in systemd systems). But it ain't rocket science, really. regards - -- t -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlbDIkAACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZ1lgCff2Dgj+0E2zNPbKGflJd99h1g dVkAn2CzQVgQfcGRm2W4Msq1j78ZM9Bf =468E -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Apt-get question
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:53:41 + Lisi Reisz wrote: > > Want to stay with GNU-Linux, not ready to switch to Systemd-Linux. > > Jessie without systemd? How do you install that ? Cheers, Ron. -- Ninety percent of everything is crud. -- Theodore Sturgeon -- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org --
Re: Apt-get question
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 08:35:16AM -0300, Renaud OLGIATI wrote: On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:36:33 +0100 arian wrote: you might want to use aptitude (synaptics probably works too), as it makes figuring out why it does what much easier, among other things. For a start, it lists things one item per line by default. If you decide to do so, you probably want to get started with a tutorial, because it is not completely inuitive to use. Thanks, will try aptitude Also, be aware that wheezy is oldstable, jessie is the current stable. Want to stay with GNU-Linux, not ready to switch to Systemd-Linux. Oh? You don't see many people running Shepherd[1] instead of SysV. How's that working out for you? [1] https://www.gnu.org/software/shepherd/ Cheers, Ron. -- For more information, please reread. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Apt-get question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:53:41AM +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 16 February 2016 11:35:16 Renaud OLGIATI wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:36:33 +0100 > > > > arian wrote: > > > you might want to use aptitude (synaptics probably works too), as it > > > makes figuring out why it does what much easier, among other things. For > > > a start, it lists things one item per line by default. If you decide to > > > do so, you probably want to get started with a tutorial, because it is > > > not completely inuitive to use. > > > > Thanks, will try aptitude > > > > > Also, be aware that wheezy is oldstable, jessie is the current stable. > > > > Want to stay with GNU-Linux, not ready to switch to Systemd-Linux. > > Jessie without systemd? FWIW I'm running Jessie (with some blots of sid: let's call it "jessie macchiato" if you like) with no systemd. It's quite feasible. regards - -- tomás -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlbDCMkACgkQBcgs9XrR2ka+8wCeOXoD0cNwBaT3nkb4VLy+QZYU s9wAmwQslf0+KPVo0mQe6I7+0XjZU8HP =W6xo -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Apt-get question
On Tuesday 16 February 2016 11:35:16 Renaud OLGIATI wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:36:33 +0100 > > arian wrote: > > you might want to use aptitude (synaptics probably works too), as it > > makes figuring out why it does what much easier, among other things. For > > a start, it lists things one item per line by default. If you decide to > > do so, you probably want to get started with a tutorial, because it is > > not completely inuitive to use. > > Thanks, will try aptitude > > > Also, be aware that wheezy is oldstable, jessie is the current stable. > > Want to stay with GNU-Linux, not ready to switch to Systemd-Linux. Jessie without systemd? Lisi > > Cheers, > > Ron.
Re: Apt-get question
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:36:33 +0100 arian wrote: > you might want to use aptitude (synaptics probably works too), as it makes > figuring out why it does what much easier, among other things. For a start, > it lists things one item per line by default. If you decide to do so, you > probably want to get started with a tutorial, because it is not completely > inuitive to use. Thanks, will try aptitude > Also, be aware that wheezy is oldstable, jessie is the current stable. Want to stay with GNU-Linux, not ready to switch to Systemd-Linux. Cheers, Ron. -- No one ever built a statue to a critic. -- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org --
Re: Apt-get question
> When I execute apt-get update && apt-get upgrade, [...] Let me quote `man apt-get`: upgrade upgrade is used to install the newest versions of all packages currently installed on the system from the sources enumerated in /etc/apt/sources.list. Packages currently installed with new versions available are retrieved and upgraded; under no circumstances are currently installed packages removed, or packages not already installed retrieved and installed. New versions of currently installed packages that cannot be upgraded without changing the install status of another package will be left at their current version. An update must be performed first so that apt-get knows that new versions of packages are available. dist-upgrade dist-upgrade in addition to performing the function of upgrade, also intelligently handles changing dependencies with new versions of packages; apt-get has a "smart" conflict resolution system, and it will attempt to upgrade the most important packages at the expense of less important ones if necessary. The dist-upgrade command may therefore remove some packages. The /etc/apt/sources.list file contains a list of locations from which to retrieve desired package files. See also apt_preferences(5) for a mechanism for overriding the general settings for individual packages. you might want to use aptitude (synaptics probably works too), as it makes figuring out why it does what much easier, among other things. For a start, it lists things one item per line by default. If you decide to do so, you probably want to get started with a tutorial, because it is not completely inuitive to use. Also, be aware that wheezy is oldstable, jessie is the current stable. Arian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: apt-get question..
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 08:24:24PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 09:31:15PM -0400, "Douglas A. Tutty" <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:03:59PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > > > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 02:40:45AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote: > > > > If you want less stuff installed, then you can tell aptitude not to > > > > install 'recommends', > > > > > > If a package is listed as a recommends and you consider it should only > > > be a suggests it is considered a bug. > > > > Yes but just because its recommended, things still work just fine. I > > have all kinds of packages that don't have all the cruft that they > > recommend. > > > > If you have a simple one-liner that will provide you with a list of the > > packages which are recommended by installed packages but which aren't > > themselves insalled, let me know. I'll run it and send you the results. > > aptitude search '~Rrecommends:~i!~i' > > or to ignore recommendations that are satisfied (e.g., ORs) > > aptitude search '~RBrecommends:~i' I've attached the output of this command; its fairly long. As examples, something depended on myspell (I use aspell) and myspell recommends the dictionaries for every language on the planet. I don't use a DTE but icewm, however something thinks I need hal and pmount. Thanks, Doug. p akregator - RSS feed aggregator for KDE p belocs-locales-data - base files for localization p buffer - Buffering/reblocking program for tape back p ca-certificates - Common CA Certificates PEM files p dvipdfmx- A DVI to PDF translator with CJK support p esound-clients - Enlightened Sound Daemon - clients p feynmf - set of LaTeX macros for creating Feynman d p gdb - The GNU Debugger p hal - Hardware Abstraction Layer p hfsutils- Tools for reading and writing Macintosh vo p jackd - JACK Audio Connection Kit (server and exam p kamera - digital camera io_slave for Konqueror p kdemultimedia-kio-plugins - enables the browsing of audio CDs under Ko p kdeprint- print system for KDE p kmail - KDE Email client p kooka - scanner program for KDE p laptop-detect - attempt to detect a laptop p latex-beamer- LaTeX class to produce presentations p latex-xcolor- Easy driver-independent TeX class for colo p libarts1-akode - akode plugin for aRts p libatk1.0-data - Common files for the ATK accessibility too p libglib2.0-data - Common files for GLib library p libhtml-format-perl - Format HTML syntax trees p libmail-sendmail-perl - Send email from a perl script p libmailtools-perl - Manipulate email in perl programs p libmudflap0-dev - GCC mudflap support libraries (development p libparse-debianchangelog-perl - parse Debian changelogs and output them in p libtasn1-3-bin - Manage ASN.1 structures (binaries) p locales - GNU C Library: National Language (locale) p locales-all - GNU C Library: Precompiled locale data p myspell-bg - The Bulgarian dictionary for myspell p myspell-ca - Catalan dictionary for myspell p myspell-cs-cz - Czech dictionary for myspell p myspell-da - The Comprehensive Danish Dictionary (DSDO) p myspell-de-at - Austrian (German) dictionary for myspell p myspell-de-ch - Swiss (German) dictionary for myspell p myspell-de-de - German dictionary for myspell p myspell-de-de-oldspell - German dictionary for myspell (old orthogr v myspell-dictionary - p myspell-en-au - English_australian dictionary for myspell p myspell-en-gb - English_british dictionary for myspell p myspell-en-us - English_american dictionary for myspell p myspell-eo - Esperanto dictionary for myspell p myspell-es - Spanish dictionary for myspell p myspell-et - Estonian dic
Re: apt-get question..
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 02:48:29PM -0400, ISHWAR RATTAN wrote: > > I have a debian system installed and want to dist > upgrade it, BUT I want apt--get dist-upgrade to upgrade > only the installed debs and not to download everything > under the sun! dist-upgrade will only upgrade those packages that are currently installed with the exception of certain situations, where packages have been replaced, for example. In that case some additional packages may be added or removed. It will not download everything under the sun, but depending on what is installed and how out-of-date your system is, you may end up downloading and upgrading hundred of packages. > > Is such a thing possible? If I understand your question properly, then yes. A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-get question..
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 09:31:15PM -0400, "Douglas A. Tutty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:03:59PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 02:40:45AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote: > > > If you want less stuff installed, then you can tell aptitude not to > > > install 'recommends', > > > > If a package is listed as a recommends and you consider it should only > > be a suggests it is considered a bug. > > Yes but just because its recommended, things still work just fine. I > have all kinds of packages that don't have all the cruft that they > recommend. > > If you have a simple one-liner that will provide you with a list of the > packages which are recommended by installed packages but which aren't > themselves insalled, let me know. I'll run it and send you the results. aptitude search '~Rrecommends:~i!~i' or to ignore recommendations that are satisfied (e.g., ORs) aptitude search '~RBrecommends:~i' Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question..
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:03:59PM +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 02:40:45AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote: > > If you want less stuff installed, then you can tell aptitude not to > > install 'recommends', > > If a package is listed as a recommends and you consider it should only > be a suggests it is considered a bug. Yes but just because its recommended, things still work just fine. I have all kinds of packages that don't have all the cruft that they recommend. If you have a simple one-liner that will provide you with a list of the packages which are recommended by installed packages but which aren't themselves insalled, let me know. I'll run it and send you the results. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question..
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 02:40:45AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote: > If you want less stuff installed, then you can tell aptitude not to > install 'recommends', If a package is listed as a recommends and you consider it should only be a suggests it is considered a bug. -- Chris. == "One, with God, is always a majority, but many a martyr has been burned at the stake while the votes were being counted." -- Thomas B. Reed -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question..
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 04:10:38PM -0400, Ishwar Rattan wrote: > > > On Mon, 12 May 2008, Ron Johnson wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 05/12/08 13:48, ISHWAR RATTAN wrote: >>> >>> I have a debian system installed and want to dist >>> upgrade it, BUT I want apt--get dist-upgrade to upgrade >>> only the installed debs and not to download everything >>> under the sun! >>> >>> Is such a thing possible? >> >> Define "download everything under the sun!". I say that, because a >> dist-uprade *must* download all necessary packages. > > Thanks that is clear now. If you want less stuff installed, then you can tell aptitude not to install 'recommends', -K -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: | | : :' : The Universal |mysite.verizon.net/kevin.mark/| | `. `' Operating System| go to counter.li.org and | | `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656 | | my keyserver: subkeys.pgp.net | my NPO: cfsg.org | |join the new debian-community.org to help Debian! | |___ Unless I ask to be CCd, assume I am subscribed ___| -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question..
ISHWAR RATTAN wrote: I have a debian system installed and want to dist upgrade it, BUT I want apt--get dist-upgrade to upgrade only the installed debs and not to download everything under the sun! 'apt-get dist-upgrade' does exactly that. It tries to update as many of the installed packages as possible and may add/remove a few packages to resolve dependencies and conflicts in a more intelligent manner that 'apt-get upgrade' Is such a thing possible? -ishwar -- Raj Kiran Grandhi -- Politics is for the moment. An equation is for eternity. -- Albert Einstein -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question..
ISHWAR RATTAN wrote: > > I have a debian system installed and want to dist > upgrade it, BUT I want apt--get dist-upgrade to upgrade > only the installed debs and not to download everything > under the sun! > > Is such a thing possible? You might be looking for apt-get update apt-get upgrade hth raju -- Kamaraju S Kusumanchi http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/ http://malayamaarutham.blogspot.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question..
On Mon, 12 May 2008, Ron Johnson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/12/08 13:48, ISHWAR RATTAN wrote: I have a debian system installed and want to dist upgrade it, BUT I want apt--get dist-upgrade to upgrade only the installed debs and not to download everything under the sun! Is such a thing possible? Define "download everything under the sun!". I say that, because a dist-uprade *must* download all necessary packages. Thanks that is clear now. -ishwar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question..
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/12/08 13:48, ISHWAR RATTAN wrote: > > I have a debian system installed and want to dist > upgrade it, BUT I want apt--get dist-upgrade to upgrade > only the installed debs and not to download everything > under the sun! > > Is such a thing possible? Define "download everything under the sun!". I say that, because a dist-uprade *must* download all necessary packages. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA We want... a Shrubbery!! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIKJWJS9HxQb37XmcRAljFAKDhtFcldgF6CwE7aH1S723c0CbCuACg4CnE 4XiaIeXtXAltr7+Q3/9QMdE= =HoIt -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[solved] Re: apt-get question
Rodolfo Medina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: >> ; but then, when I tried to install libopensync-plugin-syncml with: >> >> # apt-get install libopensync-plugin-syncml >> >> , I got error: >> >> The following packages have unmet dependencies. >> libopensync-plugin-syncml: Depends: libsyncml0 but it is not going to be >> installed >> E: Broken packages Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The output of "apt-cache policy libsyncml0" might help. Also, what > happens if you run "apt-get install libsyncml0"? Yes, it was solved installing libsyncml0. The problem arised because I didn't add the second Debian binary DVD. Thanks, Rodolfo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 08:48:37PM +0200, Rodolfo Medina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > Rodolfo Medina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ; but then, when I tried to install libopensync-plugin-syncml with: > > # apt-get install libopensync-plugin-syncml > > , I got error: > > The following packages have unmet dependencies. > libopensync-plugin-syncml: Depends: libsyncml0 but it is not going to be > installed > E: Broken packages The output of "apt-cache policy libsyncml0" might help. Also, what happens if you run "apt-get install libsyncml0"? Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
Rodolfo Medina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In order to catch the newer version of opensync, I added to sources.list the > following lines: > > #opensync > deb http://opensync.gforge.punktart.de/repo/opensync-0.21/ etch main > deb-src http://opensync.gforge.punktart.de/repo/opensync-0.21/ etch main > > and then did: `apt-get update'. Then I did: `apt-get install libopensync0', > but the system would insist upon installing the older version: > > [...] > Media Change: Please insert the disc labelled > ‘Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 r0 _Etch_ - Official i386 DVD Binary-1 20070407-11:40’ > in the drive ‘/cdrom/’ and press enter > > How can install what I want, i.e. the newer version from the repository? I > also tried with `apt-get install libopensync0=0.22' but didn't work. It seems that at last I managed to install the 0.22 version with: # apt-get install libopensync0=0.22-etch2 Then I also installed the libopensync-plugin-file package with: # apt-get install libopensync-plugin-file ; but then, when I tried to install libopensync-plugin-syncml with: # apt-get install libopensync-plugin-syncml , I got error: Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable distribution that some required packages have not yet been created or been moved out of Incoming. Since you only requested a single operation it is extremely likely that the package is simply not installable and a bug report against that package should be filed. The following information may help to resolve the situation: The following packages have unmet dependencies. libopensync-plugin-syncml: Depends: libsyncml0 but it is not going to be installed E: Broken packages Any help about this? Thanks, Rodolfo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 06:34:59PM +0200, Rodolfo Medina wrote: > In order to catch the newer version of opensync, I added to sources.list the > following lines: > > #opensync > deb http://opensync.gforge.punktart.de/repo/opensync-0.21/ etch main > deb-src http://opensync.gforge.punktart.de/repo/opensync-0.21/ etch main > > and then did: `apt-get update'. Then I did: `apt-get install libopensync0', > but the system would insist upon installing the older version: > > [...] > Media Change: Please insert the disc labelled > ‘Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 r0 _Etch_ - Official i386 DVD Binary-1 20070407-11:40’ > in the drive ‘/cdrom/’ and press enter well, you could just comment out the cd line in sources.list, re-update and try again. > > How can install what I want, i.e. the newer version from the repository? I > also tried with `apt-get install libopensync0=0.22' but didn't work. post the output of apt-cache policy opensync A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-get question?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 09:05:02AM -0700, Marc Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 05:27:57PM +0200, Albert Dengg wrote: > > and afterwards you should probably clear the cache using 'apt-get clean' > > Why? unless you want to use them again for some reason (copy it to another machine and install them there, uninstall them and reinstall or something), i can't see the point of keeping all packages you install on the machine, since harddisk is cheap, but not for free. (it is however your decision) yours albert - -- Albert Dengg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEqUKLhrtSwvbWj0kRAn/7AJ98gZpSEtiVIz/twdA/xzOWZN6JVACfXERl iFvHEEg/VGv/DfOJhzScMjs= =+/fl -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question?
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 05:27:57PM +0200, Albert Dengg wrote: > and afterwards you should probably clear the cache using 'apt-get clean' Why? -- Marc Wilson | Remember, God could only create the world in 6 days [EMAIL PROTECTED] | because he didn't have an established user base. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-get question?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 11:15:35AM -0400, Ishwar Rattan wrote: > > How does one install the upgrade that was downloaded as: > >apt-get upgrade -d > > -ishwar just run apt-get upgrade everything that is already downloaded won't be downloaded again, but used from the already present local cache and afterwards you should probably clear the cache using 'apt-get clean' yours albert - -- Albert Dengg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEqTd9hrtSwvbWj0kRAnXdAJ4qErRrD91g080bMWpwmH7g1j1znwCaAh/n Z7DVQ4PxVCz9swFnAPqfVsA= =DwAk -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question?
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:08:44 -0400 (EDT) Ishwar Rattan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How can one install a package downloaded as: > >apt-get install -d gcc-3.4 hopefully it is either in your present directory or in the archive directory - probably /var/cache/apt/archives ... do #dpkg -i ./filename > > -- Shawn Lamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question?
Ishwar Rattan wrote: How can one install a package downloaded as: apt-get install -d gcc-3.4 If you download it first, then a simple `apt-get install gcc-4.3` later will install it. This is because apt looks in the local package cache before going to the network. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
George Borisov wrote: > Eric Wong wrote: > >>3) dpkg -P apache2 >>And then I remove apache2 > > > Try using "apt-get remove --purge apache2" instead? > > > Hope this helps, > That will not help as apache2 is just a meta-package. There are other packages with file in /etc/apache2. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: apt-get question
Andrew Sackville-West writes: > apt probably doesn't realise that you previously removed apache2 and so > doesn't know to reinstall the confs. just a guess there. 'apt-get remove apache2' removes the package but not the configuration files. Thus when he later did 'apt-get install apache2' apt assumed that he had changed the configuration by removing the files for good reason and declined to reverse his changes. 'apt-get remove --purge apache2' would have deleted all trace of the package. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
Eric Wong wrote: > > 3) dpkg -P apache2 > And then I remove apache2 Try using "apt-get remove --purge apache2" instead? Hope this helps, -- George Borisov DXSolutions Ltd signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: apt-get question
Hi Roberto, Really thanks a lot! I tried to search it in google, but couldn't find out the solution. Your information is extremely helpful !! Thanks a lot! :) KC Eric On 5/24/06, Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Eric Wong wrote:> Hi,>> I am newbie to Debian, and have a question about apt-get. >> Conside the following steps:>> 1) apt-get install apache2>> Now apache2 is installed and working fine>> 2) rm -rf /etc/apache2> I try to remove all configurations >> 3) dpkg -P apache2> And then I remove apache2>> 4) apt-get install apache2> I install apache2 again>> It succeeds and it doesn't shows any error, but I found that > /etc/apache2 is not there, and apache2 is not working, seems that> apt-get doesn't know something(/etc/apache2) is missing and it can't> rebuild the directory.>> so my question is, how to recover from this kind of error? You know, > sometimes we may remove some directory accidentally. I know that I can> download the source code and compile it to make it working, but does> Debian or apt-get provide any way to sovle this kind of error? >The problem is that more than one package has files in that directory.You want to do a dpkg -S /etc/apache2/* to see which ones they are.Then you want to remove and reinstall *all& of those packages. -Roberto--Roberto C. Sanchezhttp://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
Re: apt-get question
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 09:16:42PM +0800, Eric Wong wrote: > Hi, > > I am newbie to Debian, and have a question about apt-get. > > Conside the following steps: > > 1) apt-get install apache2 > > Now apache2 is installed and working fine > > 2) rm -rf /etc/apache2 > I try to remove all configurations > > 3) dpkg -P apache2 > And then I remove apache2 > > 4) apt-get install apache2 > I install apache2 again > > It succeeds and it doesn't shows any error, but I found that /etc/apache2 is > not there, and apache2 is not working, seems that apt-get doesn't know > something(/etc/apache2) is missing and it can't rebuild the directory. > > so my question is, how to recover from this kind of error? You know, > sometimes we may remove some directory accidentally. I know that I can > download the source code and compile it to make it working, but does Debian > or apt-get provide any way to sovle this kind of error? Note that apache2 depends on apache2-mpm-something--I can't recall which provides the conffiles, so try this: apt-get -d --reinstall dpkg -i --force-confmiss /var/cache/apt/archives/ -- Christopher Nelson -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- QOTD: "A university faculty is 500 egotists with a common parking problem." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 09:16:42PM +0800, Eric Wong wrote: > Hi, > > I am newbie to Debian, and have a question about apt-get. > > Conside the following steps: > > 1) apt-get install apache2 > > Now apache2 is installed and working fine great > > 2) rm -rf /etc/apache2 > I try to remove all configurations bad idea. > > 3) dpkg -P apache2 > And then I remove apache2 you should probably have used apt-get --purge remove apache2 this removes the package AND the configurations. > > 4) apt-get install apache2 > I install apache2 again > > It succeeds and it doesn't shows any error, but I found that /etc/apache2 is > not there, and apache2 is not working, seems that apt-get doesn't know > something(/etc/apache2) is missing and it can't rebuild the directory. try apt-get --reinstall install apache2 apt probably doesn't realise that you previously removed apache2 and so doesn't know to reinstall the confs. just a guess there. please read man apt and try not to mix packaging tools without more knowledge. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-get question
try 'dpkg-reconfigure apache2' Henrique [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
Eric Wong wrote: > Hi, > > I am newbie to Debian, and have a question about apt-get. > > Conside the following steps: > > 1) apt-get install apache2 > > Now apache2 is installed and working fine > > 2) rm -rf /etc/apache2 > I try to remove all configurations > > 3) dpkg -P apache2 > And then I remove apache2 > > 4) apt-get install apache2 > I install apache2 again > > It succeeds and it doesn't shows any error, but I found that > /etc/apache2 is not there, and apache2 is not working, seems that > apt-get doesn't know something(/etc/apache2) is missing and it can't > rebuild the directory. > > so my question is, how to recover from this kind of error? You know, > sometimes we may remove some directory accidentally. I know that I can > download the source code and compile it to make it working, but does > Debian or apt-get provide any way to sovle this kind of error? > The problem is that more than one package has files in that directory. You want to do a dpkg -S /etc/apache2/* to see which ones they are. Then you want to remove and reinstall *all& of those packages. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: apt-get question
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 17:47:27 -0500 (EST) Ishwar Rattan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have installed debian-archive-keyring and apt-get install still > complains like: > > WARNING: The following packages cannot be authenticated! > tex-common tetex-base libkpathsea4 libpoppler0c2 libt1-5 tetex-bin > > What is the solution? the simple obvious first thing to check: have you re-run apt-get update? A > -ishwar > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > pgpFgKT9Inhy0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: apt-get question
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:11:51PM +0200, Dominik Epple wrote: > Hi list, > > I have an empty /var/cache/apt/archives directory. For building > a custom CD, I want to have all packages that are installed on the > machine as a file on my computer, e.g. in the /var/cache/apt/archives > directory. Can I make apt-get download all the files for me? There > must be some magic :) 'apt-move sync' can do that for you... -- Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to pretend to like each other. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:39:22PM +0200, Andreas Janssen wrote: > > I have an empty /var/cache/apt/archives directory. For building > > a custom CD, I want to have all packages that are installed on the > > machine as a file on my computer, e.g. in the /var/cache/apt/archives > > directory. Can I make apt-get download all the files for me? There > > must be some magic :) > > > > If not, it will be tediuos to install them all manually or just do > > a reinstall for this purpose... > > Remove local sources (e.g. CDs/DVDs) from your sources.list, and run > something like: > > dpkg --get-selections | grep install$ | cut -f1 | xargs apt-get -y \ > --download-only --reinstall install Thank you! I was already at "apt-get --download-only", but was not clever enough not conclude to use the "--reinstall install" stuff to make apt-get actually download it. Pretty smart, thank you. Regards, Dominik. PS. For completeness: "grep install$" also catches "deinstall", I used the above with an additional "grep -v deinstall$". -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
Hello Dominik Epple (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote: > I have an empty /var/cache/apt/archives directory. For building > a custom CD, I want to have all packages that are installed on the > machine as a file on my computer, e.g. in the /var/cache/apt/archives > directory. Can I make apt-get download all the files for me? There > must be some magic :) > > If not, it will be tediuos to install them all manually or just do > a reinstall for this purpose... Remove local sources (e.g. CDs/DVDs) from your sources.list, and run something like: dpkg --get-selections | grep install$ | cut -f1 | xargs apt-get -y \ --download-only --reinstall install best regards Andreas Janssen -- Andreas Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP-Key-ID: 0xDC801674 ICQ #17079270 Registered Linux User #267976 http://www.andreas-janssen.de/debian-tipps-sarge.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 at 19:00 GMT, Alfredo Valles penned: > On Tuesday 04 November 2003 5:26 pm, JG wrote: >> >> No. We base the stability of our system by using "stable" (and, >> possibly, backports: www.apt-get.org). > > > But it would be a good idea to add to apt the capability of undo the > most recent changes. And it seems not too difficult to do at all. > For minor revisions, this is probably true, but for major ones, all bets are off. -- monique PLEASE don't CC me. Please. Pretty please with sugar on top. Whatever it takes, just don't CC me! I'm already subscribed!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
On Tuesday 04 November 2003 5:26 pm, JG wrote: > Hi, > > Joe Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 06:26:15PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote: > > > The general answer is "downgrades are not supported". It is often > > > possible to just install the previous versions of packages with "dpkg" > > > (look in /var/cache/apt/archives/ for old .debs), but there are no > > > guarantees. Installing "apt-listchanges" and "apt-show-bugs" can help > > > make sure an upgrade is a wise choice before you do it. > > > > You've got to be kidding me. Hm, let's base the stability of our system > > on whether or not someone bothered to report a bug? With no way to go > > back? Right... > > No. We base the stability of our system by using "stable" (and, > possibly, backports: www.apt-get.org). But it would be a good idea to add to apt the capability of undo the most recent changes. And it seems not too difficult to do at all. Alfredo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 at 08:23 GMT, Rob Weir penned: > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:40:02PM -0800, Joe Rhett said >> With no way to go back? Right... > > Notice that I said "general", by the way. It is often possible to > trivially downgrade packages with dpkg, but sometimes it is extremely > difficult. Say a package converts a config file from an old format to > a new one. Is it supposed to include functionality to revert that > change? What if the admin makes some change to the new config file > that *can't* be represented in the old format, and then tries to > revert it? What if I try to roll back through fifty versions to one > that was built against libc5? etc, etc, etc. > > As you can imagine, the general solution to this is HARD. REALLY > HARD. > Besides which, what OS and/or software package on any system provides easy downgrade capability? I can't think of any. In many cases, you might get away with it, but in some, you're hosed. -- monique PLEASE don't CC me. Please. Pretty please with sugar on top. Whatever it takes, just don't CC me! I'm already subscribed!! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:40:02PM -0800, Joe Rhett said > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 06:26:15PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote: > > The general answer is "downgrades are not supported". It is often > > possible to just install the previous versions of packages with "dpkg" > > (look in /var/cache/apt/archives/ for old .debs), but there are no > > guarantees. Installing "apt-listchanges" and "apt-show-bugs" can help > > make sure an upgrade is a wise choice before you do it. > > You've got to be kidding me. This is Debian Unstable. The point is to help find bugs. If you don't want to live on the bleeding edge, then don't. If you do, then you'll have to be prepared for the breakage that sometimes happens. It's not *that* bad. I've been running Sid on my one and only desktop for, I dunno, 2 years now, and I've never lost data to bugs, nor even had my machine unavailable for more than say 15 minutes at a time. > Hm, let's base the stability of our system on whether or not someone > bothered to report a bug? How often do you actually encounter a serious bug before anyone else? Every single serious problem I've ever hit in Sid has already been reported by the time I've checked the BTS. > With no way to go back? Right... Notice that I said "general", by the way. It is often possible to trivially downgrade packages with dpkg, but sometimes it is extremely difficult. Say a package converts a config file from an old format to a new one. Is it supposed to include functionality to revert that change? What if the admin makes some change to the new config file that *can't* be represented in the old format, and then tries to revert it? What if I try to roll back through fifty versions to one that was built against libc5? etc, etc, etc. As you can imagine, the general solution to this is HARD. REALLY HARD. -- Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Do I look like I want a CC? Words of the day: Telex BROMURE Axis Of Evil Arnett assassination spies nuclear signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-get question
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:40:02PM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote: > You've got to be kidding me. Hm, let's base the stability of our system on > whether or not someone bothered to report a bug? With no way to go back? > Right... You mean let's NOT, as potentially useful input, evaluate whether or not anyone ELSE might have had a problem before allowing something from unstable to update? Yeah, right... -- Marc Wilson | Spirtle, n.: The fine stream from a grapefruit [EMAIL PROTECTED] | that always lands right in your eye. -- Sniglets, | "Rich Hall & Friends" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 06:26:15PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote: > The general answer is "downgrades are not supported". It is often > possible to just install the previous versions of packages with "dpkg" > (look in /var/cache/apt/archives/ for old .debs), but there are no > guarantees. Installing "apt-listchanges" and "apt-show-bugs" can help > make sure an upgrade is a wise choice before you do it. You've got to be kidding me. Hm, let's base the stability of our system on whether or not someone bothered to report a bug? With no way to go back? Right... -- Joe Rhett Chief Geek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isite Services, Inc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 08:14:51PM -0700, Robert Soricone said > Is it possible to "undo" an upgrade performed by apt-get, i.e. revert to > your previous state? The general answer is "downgrades are not supported". It is often possible to just install the previous versions of packages with "dpkg" (look in /var/cache/apt/archives/ for old .debs), but there are no guarantees. Installing "apt-listchanges" and "apt-show-bugs" can help make sure an upgrade is a wise choice before you do it. -- Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Do I look like I want a CC? Words of the day: broadside Perl-RSA passwd ICE Project Monarch Clinton sniper signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-get question
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 12:20:37AM -0700, James LeClair wrote: > Hello all. Could someone suggest, or better yet provide an example, a way > to edit a sources.list file so as to have the most up to date debian > desktop system possible. Suppose I could just install Knoppix but that > would be to easy. I have done some experimenting, but every time I appear > to have done the dist-upgrade successfully, KDE completely breaks down. Ah! You want to run unstable, right? KDE is broken there. However, visit http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?DebianKDE to learn how to install it (it's not difficult at all). Remember, unstable means that some packages (or groups of packages) can be broken. HTH, David -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 12:20:37AM -0700, James LeClair wrote: > would be to easy. I have done some experimenting, but every time I appear > to have done the dist-upgrade successfully, KDE completely breaks down. James, see the new book in progress at http://www.togaware.com/linux/survivor/Update_Newest.html Hope this helps, eh Dan Hunt Saint Brieux Saskatchewan Canada http://hunt.ath.cx/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
Hi, * James LeClair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030710 12:53]: > Hello all. Could someone suggest, or better yet provide an example, a way > to edit a sources.list file so as to have the most up to date debian > desktop system possible. Well it depends on whether you are running stable, testing or unstable. I don't use KDE so I don't know the specifics, but in general if you run stable and want a newer version of something it is best to look for a backport. Go to www.apt-get.org and do a search for KDE. Then put the relevant source in your /etc/apt/sources.list. If you can't find a backport get the relevant source packages from unstable and backport them yourself (have a look at the apt-howo). Ah... you asked for a way to edit; um, perhaps a text editor!? eg emacs, jed, zile, nano, vim, joe, vigor... the list is endless. > Suppose I could just install Knoppix but that would be to easy. I > have done some experimenting, but every time I appear to have done > the dist-upgrade successfully, KDE completely breaks down. Thanks in > advance for any input. I seriously doubt that installing Knoppix is a solution. Nick. -- Debian testing/unstable Linux twofish 2.4.21-looxt93c #1 Thu Jun 26 15:38:09 JST 2003 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
Ferenc Engard wrote: Hi all, Can I (permanently) overdrive the dependency settings of a package? I.e., I want to disable a 'conflicts' dependency which is not a conflict to me, anyway, I have installed the package in question with "dpkg -i --force-conflicts", and works great. But, in this state apt-get do not work because it detects this conflict and says "E: Unmet dependencies. Try using -f." I want apt-get to think that there is no conflict at all. Is there a solution to this? Hi, You can make a dummy package with equivs that fixes the dependency problems. Info about equivs ---start This is a dummy package which can be used to create Debian packages, which only contain dependency information. This way, you can make the Debian package management system believe that equivalents to packages on which other packages do depend on are actually installed. Another possibility is creation of a meta package. When this package contains a dependency as "Depends: a, b, c", then installing this package will also select packages a, b and c. Instead of "Depends", you can also use "Recommends:" or "Suggests:" for less demanding dependency. Please note that this is a crude hack and if thoughtlessly used might possibly do damage to your packaging system. And please note as well that using it is not the recommended way of dealing with broken dependencies. Better file a bug report instead. ---end Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
on Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 07:33:21AM +0530, Jijo Jose A ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > hi all > > i am trying to download packages from > http://pandora.debian.org/debian-non-US/, > using apt-setup, it update the packages lists and after it don't work with > apt-get , the error occured like > > apt-get -f install deity > Reading Package Lists... Done > Building Dependency Tree... Done > Package deity has no available version, but exists in the database. > This typically means that the package was mentioned in a dependency and > never uploaded, has been obsoleted or is not available with the contents > of sources.list > E: Package deity has no installation candidate > > this will repeat on all the pakages and other ftp & http sites!! > how can i tackle this ? Odd. I haven't used apt-setup, assume you've got yourself a standard /etc/apt/sources.list file. How about you post that here, particularly if the following doesn't work. Try running: $ apt-get update $ apt-get install deity ...any better? Peace. -- Karsten M. Selfhttp://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html pgpCnh8KWH4Qa.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: apt-get question.
> BTW Is there a way to build debian pakages manually, I > mean I rather download the files (diff, dsc > orig.tar.gz ...using any ftp client into local and > build it. > sure, how do you think we do it? dpkg-source -x foo.dsc cd foo-version dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -us -uc # make sure you install the fakeroot package
Re: apt-get question
Vishal Soni wrote: > > Does anyone know how I can specify a destination with > apt-get? i.e. apt-get installs everything in /usr, but > I want to get it to install in /usr/local/... > > Thanks in advance, > v Also, where files get installed to is determined by the package, not by apt-get. Tom
Re: apt-get question
Why would you want to do this? The whole point of having /usr/local is to keep what you add to your system seperate from the main distribution. This is at least Debian's implementation of what /usr/local should represent. Is there a specific reason that you would want to prefer /usr/local over /usr? -z- On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Vishal Soni wrote: > Does anyone know how I can specify a destination with > apt-get? i.e. apt-get installs everything in /usr, but > I want to get it to install in /usr/local/... > > Thanks in advance, > v > > = > -- > vs > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: apt-get question
Jorge Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello, I want apt-get to get some packages from unstable (using > something like apt-get install postgresql/unstable), but for all the > other packages I want the versions in testing (so that doing an > 'apt-get install postgresql install the version from testing), but I > think if I just edit sources.list and add the unstable sources then > the following 'apt-get install foo' will install the version from > unstable (when I whould like it to install the version from testing), > I hope I stated my problem clearly :) Does anyone knows how I can > achieve this? > I also found this on the apt-get man page, I haven't tried, because the option suggested by Colin Watson worked just fine, but it might also do the trick: --default-release This option controls the default input to the pol icy engine, it creates a default pin at priority 990 using the specified release string. The prefer ences file may further override this setting. In short, this option lets you have simple control over which distribution packages will be retrieved from. Some common examples might me -t '2.1*' or -t unstable. Configuration Item: APT::Default-Release Just in case you wanted to know. Jorge Santos
Re: apt-get question
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 10:00:22AM -0500, Jorge Santos wrote: > Hello, I want apt-get to get some packages from unstable (using > something like apt-get install postgresql/unstable), but for all the > other packages I want the versions in testing (so that doing an > 'apt-get install postgresql install the version from testing), but I > think if I just edit sources.list and add the unstable sources then > the following 'apt-get install foo' will install the version from > unstable (when I whould like it to install the version from testing), > I hope I stated my problem clearly :) Does anyone knows how I can > achieve this? > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > G'day Jorge, Probably the easiest way to do this is to put unstable in the sources list, do apt-get update, then install the package your after from unstable then change unstable back to testing, apt-get update, again before you install any thing else Cheers Joel -- No, Gates always knew the Internet was going to be important, just as Oceania has always been at war with East Asia. ;)
Re: apt-get question
Jorge Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Hello, I want apt-get to get some packages from unstable (using >something like apt-get install postgresql/unstable), but for all the >other packages I want the versions in testing (so that doing an >'apt-get install postgresql install the version from testing), but I >think if I just edit sources.list and add the unstable sources then >the following 'apt-get install foo' will install the version from >unstable (when I whould like it to install the version from testing), >I hope I stated my problem clearly :) Does anyone knows how I can >achieve this? You can pin your system to testing; the apt_preferences(5) man page describes how, and Joey Hess explained it on this list just last Friday. Try this in /etc/apt/preferences: Package: * Pin: release a=testing Pin-Priority: 900 Package: * Pin: release o=Debian Pin-Priority: -10 -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
Eric Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Any comments on the proposed-updates? It's not testing but it is not > approved stable either. proposed-updates (which is a link to potato-proposed-updates/) contains updates to stable. moritz -- Moritz Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.chaosdorf.de/moritz/ Debian/GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org/ http://www.gnu.org/ GPG fingerprint = 3A14 3923 15BE FD57 FC06 B501 0841 2D7B 6F98 4199
Re: apt-get question
Eric Richardson wrote: > > > Here are the questions. Thanks for all the help. I'll put what I'm thinking to do as a result of all the responses. > > 1. Does the order matter? Will it look to cd first if the cd entry is > first in the file and then online second? I'll put the CD's first in the sources.list file as the person with a dialup could save a lot of time if the CD version is good or just needs a patch. > 2. My setup says potato but should it say stable? Does this have the > consequence that if testing becomes stable I would get an upgrade? With > potato in the file will no upgrade occur? I'll put the explicit potato in the file and just edit the file when ready to do a dist-upgrade to the next stable version. > 3. I want the security updates so is the default entry fine? I'll uncomment the line in the file so I get security updates. > 4. I should be at version 2.2r2 as I did an update from r0. Should the > kernel be 2.2.18 as it seems this is in the proposed changes or should I > stick with 2.2.17? I noticed on the Debian site that the 2.2.18 kernel is a proposed update to stable. http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/#errata Click on the dist/potato-proposed-updates link to the ftp archives to see the kernel file as well as other proposed changes. If you use apt to update your packages, you can install the proposed updates by adding the following line to /etc/apt/sources.list: # security updates deb http://security.debian.org/ potato/updates main contrib non-free # proposed additions for a 2.2 point release deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian dists/proposed-updates/ deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US dists/proposed-updates/ After that, run apt-get update followed by apt-get upgrade. Any comments on the proposed-updates? It's not testing but it is not approved stable either. Eric :-)
Re: apt-get question
b3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 02:45:06PM -0700, Eric Richardson wrote: > > 1. Does the order matter? Will it look to cd first if the cd entry is > > first in the file and then online second? > > I'm not entirely sure if order matters or not... It does. If you keep the cd-rom entries first in the list, you will install packets from cd as long as the cd has the most recent version. Let's say: You have Debian 2.2r0 on CD and Debian 2.2r2 from a debian mirror in your sources.list. 2.2r0 first in the list will make you load all packages having the same version number in r0 and r2 from cd, while upgraded packages are loaded from the mirror. 2.2r2 first in the list will make all packages being loaded from the 2.2r2 mirrior. Hope this helps. Harald
Re: apt-get question
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Keith Johnson wrote: > On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 10:16:35AM -0800, Bill Wohler wrote: > > > Now, we all use `apt-get update; apt-get upgrade' on a regular > > basis. But you're supposed to use `apt-get dist-upgrade' when moving > > between distributions. What happens if stable changes without your > > knowledge and you run `apt-get upgrade'? > Okay, now I am a little confused. I have been using `apt-get > dist-upgrade' on a regular basis. (It seems to update my system > fine). Am I doing something wrong here? No, the distinction is that dist-upgrade removes things and installs new things, while upgrade doesn't ever. Which is why you must use dist-upgrade when moving between distributions. Jason
Re: apt-get question
On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 10:16:35AM -0800, Bill Wohler wrote: > Now, we all use `apt-get update; apt-get upgrade' on a regular > basis. But you're supposed to use `apt-get dist-upgrade' when moving > between distributions. What happens if stable changes without your > knowledge and you run `apt-get upgrade'? > Okay, now I am a little confused. I have been using `apt-get dist-upgrade' on a regular basis. (It seems to update my system fine). Am I doing something wrong here? Keith Johnson
Re: apt-get question
b3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > they switch. (IE: if you use "potato" you'll always get "potato" > packages, but if you use "stable", then when woody becomes stable, > you'll get upgraded to woody.) Now, we all use `apt-get update; apt-get upgrade' on a regular basis. But you're supposed to use `apt-get dist-upgrade' when moving between distributions. What happens if stable changes without your knowledge and you run `apt-get upgrade'? I suppose the answer is: "You'll see that the world has changed, and when asked to Continue, you say no and run `apt-get dist-upgrade' instead." But wouldn't it be better for `apt-get upgrade' to notice the change and switch to dist-upgrade itself (therefore deprecating the dist-upgrade command)? -- Bill Wohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.newt.com/wohler/ GnuPG ID:610BD9AD Maintainer of comp.mail.mh FAQ and mh-e. Vote Libertarian! If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.
Re: apt-get question
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 02:45:06PM -0700, Eric Richardson wrote: > 1. Does the order matter? Will it look to cd first if the cd entry is > first in the file and then online second? I'm not entirely sure if order matters or not - I generally only keep the cdrom entries in there until I have the network working, then I comment 'em out, and let apt grab what it needs over the network. (That way I only need my install cds around for the base installation =) ) > 2. My setup says potato but should it say stable? Does this have the > consequence that if testing becomes stable I would get an upgrade? With > potato in the file will no upgrade occur? Correct - if you track by distribution name (slink, potato, woody, sid, etc...) you'll stay with that particular distribution. If you track by the meta-name (for lack of a better term ;) ) (stable, testing, unstable) you'll get the upgrade to the next step up when they switch. (IE: if you use "potato" you'll always get "potato" packages, but if you use "stable", then when woody becomes stable, you'll get upgraded to woody.) > 3. I want the security updates so is the default entry fine? Yep - AFAIK that's the only place to get 'em. =) > 4. I should be at version 2.2r2 as I did an update from r0. Should the > kernel be 2.2.18 as it seems this is in the proposed changes or should I > stick with 2.2.17? Hmm...IIRC, potato installed (for me) with a 2.2.18-pre kernel - I've since upgraded my server box (basic potato with some stuff from woody and unstable as necessary) to 2.2.18 final, and my laptop (tracking unstable) to a combination of 2.2.18 final (everything works) and 2.4.2 (still working on sound and irda). No problems, although I still haven't done things the "debian way", instead preferring to install the new kernel myself =) Haven't run into any issues, and it taught me a LOT about the hardware in the 2 machines. > I know these questions are basic but thanks for the help. Hey - we're all newbies at some point =) -b3
Re: apt-get question
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Ameurlain Antoine wrote: > Hi, Hi, > I recently installed a package (aterm) from its debian package file > with dpkg -i. Since I have a compiled version of Xfree864.0, I had > to force the installation (aterm required "xlibs" which I haven't got). > Fine. > But now, apt-get refuse to install anything, complaining there's a broken > dependancy. My questions are: > - Can I live with a broken dependancy, or do I have to remove this > package. > - Is there a documentation about "advanced" features of apt-get, dpkg > and dselect, such as "how to use the system even with broken > dependancies, wich were created on purpose" :) > man page aren't so helpfull, yet they explain well the options. And > general documentations & guides only explain "basic" features > of package management. the easiest way is to make a dummy xlibs package using equivs: Package: equivs Priority: extra Section: admin Installed-Size: 50 Maintainer: Martin Bialasinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Architecture: all Version: 2.0.2 Depends: perl|perl5, debhelper, dpkg-dev, devscripts, make, fakeroot Filename: pool/main/e/equivs/equivs_2.0.2_all.deb Size: 17394 MD5sum: 0c84d50f864ea181738fc1b496b6fb20 Description: Circumventing Debian package dependencies This is a dummy package which can be used to create Debian packages, which only contain dependency information. . This way, you can make the Debian package management system believe that equivalents to packages on which other packages do depend on are actually installed. . Another possibility is creation of a meta package. When this package contains a dependency as "Depends: a, b, c", then installing this package will also select packages a, b and c. Instead of "Depends", you can also use "Recommends:" or "Suggests:" for less demanding dependency. . Please note that this is a crude hack and if thoughtlessly used might possibly do damage to your packaging system. And please note as well that using it is not the recommended way of dealing with broken dependencies. Better file a bug report instead. > Thank you in advance, > > Antoine Ameurlain HTH, Adrian -- Nicht weil die Dinge schwierig sind wagen wir sie nicht, sondern weil wir sie nicht wagen sind sie schwierig.
Re: apt-get question
Subject: apt-get question Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 01:39:59PM -0700 In reply to:Wayde C Gutman Quoting Wayde C Gutman([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > This what I have gone through so far, > > First tried to apt-get dist-update with the following in > /ect/apt/sources.list, > > ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/dists/potato/main/upgrade-i386/apt 0.3.19 > i386.deb > also tried, > ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian_dists_potato_main_upgrade-i386_apt_0.3.19_i386.deb > > Result: "E: Malformed line 9" > > Per instruction at the Debian.org, Don't know about the instructions but these lines work fine. deb ftp://ftp1.us.debian.org/debian potato contrib main non-free deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US potato/non-US main contrib non-free deb http://ftp1.us.debian.org/debian dists/proposed-updates/ :-) HTH, YMMV, HAND :-) Wayne -- Linux represents a best-of-breed UNIX, that is trusted in mission critical applications, and - due to it's open source code - has a long term credibility which exceeds many other competitive OS's. - Microsoft internal memo - http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween2.html ___
Re: apt-get question
Wayde C Gutman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >This what I have gone through so far, > >First tried to apt-get dist-update That should be dist-upgrade, I hope ... >with the following in /ect/apt/sources.list, > >ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/dists/potato/main/upgrade-i386/apt 0.3.19 >i386.deb >also tried, >ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian_dists_potato_main_upgrade-i386_apt_0.3.19_i386.deb This isn't the format that sources.list lines need to be in. Generally speaking, apt-get is intelligent enough that you don't need to specify as many details as you have. In fact, you can't specify as many details as you have, or at least not in that way. :) Read 'man 5 sources.list' if you want to write that file yourself. For general use in potato, retrieving all sections, you need lines like these: deb ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian potato main contrib non-free deb ftp://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US potato non-US/main non-US/contrib non-US/non-free ... and the same with 'deb' replaced by 'deb-src' if you want to get sources as well as binaries. However, the particular file you're trying to get is not in an apt-gettable repository. To install it, just download it with your favourite FTP client and do 'dpkg -i apt_0.3.19_i386.deb' - simple as that. apt-get won't get confused by you doing things with raw dpkg. >Took a look at the /var/state/apt/lists/partial/ >Found the following, > >ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_dists_potato_binary-i386_Packages > >Once again, "E: Malformed line 9" > >What seems to me is wrong is the second _dists_ in the >/var/state/apt/lists/partial/ Yes, indeed. Looks like you tried to say something like: deb ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/dists potato main contrib non-free ... or something strange like that [1]. It won't work - use the lines above. [1] Even that would give you an extra 'main_' in the filename above ... >Tried to fire up the editor to edit that out, couldn't bring up and I am >at /root What were you trying to edit? Normally you wouldn't use an editor to change filenames in a directory, well, unless you fired up a shell from inside emacs or something. :) -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
Eduardo Gargiulo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >How can I lists the available packages on my Debian CDs with apt-get? >Supose I need to install XWindow, how should I know which packages I >have to install? apt-cache search whatever I found that the investment of time in learning dselect was well worth it, as it's a lot easier to browse with than command-line apt. You could try something like console-apt instead. There are other tools: 'dpkg --help' lists various search functions, and if you install the grep-dctrl package you'll get the excellent tools grep-available and grep-status. For any of these, you should make sure you always use 'dselect update' instead of 'apt-get update'. When dselect is configured to use apt, as it is now by default, 'dselect update' calls 'apt-get update' and then *also* updates dpkg's notion of available packages, so it's always worth using it instead. Also note that on potato (2.2) systems you can run 'tasksel' to choose from the selection of common tasks you get at installation time. Note that it doesn't seem to check what tasks are already installed, but that's OK as if you already have the task then it won't reinstall it. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 10:41:53PM +0200, Moritz Schulte wrote: > > the debs are in /var/cache/apt/archives/ > from time to time you get asked, wether you want to delete these > files. One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet, these are packages containing binaries, not source. If you want to download the source, 'apt-get source packagename' (assuming you have your deb-src lines properly set up) will download the original source tarball, debian diffs, and a checksum file; unpack the tarball into a subdirectory of the current directory; and apply the patch. -- finger for GPG public key. pgpXTGr4a3fB7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: apt-get question
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 02:49:08PM -0400, Christopher W. Aiken wrote: > Does "apt-get" also save the downloaded software? yes. > If so where would I look for it to save to a floppy or zip? the debs are in /var/cache/apt/archives/ from time to time you get asked, wether you want to delete these files. moritz -- /* Moritz Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * http://hp9001.fh-bielefeld.de/~moritz/ * PGP-Key available, encrypted Mail is welcome. */
Re: apt-get question
"michael d. ivey" wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 12:25:28PM -0700, Nate Amsden wrote: > > still can't do(although i still see people reference it sometimes i > > never got it workin) is the 'search' function to search thru things, i > > keep seeing from time-to-time people say 'apt-get search ' > > but none of my machines with apt can search :( (invalid option) > > apt-cache search string > apt-cache show packagename ahh ok, cool, thanks! didnt know there was an apt-cache command :)) nate -- ::: ICQ: 75132336 http://www.aphroland.org/ http://www.linuxpowered.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question
Hello On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 12:25:28 -0700, Nate Amsden said: [snip] : : you can 'clear' the cache if you want by running apt-get clean. you can : also specify another location to download to, you can also tell it to : download *only* and not install(see manpage for apt-get), one thing apt : still can't do(although i still see people reference it sometimes i : never got it workin) is the 'search' function to search thru things, i : keep seeing from time-to-time people say 'apt-get search ' : but none of my machines with apt can search :( (invalid option) This is not an apt-get function, rather apt-cache so the command would be: apt-cache search or you could use console-apt and do a full text search. Tal : nate : -- : ::: : ICQ: 75132336 : http://www.aphroland.org/ : http://www.linuxpowered.net/ : [EMAIL PROTECTED] : : : -- : Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null : : : -- | Tal Danzig | Join #libranet on the | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | openprojects IRC network | | http://www.libranet.com| Tal Danzig | | The TOP Desktop! | [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
Re: apt-get question
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 12:25:28PM -0700, Nate Amsden wrote: > still can't do(although i still see people reference it sometimes i > never got it workin) is the 'search' function to search thru things, i > keep seeing from time-to-time people say 'apt-get search ' > but none of my machines with apt can search :( (invalid option) apt-cache search string apt-cache show packagename -- michael d. ivey[McQ] : "Yo ho, it's hot, the sun is not a place <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : where we could live." http://gweezlebur.com/~ivey/ : -- TMBG encrypted email preferred :
Re: apt-get question
yes; and /var/cache/apt/archives hth. bentley taylor (potato on 2.2.16) // "Christopher W. Aiken" wrote: > [snip > Does "apt-get" also save the downloaded software? > If so where would I look for it to save to a floppy or zip? > > --- > Christopher W. Aiken, Scenery Hill, Pa, USA > chris at cwaiken dot com, www.cwaiken.com > Preferred O/S: FreeBSD 4.0 > > -- > Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
Re: apt-get question
"Christopher W. Aiken" wrote: > > In FreeBSD there exists a "ports" tree with hundreds of > software titles that have been "ported" to FreeBSD. One only > has to connect to Internet and do a "make; make install; make clean" > for FreeBSD to go to the proper FTP site(s) to download the > software and install it. The software that is downloaded is > saved in a special "distfiles" directory so that if you need > to re-install the Internet connection is not needed (i.e you > already have the pieces that are needed to build the package). heheh. the "ports" is what drove me away from freebsd. i remember one time a couple months ago working for over 2 hours to get minicom installed because the sites the ports were pointing to were broken/outdated. eventually i got it installed though.. spent another hour and a half tryin to get ppp workin and gave up and went back to debian.(this was all on freebsd4-RELEASE) > I'm a complete Debian newbee, having Debian installed a whole > three days now. I would assume that the "apt-get" command > does the similar software installs as the FreeBSD mentioned > above? Does "apt-get" also save the downloaded software? > If so where would I look for it to save to a floppy or zip? apt-get does store it's downloaded files in /var/cache/apt/archives you can 'clear' the cache if you want by running apt-get clean. you can also specify another location to download to, you can also tell it to download *only* and not install(see manpage for apt-get), one thing apt still can't do(although i still see people reference it sometimes i never got it workin) is the 'search' function to search thru things, i keep seeing from time-to-time people say 'apt-get search ' but none of my machines with apt can search :( (invalid option) nate -- ::: ICQ: 75132336 http://www.aphroland.org/ http://www.linuxpowered.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get question---
>Where does apt-get download the files from? /etc/apt-get/sources.list man apt-get would have told you. TomG > >Tom > > >-- >Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null > pgpPFJ4OK0vuH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: apt-get question
From: Will Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >I think what he means is that when you install from CD, it rolls through >the CD and checks every packages against the list of selections, like: >Skipping deselected package: bash >Skipping deselected package: bang >Skipping deselected package: beat I remember that from when I had a Hamm system and used dpkg-ftp. I installed Slink from a CD and don't recall getting these messages, certainly I don't get them when selecting/deselecting packages now from the CD (after the install). I don't particularly miss them.
Re: apt-get question
Hi Shawn, you wrote on Sat, Mar 20 1999: >In hamm, it was such a task to install a package in dselect because >it rolls through every single package on the dist. Does slink >resolve this problem and more specifically, is apt-get the >resolution? You may have overlooked it: there was an apt in the original hamm distribution, maybe a little hidden in directory tools on the first (binary) CD. Could be installed with "dpkg -i /mnt/cdrom/(path)/apt..." In dselect you then got the option "apt-get", switch to that, configure /etc/apt/sources.list correctly, select your packages with dselect (helps resolving conflicts), then quit dselect (don't install with it!) and issue in the shell "apt-get dselect-upgrade". This prevented the ennoying check of all packages already in hamm. But you had to mount the cd-rom first (dselect did that for you if it wasn't already mounted). I'm still on hamm, but I see no reason, why this shouldn't work with slink or potato. Kind regards Frederick -- Why don't cannibals eat clowns? They taste funny.
Re: apt-get question
On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, Sarel Botha wrote: > On Sat, Mar 20, 1999 at 03:38:07PM -0500, Will Lowe wrote: > > > What exactly do you mean "it rolls through every single package > > > on the dist"? If you mean what it sounds like, you only have to > > > > I think what he means is that when you install from CD, it rolls through > > the CD and checks every packages against the list of selections, like: > > Skipping deselected package: bash > > Skipping deselected package: bang > > Skipping deselected package: beat > > > > Rather than just going to the packages it wants to install. > > I don't think that apt-get fixes this, because apt-get doesn't let you > > install from CD. The issue is really with dselect's CD install method. > Seeing as we're already on the subject...I've thought about a cd method for > apt > before, currently I'm just using a file: method which is a bit of a paint as I > have to mount the cd first. Isn't such a method already planned? Such a method > would make nearly all of the dpkg methods obsolete. The potato apt has such a method, read the apt-cdrom man page. Jason
Re: apt-get question
Yes, I mean that after selecting install, it check every single packages. David Gaudine wrote: > > > I've heard a lot about apt-get in slink but I have a question about > >it. In hamm, it was such a task to install a package in dselect because > >it rolls through every single package on the dist. Does slink resolve > >this problem and more specifically, is apt-get the resolution? > > What exactly do you mean "it rolls through every single package > on the dist"? If you mean what it sounds like, you only have to > roll through every package if you don't know the name (or part of > the name) of the package, otherwise just type /searchstring > (and then \ to continue the same search) > Or do you mean the fact that after you select "install" > you have to wait while it checks the list internally? I admit that > was a problem when I ran debian on a slow system that > did everything from network drives. > > -- > Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
Re: apt-get question
On Sat, Mar 20, 1999 at 03:38:07PM -0500, Will Lowe wrote: > > What exactly do you mean "it rolls through every single package > > on the dist"? If you mean what it sounds like, you only have to > > I think what he means is that when you install from CD, it rolls through > the CD and checks every packages against the list of selections, like: > Skipping deselected package: bash > Skipping deselected package: bang > Skipping deselected package: beat > > Rather than just going to the packages it wants to install. > I don't think that apt-get fixes this, because apt-get doesn't let you > install from CD. The issue is really with dselect's CD install method. Seeing as we're already on the subject...I've thought about a cd method for apt before, currently I'm just using a file: method which is a bit of a paint as I have to mount the cd first. Isn't such a method already planned? Such a method would make nearly all of the dpkg methods obsolete. -- Sarel Botha
Re: apt-get question
> What exactly do you mean "it rolls through every single package > on the dist"? If you mean what it sounds like, you only have to I think what he means is that when you install from CD, it rolls through the CD and checks every packages against the list of selections, like: Skipping deselected package: bash Skipping deselected package: bang Skipping deselected package: beat Rather than just going to the packages it wants to install. I don't think that apt-get fixes this, because apt-get doesn't let you install from CD. The issue is really with dselect's CD install method. Will -- | [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | http://www.cis.udel.edu/~lowe/ | |PGP Public Key: http://www.cis.udel.edu/~lowe/index.html#pgpkey| -- | You think you're so smart, but I've seen you naked | | and I'll prob'ly see you naked again ... | | --The Barenaked Ladies, "Blame It On Me" | --
Re: apt-get question
> I've heard a lot about apt-get in slink but I have a question about >it. In hamm, it was such a task to install a package in dselect because >it rolls through every single package on the dist. Does slink resolve >this problem and more specifically, is apt-get the resolution? What exactly do you mean "it rolls through every single package on the dist"? If you mean what it sounds like, you only have to roll through every package if you don't know the name (or part of the name) of the package, otherwise just type /searchstring (and then \ to continue the same search) Or do you mean the fact that after you select "install" you have to wait while it checks the list internally? I admit that was a problem when I ran debian on a slow system that did everything from network drives.
