Re: Unnecessary packages?
On Sb, 26 oct 19, 17:01:19, Joe wrote: > > Removing things, as others have said, is a bit risky. You need to spend > some time with the apt tools, finding what depends on the item you wish > to remove, so you know what will break when you remove it. It's a very > slow process, when there are hundreds or even thousands of packages you > don't (currently) need. # mark gnome-core as manually installed to prevent it and all it's # dependencies to be considered for autoremoval apt-mark manual gnome-core # remove the gnome metapackage # this will result in many packages being suggested for autoremoval # do NOT use aptitude for this step as it will attempt to immediately # remove packages depended on by gnome, but not by gnome-core apt remove gnome # examine the list of packages suggested for autoremoval apt --simulate autoremove # or with aptitude aptitude search '?garbage' # remove those you are sure you don't need # do NOT use aptitude for this as it will attempt to remove all other # packages depended on by gnome, but not by gnome-core apt remove cheese apt remove some-other-package ... # mark all other packages as manually installed apt-mark manual package1 package2 etc. # or in one command with aptitude (untested) aptitude unmarkauto '?installed?garbage' Hope this helps, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Unnecessary packages?
On Sat 26 Oct 2019 at 17:53:45 +, J.Arun Mani wrote: > Thanks for your replies. Disk usage is not an issue for me, so I may > ignore them for now. You have a functional Debian system and chose to install Debian Buster GNOME Edition. Stick with it and stop fussing about installed software you do not use or only use occasionally. Either that or remove what you see as unnecessary to your needs. It is as simple as that. -- Brian.
Re: Unnecessary packages?
Thanks for your replies. Disk usage is not an issue for me, so I may ignore them for now. J Arun Mani
Re: Unnecessary packages?
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:21:18 + "J.Arun Mani" wrote: > Hi. > > I recently installed Debain Buster GNOME Edition. I found a > lot of apps which are rarely used by me. > 1. Fcitx, Fcitx config - I don't what these apps do and they aren't > even launching. 2. Anthy Dictionary - No use. > 3. Cheese, Sound Recorder - My laptop doesn't have a camera or > mic(:[). 4. Evolution, Thunderbird - I use Protonmail and they don't > offer support for Linux Bridges. 5. HDate(*) - I'm not a Hebrew > speaker. 6. XTerm - I'm good with GNOME Terminal. > 7. Thai X Terminal(*) - I don't speak Thai. > 8. Multilingual Terminal(*) - No no. > 9. Mozc Setup - What's it? > 10. Games - ... > > I feel that though, apps excluding the starred ones might have a use, > but really 5, 7, 8 are not generally used apps. It is used by a > particular community and not by all! My question is "Is there a valid > reason why Debian includes these (5, 7, 8) packages by default?" And > will uninstalling them (all apps mentioned above) cause any trouble? > The short answer is: 'you installed Gnome'. You therefore get whatever the Gnome developers (not necessarily Debian developers) think you should have. The 'big' desktop environments, Gnome and KDE, are exactly that. You install them if you have plenty of disc space and you want *everything*, including the kitchen sink. The fundamental idea is that one installation works for everyone, so that Thais don't have to do extra work to install their terminal. You could install just a command-line environment, then add exactly what you actually want. When you add graphical applications, they will pull in the necessary infrastructure automatically. You'll still get a few unwanted programs this way, but far fewer than with a DE. Or you can go somewhere between, and install a 'lightweight' desktop environment such as Xfce or LXDE. You'll again get some stuff you don't want, but less than with Gnome. Again, add anything you want that isn't there. Removing things, as others have said, is a bit risky. You need to spend some time with the apt tools, finding what depends on the item you wish to remove, so you know what will break when you remove it. It's a very slow process, when there are hundreds or even thousands of packages you don't (currently) need. Or more quickly, you can install alacarte, the menu editor, and remove everything you don't want to see on the menus. Unless you actually have a small SSD (as I do in my netbook), you won't really gain anything by removing the applications themselves. My fairly large unstable desktop installation is 25GB, a drop in the ocean of a terabyte drive. I probably only use four or five GB of that, but I can't be bothered trying to trim it down. Life is too short. It's a balance of convenience against minimalism. You can spend a lot of time installing exactly what you want, or you can go with somebody else's choices very quickly. Your decision. -- Joe
Re: Unnecessary packages?
On 10/25/2019 10:21 AM, J.Arun Mani asked questions that don't have
short answers.
I'll respond with what I hope will be _thought_ provoking questions.
He did not describe his background nor frame of reference.
What has influenced my viewpoint?
1. Introduced to computing as an engineering student in early 60's.
2. My 1st Personal Computer was 6502 based with 8kB RAM.
3. My career included customer support, engineering support, QA/QC, and
"other duties as assigned" [chuckle].
Hi.
I recently installed Debain Buster GNOME Edition.
[QUESTION1]
Why was GNOME chosen?
I found a lot of apps which are rarely used by me.
[snip list of specific applications]
[Question2]
After using query at
https://www.debian.org/distrib/packages#search_packages
specifying either "Package names only" or "Descriptions" as appropriate,
"What do they _all_ have in common?"
I feel that though, apps excluding the starred ones might have a use,
{...} by a particular community and not by all! {...}
"Is there a valid reason why Debian includes {...} by default?"
[Question3]
The simplistic/specific answer to OP's question is "Yes."
Referring to answer to Question2, "What design goal(s) are satisfied by
the those programs?"
And will uninstalling them (all apps mentioned above) cause any trouble?
Depending on "how removed", troubles could range from trivial to
*CATASTROPHIC*!
Consider:
“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all
of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people
all of the time” -- John Lydgate
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people
some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the
time." -- P.T. Barnum(?)
Would I have made the specific choices made by Debian team? -- No.
Were their choices reasonable? -- Yes.
HTH ;}
Re: Unnecessary packages?
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:21:18 + "J.Arun Mani" wrote: > Hi. > > I recently installed Debain Buster GNOME Edition. I found a > lot of apps which are rarely used by me. > 1. Fcitx, Fcitx config - I don't what these apps do and they aren't > even launching. 2. Anthy Dictionary - No use. > 3. Cheese, Sound Recorder - My laptop doesn't have a camera or > mic(:[). 4. Evolution, Thunderbird - I use Protonmail and they don't > offer support for Linux Bridges. 5. HDate(*) - I'm not a Hebrew > speaker. 6. XTerm - I'm good with GNOME Terminal. > 7. Thai X Terminal(*) - I don't speak Thai. > 8. Multilingual Terminal(*) - No no. > 9. Mozc Setup - What's it? > 10. Games - ... > > I feel that though, apps excluding the starred ones might have a use, > but really 5, 7, 8 are not generally used apps. It is used by a > particular community and not by all! My question is "Is there a valid > reason why Debian includes these (5, 7, 8) packages by default?" And > will uninstalling them (all apps mentioned above) cause any trouble? > > Thanks for your patience ^^ > J Arun Mani Gnome desktop is a metapackage. Which simply means it installs various other packages. Metapackages are built for convenience to install things like desktop environments or linux kernel. If you remove those then you might remove other dependencies or the whole desktop. Definitely you wont be able to update the desktop. Easy solution if disk space is not an issue is to leave it alone. Difficult solution is to built your own metapackage that includes only the programs you need as described here https://help.ubuntu.com/community/MetaPackages Regards Nektarios Katakis.
Unnecessary packages?
Hi. I recently installed Debain Buster GNOME Edition. I found a lot of apps which are rarely used by me. 1. Fcitx, Fcitx config - I don't what these apps do and they aren't even launching. 2. Anthy Dictionary - No use. 3. Cheese, Sound Recorder - My laptop doesn't have a camera or mic(:[). 4. Evolution, Thunderbird - I use Protonmail and they don't offer support for Linux Bridges. 5. HDate(*) - I'm not a Hebrew speaker. 6. XTerm - I'm good with GNOME Terminal. 7. Thai X Terminal(*) - I don't speak Thai. 8. Multilingual Terminal(*) - No no. 9. Mozc Setup - What's it? 10. Games - ... I feel that though, apps excluding the starred ones might have a use, but really 5, 7, 8 are not generally used apps. It is used by a particular community and not by all! My question is "Is there a valid reason why Debian includes these (5, 7, 8) packages by default?" And will uninstalling them (all apps mentioned above) cause any trouble? Thanks for your patience ^^ J Arun Mani
aptitude full-upgrade installs unnecessary packages
Hello,
I'm using aptitude full-upgrade to keep my debian testing
installations up-to-date.
For a reason that I do not understand, currently full-upgrade wants to
install some rather huge packages.
Please consider the output of aptitude -D full-upgrade below. I do
not see any reason to install texlive-fonts-extra, and aptitude also
does not seem to see one. But it still wants to install the package.
Why?
Asking aptitude itself doesn't help:
# aptitude why texlive-fonts-extra
i kernel-package Suggests xmlto
p xmlto Depends docbook-xml (= 4.2-8)
p docbook-xml Suggests docbook
p docbook Suggests psgml
p psgml Suggests debiandoc-sgml
p debiandoc-sgml Suggests texlive-lang-all
p texlive-lang-allDepends texlive-lang-polish (= 2012.20120516)
p texlive-lang-polish Suggests texlive-fonts-extra
Any suggestions?
Christoph
# aptitude -D full-upgrade
The following NEW packages will be installed:
fonts-comfortaa{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
fonts-gfs-artemisia{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
fonts-gfs-complutum{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
fonts-gfs-didot{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
fonts-gfs-neohellenic{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
fonts-gfs-olga{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
fonts-gfs-solomos{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
fonts-inconsolata{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
fonts-junicode{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
fonts-linuxlibertine{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra, S: python-docutils)
fonts-oflb-asana-math{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
fonts-sil-gentium{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra, R: fonts-sil-gentium-basic)
fonts-sil-gentium-basic{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
ipython-notebook-common{a} (D: ipython-notebook)
libgegl-0.2-0{a} (D: gimp) libnspr4 libnss3
otf-freefont{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra) texlive-fonts-extra
texlive-fonts-extra-doc{a} (R: texlive-fonts-extra)
texlive-xetex{a} (R: fonts-oflb-asana-math)
valgrind-dbg{a} (R: valgrind)
The following packages will be REMOVED:
libgegl-0.1-0{u} (D: gimp)
texpower{u} (R: texlive-latex-extra, R: texpower-manual)
texpower-manual{u} (R: texpower)
The following packages will be upgraded:
alsa-utils audacious audacious-plugins audacious-plugins-data
autopoint browser-plugin-gnash bsdmainutils bsdutils
debian-archive-keyring dict dictionaries-common dmidecode gdb-doc
gettext gettext-base gimp gimp-data glib-networking
glib-networking-common glib-networking-services gnash gnash-common
gnome-themes-standard gsettings-desktop-schemas gvfs gvfs-backends
gvfs-common gvfs-daemons gvfs-libs ipython ipython-doc
ipython-notebook ipython-qtconsole klibc-utils kmod libaprutil1
libasound2 libasound2-dev libasound2-plugins libasprintf0c2
libaudclient2 libaudcore1 libavcodec53 libavformat53 libavutil51
libblkid1 libdirectfb-1.2-9 libdnet libevent-2.0-5 libfftw3-3
libgettextpo0 libgimp2.0 libglib2.0-0 libglib2.0-bin
libglib2.0-data libglib2.0-dev libklibc libkmod2 libkpathsea6
liblcms1 libmount1 libmysqlclient16 libnautilus-extension1a
libnewt0.52 libnspr4-0d libnss3-1d libopenmpi-dev libopenmpi1.3
libperl5.14 libpostproc52 libproxy0 libptexenc1 libpulse0
libsmbclient libswscale2 libtdb1 libuuid1 libwbclient0 libxapian22
libxi-dev libxi6 libxml-libxml-perl libxml2 libxml2-utils libyelp0
linux-headers-3.2.0-2-amd64 linux-headers-3.2.0-2-common
linux-image-3.2.0-2-amd64 linux-libc-dev logrotate lsb-base
lsb-release module-init-tools mount music123 myspell-pl
mysql-common openmpi-bin openmpi-checkpoint openmpi-common perl
perl-base perl-doc perl-modules python-gi python-gobject
python-pyexiv2 python-pyexiv2-doc python-pyparsing python-zmq sudo
texlive texlive-base texlive-binaries texlive-common
texlive-doc-base texlive-extra-utils texlive-font-utils
texlive-fonts-recommended texlive-fonts-recommended-doc
texlive-generic-recommended texlive-lang-dutch texlive-lang-french
texlive-lang-german texlive-latex-base texlive-latex-base-doc
texlive-latex-extra texlive-latex-extra-doc texlive-latex-recommended
texlive-latex-recommended-doc texlive-luatex texlive-metapost
texlive-metapost-doc texlive-pictures texlive-pictures-doc
texlive-pstricks texlive-pstricks-doc texlive-publishers
texlive-publishers-doc texlive-science texlive-science-doc
traceroute update-inetd util-linux valgrind whiptail xfce4-notifyd
xfce4-volumed xinput xserver-common xserver-xephyr
xserver-xorg-core xserver-xorg-input-synaptics yelp-xsl
The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
gnome-keyring (R: gvfs-backends,
Re: aptitude full-upgrade installs unnecessary packages
On 06/15/2012 10:24 AM, Christoph Groth wrote:
Hello,
I'm using aptitude full-upgrade to keep my debian testing
installations up-to-date.
For a reason that I do not understand, currently full-upgrade wants to
install some rather huge packages.
Please consider the output of aptitude -D full-upgrade below. I do
not see any reason to install texlive-fonts-extra, and aptitude also
does not seem to see one. But it still wants to install the package.
Why?
Asking aptitude itself doesn't help:
# aptitude why texlive-fonts-extra
i kernel-package Suggests xmlto
p xmlto Depends docbook-xml (= 4.2-8)
p docbook-xml Suggests docbook
p docbook Suggests psgml
p psgml Suggests debiandoc-sgml
p debiandoc-sgml Suggests texlive-lang-all
p texlive-lang-allDepends texlive-lang-polish (= 2012.20120516)
p texlive-lang-polish Suggests texlive-fonts-extra
Any suggestions?
Christoph
# aptitude -D full-upgrade
The following NEW packages will be installed:
fonts-comfortaa{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
fonts-gfs-artemisia{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
fonts-gfs-complutum{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
fonts-gfs-didot{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
fonts-gfs-neohellenic{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
fonts-gfs-olga{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
fonts-gfs-solomos{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
fonts-inconsolata{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
fonts-junicode{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
fonts-linuxlibertine{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra, S: python-docutils)
fonts-oflb-asana-math{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
fonts-sil-gentium{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra, R: fonts-sil-gentium-basic)
fonts-sil-gentium-basic{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra)
ipython-notebook-common{a} (D: ipython-notebook)
libgegl-0.2-0{a} (D: gimp) libnspr4 libnss3
otf-freefont{a} (D: texlive-fonts-extra) texlive-fonts-extra
texlive-fonts-extra-doc{a} (R: texlive-fonts-extra)
texlive-xetex{a} (R: fonts-oflb-asana-math)
valgrind-dbg{a} (R: valgrind)
The following packages will be REMOVED:
libgegl-0.1-0{u} (D: gimp)
texpower{u} (R: texlive-latex-extra, R: texpower-manual)
texpower-manual{u} (R: texpower)
The following packages will be upgraded:
alsa-utils audacious audacious-plugins audacious-plugins-data
autopoint browser-plugin-gnash bsdmainutils bsdutils
debian-archive-keyring dict dictionaries-common dmidecode gdb-doc
gettext gettext-base gimp gimp-data glib-networking
glib-networking-common glib-networking-services gnash gnash-common
gnome-themes-standard gsettings-desktop-schemas gvfs gvfs-backends
gvfs-common gvfs-daemons gvfs-libs ipython ipython-doc
ipython-notebook ipython-qtconsole klibc-utils kmod libaprutil1
libasound2 libasound2-dev libasound2-plugins libasprintf0c2
libaudclient2 libaudcore1 libavcodec53 libavformat53 libavutil51
libblkid1 libdirectfb-1.2-9 libdnet libevent-2.0-5 libfftw3-3
libgettextpo0 libgimp2.0 libglib2.0-0 libglib2.0-bin
libglib2.0-data libglib2.0-dev libklibc libkmod2 libkpathsea6
liblcms1 libmount1 libmysqlclient16 libnautilus-extension1a
libnewt0.52 libnspr4-0d libnss3-1d libopenmpi-dev libopenmpi1.3
libperl5.14 libpostproc52 libproxy0 libptexenc1 libpulse0
libsmbclient libswscale2 libtdb1 libuuid1 libwbclient0 libxapian22
libxi-dev libxi6 libxml-libxml-perl libxml2 libxml2-utils libyelp0
linux-headers-3.2.0-2-amd64 linux-headers-3.2.0-2-common
linux-image-3.2.0-2-amd64 linux-libc-dev logrotate lsb-base
lsb-release module-init-tools mount music123 myspell-pl
mysql-common openmpi-bin openmpi-checkpoint openmpi-common perl
perl-base perl-doc perl-modules python-gi python-gobject
python-pyexiv2 python-pyexiv2-doc python-pyparsing python-zmq sudo
texlive texlive-base texlive-binaries texlive-common
texlive-doc-base texlive-extra-utils texlive-font-utils
texlive-fonts-recommended texlive-fonts-recommended-doc
texlive-generic-recommended texlive-lang-dutch texlive-lang-french
texlive-lang-german texlive-latex-base texlive-latex-base-doc
texlive-latex-extra texlive-latex-extra-doc texlive-latex-recommended
texlive-latex-recommended-doc texlive-luatex texlive-metapost
texlive-metapost-doc texlive-pictures texlive-pictures-doc
texlive-pstricks texlive-pstricks-doc texlive-publishers
texlive-publishers-doc texlive-science texlive-science-doc
traceroute update-inetd util-linux valgrind whiptail xfce4-notifyd
xfce4-volumed xinput xserver-common xserver-xephyr
xserver-xorg-core xserver-xorg-input-synaptics yelp-xsl
The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
gnome-keyring (R: gvfs-backends, S: libgnome-keyring0)
uuid-runtime (R: libuuid1)
154 packages upgraded, 22 newly installed, 3 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 1,130 MB of archives. After unpacking 781 MB
Re: aptitude full-upgrade installs unnecessary packages
Wayne Topa linux...@gmail.com writes: On 06/15/2012 10:24 AM, Christoph Groth wrote: For a reason that I do not understand, currently full-upgrade wants to install some rather huge packages. Install the debian-reference package and read section 2.3.5. System wide upgrade Thanks. I read section 2.3.5, but I don't see how this helps with my problem. aptitude -D is supposed to show for each package to be newly installed the reason why it is needed. In my case, aptitude wants to install texlive-fonts-extra though this package is currently not installed and also (to my knowledge) not required or recommended in any way. apt-get full-upgrade wants to do the same, BTW. Christoph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87r4tgmu0d@falma.de
Re: aptitude full-upgrade installs unnecessary packages
On 2012-06-15 18:15 +0200, Christoph Groth wrote: aptitude -D is supposed to show for each package to be newly installed the reason why it is needed. In my case, aptitude wants to install texlive-fonts-extra though this package is currently not installed and also (to my knowledge) not required or recommended in any way. Interesting. apt-get full-upgrade wants to do the same, BTW. Please show the output of dpkg -l texlive-fonts-extra. Cheers, Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87lijobl83@turtle.gmx.de
Re: aptitude full-upgrade installs unnecessary packages
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote: On 2012-06-15 18:15 +0200, Christoph Groth wrote: aptitude -D is supposed to show for each package to be newly installed the reason why it is needed. In my case, aptitude wants to install texlive-fonts-extra though this package is currently not installed and also (to my knowledge) not required or recommended in any way. Interesting. apt-get full-upgrade wants to do the same, BTW. Please show the output of dpkg -l texlive-fonts-extra. Cheers, Sven Some time back the policy changed to install by default the recommended ones. So I had to include in my setting: APT::Install-Recommends false; I'm not sure if that would help you. Also I would turn off suggested packages if you have them turned on (they are not by default), like: APT::Install-Suggests false; Perhaps you could try those and see what happens, :-) It might this is not related to your problem, but if you know what you're doing, it'd be worth giving it a try... -- Javier. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CALUrRGeR9Wh+8rrMTK7DqO3OoQ3=pog2gqzttf6smk+44nk...@mail.gmail.com
Re: aptitude full-upgrade installs unnecessary packages
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Christoph Groth c...@falma.de wrote: Wayne Topa linux...@gmail.com writes: On 06/15/2012 10:24 AM, Christoph Groth wrote: For a reason that I do not understand, currently full-upgrade wants to install some rather huge packages. Install the debian-reference package and read section 2.3.5. System wide upgrade Thanks. I read section 2.3.5, but I don't see how this helps with my problem. aptitude -D is supposed to show for each package to be newly installed the reason why it is needed. In my case, aptitude wants to install texlive-fonts-extra though this package is currently not installed and also (to my knowledge) not required or recommended in any way. apt-get full-upgrade wants to do the same, BTW. Run aptitude search '?reverse-depends(texlive-fonts-extra)' and you'll see that it's dpkg that's pulling it in. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=Sx9W2udxmETHxpmJqJL=8o0w35mxcz0vrnhepucyiy...@mail.gmail.com
Re: aptitude full-upgrade installs unnecessary packages
Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de writes: On 2012-06-15 18:15 +0200, Christoph Groth wrote: aptitude -D is supposed to show for each package to be newly installed the reason why it is needed. In my case, aptitude wants to install texlive-fonts-extra though this package is currently not installed and also (to my knowledge) not required or recommended in any way. Interesting. apt-get full-upgrade wants to do the same, BTW. Please show the output of dpkg -l texlive-fonts-extra. % dpkg -l texlive-fonts-extra Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold | Status=Not/Inst/Conf-files/Unpacked/halF-conf/Half-inst/trig-aWait/Trig-pend |/ Err?=(none)/Reinst-required (Status,Err: uppercase=bad) ||/ Name VersionDescription +++-==-==- un texlive-fonts- none (no description available) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/877gv8zfsc@falma.de
Re: aptitude full-upgrade installs unnecessary packages
Javier Vasquez j.e.vasque...@gmail.com writes: Some time back the policy changed to install by default the recommended ones. So I had to include in my setting: APT::Install-Recommends false; I'm not sure if that would help you. Also I would turn off suggested packages if you have them turned on (they are not by default), like: APT::Install-Suggests false; Perhaps you could try those and see what happens, :-) It might this is not related to your problem, but if you know what you're doing, it'd be worth giving it a try... I believe this is not related to my problem. If some package depends, recommends or suggests texlive-fonts-extra, this should be shown by aptitude -D. Also, aptitude -RD full-upgrade (this is equivalent to setting APT::Install-Recommends to false) wants to install texlive-fonts-extra as well. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87395wzfly@falma.de
Re: aptitude full-upgrade installs unnecessary packages
On 06/15/2012 12:15 PM, Christoph Groth wrote: Wayne Topalinux...@gmail.com writes: On 06/15/2012 10:24 AM, Christoph Groth wrote: For a reason that I do not understand, currently full-upgrade wants to install some rather huge packages. Install the debian-reference package and read section 2.3.5. System wide upgrade Thanks. I read section 2.3.5, but I don't see how this helps with my problem. You should make precautionary moves for the full upgrade while gathering latest information from mailing list and using common senses. The cautions alone are enough to give you a hint. Did you do the 13 steps after the above? In 19+ years of using Debian, I have done only 1 full-upgrade and that was a few years ago. For me, once was enough. A safe-upgrade means just that, safe. YMMV aptitude -D is supposed to show for each package to be newly installed the reason why it is needed. In my case, aptitude wants to install texlive-fonts-extra though this package is currently not installed and also (to my knowledge) not required or recommended in any way. apt-get full-upgrade wants to do the same, BTW. Christoph -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fdb68fa.8030...@gmail.com
Re: aptitude full-upgrade installs unnecessary packages
On 15/06/12 17:15, Christoph Groth wrote: Wayne Topalinux...@gmail.com writes: On 06/15/2012 10:24 AM, Christoph Groth wrote: For a reason that I do not understand, currently full-upgrade wants to install some rather huge packages. aptitude -D is supposed to show for each package to be newly installed the reason why it is needed. In my case, aptitude wants to install texlive-fonts-extra though this package is currently not installed and also (to my knowledge) not required or recommended in any way. apt-get full-upgrade wants to do the same, BTW. What does aptitude why texlive-fonts-extra say? -- Dom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fdb6e5c.7030...@rpdom.net
Re: aptitude full-upgrade installs unnecessary packages
On 2012-06-15 18:38 +0200, Tom H wrote: Run aptitude search '?reverse-depends(texlive-fonts-extra)' and you'll see that it's dpkg that's pulling it in. Sorry, you seem to be mistaken: texlive-fonts-extra depends on dpkg, not the other way around. Cheers, Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fw9wbh2b@turtle.gmx.de
Re: aptitude full-upgrade installs unnecessary packages
Dom to...@rpdom.net writes: What does aptitude why texlive-fonts-extra say? See original posting. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/878vfo2xfg@falma.de
Re: aptitude full-upgrade installs unnecessary packages
On 2012-06-15 16:24 +0200, Christoph Groth wrote:
Please consider the output of aptitude -D full-upgrade below. I do
not see any reason to install texlive-fonts-extra, and aptitude also
does not seem to see one. But it still wants to install the package.
Why?
Probably because texpower (which is currently installed) depends on it,
although texpower itself is being removed as unused:
The following packages will be REMOVED:
libgegl-0.1-0{u} (D: gimp)
texpower{u} (R: texlive-latex-extra, R: texpower-manual)
texpower-manual{u} (R: texpower)
This seems to be a bug in the resolver. Removing texpower before the
upgrade should work around it.
Cheers,
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/878vfobbz3@turtle.gmx.de
Re: aptitude full-upgrade installs unnecessary packages
Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de writes:
On 2012-06-15 16:24 +0200, Christoph Groth wrote:
Please consider the output of aptitude -D full-upgrade below. I do
not see any reason to install texlive-fonts-extra, and aptitude also
does not seem to see one. But it still wants to install the package.
Why?
Probably because texpower (which is currently installed) depends on it,
although texpower itself is being removed as unused:
The following packages will be REMOVED:
libgegl-0.1-0{u} (D: gimp)
texpower{u} (R: texlive-latex-extra, R: texpower-manual)
texpower-manual{u} (R: texpower)
This seems to be a bug in the resolver. Removing texpower before the
upgrade should work around it.
This is it! It indeed seems to be a bug: the currently installed
texpower does not depend on texlive-fonts-extra, but the newer versions
do. However, texpower will be removed.
Should I report this with aptitude or with apt?
Thanks,
Christoph
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/874nqc2vpe@falma.de
Re: aptitude full-upgrade installs unnecessary packages
On 2012-06-15 21:58 +0200, Christoph Groth wrote:
Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de writes:
On 2012-06-15 16:24 +0200, Christoph Groth wrote:
Please consider the output of aptitude -D full-upgrade below. I do
not see any reason to install texlive-fonts-extra, and aptitude also
does not seem to see one. But it still wants to install the package.
Why?
Probably because texpower (which is currently installed) depends on it,
although texpower itself is being removed as unused:
The following packages will be REMOVED:
libgegl-0.1-0{u} (D: gimp)
texpower{u} (R: texlive-latex-extra, R: texpower-manual)
texpower-manual{u} (R: texpower)
This seems to be a bug in the resolver. Removing texpower before the
upgrade should work around it.
This is it! It indeed seems to be a bug: the currently installed
texpower does not depend on texlive-fonts-extra, but the newer versions
do. However, texpower will be removed.
Should I report this with aptitude or with apt?
With aptitude, I think: apt-get dist-upgrade does not remove unused
packages by default, so the result is actually expected.
Cheers,
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87395wbaoj@turtle.gmx.de
Re: aptitude full-upgrade installs unnecessary packages
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote: On 2012-06-15 18:38 +0200, Tom H wrote: Run aptitude search '?reverse-depends(texlive-fonts-extra)' and you'll see that it's dpkg that's pulling it in. Sorry, you seem to be mistaken: texlive-fonts-extra depends on dpkg, not the other way around. Sorry. It's not the first time that I mix up ?reverse-depends and ?depends... :( -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=Sw7EOZ5aSgJ-UnfM0LETqbBcAQR9+V4WRQ=g1ut7x8...@mail.gmail.com
Re: apt-get removing unnecessary packages?
Hi, This is not a problem. libqt2 conflicts with qt1g. So apt wants to remove qt1g. But if qt1g is removed, then all of your old kde apps have to be removed. It is the time to upgrade your kde apps using qt2. Shao. Jon Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This morning I'm attempting to install the licq package. done this before so it's no problem. This time it said i had to get the licq-plugin package, so mno problem there, but when i attempt to grab that, it gives me the following message: Note, installing licq-plugin-qt2 instead of licq-plugin The following extra packages will be installed: libqt2 licq-plugin-qt2 The following packages will be REMOVED: kdeadmin kdebase kdebase-i18n kdegames kdegraphics kdelibs-doc kdelibs2g kdelibs2g-dev kdemultimedia kdenetwork kdenetwork-dev kdesupport0g kdesupport0g-dev kdetoys kdeutils kdm korganizer qt1g qt1g-dev The following NEW packages will be installed: libqt2 licq-plugin-qt2 0 packages upgraded, 2 newly installed, 19 to remove and 129 not upgraded. Need to get 1525kB of archives. After unpacking 55.1MB will be freed. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] Is there a reason for it to uninstall all of my KDE packages at all? I've had licq working through kde before and this just seems like it's a very stupid thing for it to do Jon = God, Root. What is the difference? Pitr, User Friendly __ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place. Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- Shao Zhang - Running Debian 2.1 ___ _ _ Department of Communications/ __| |_ __ _ ___ |_ / |_ __ _ _ _ __ _ University of New South Wales \__ \ ' \/ _` / _ \ / /| ' \/ _` | ' \/ _` | Sydney, Australia |___/_||_\__,_\___/ /___|_||_\__,_|_||_\__, | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |___/ _
apt-get removing unnecessary packages?
This morning I'm attempting to install the licq package. done this before so it's no problem. This time it said i had to get the licq-plugin package, so mno problem there, but when i attempt to grab that, it gives me the following message: Note, installing licq-plugin-qt2 instead of licq-plugin The following extra packages will be installed: libqt2 licq-plugin-qt2 The following packages will be REMOVED: kdeadmin kdebase kdebase-i18n kdegames kdegraphics kdelibs-doc kdelibs2g kdelibs2g-dev kdemultimedia kdenetwork kdenetwork-dev kdesupport0g kdesupport0g-dev kdetoys kdeutils kdm korganizer qt1g qt1g-dev The following NEW packages will be installed: libqt2 licq-plugin-qt2 0 packages upgraded, 2 newly installed, 19 to remove and 129 not upgraded. Need to get 1525kB of archives. After unpacking 55.1MB will be freed. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] Is there a reason for it to uninstall all of my KDE packages at all? I've had licq working through kde before and this just seems like it's a very stupid thing for it to do Jon = God, Root. What is the difference? Pitr, User Friendly __ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place. Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com
