Creation of Debian packages of Kernel and RTAI(real time application interface)

[Manish Damodare]

Hello Debian Community Support Team,
I was already installed and compiled Kernel with rtai patches of
4.9.146-rtai_5.2
Can you suggest me proper steps to follow debian packages load in my kernel
please let me know.

Thank you,
Manish D.
@india

Re: Investigating internals of Debian packages

[Tom Dial]

On 6/11/20 05:03, Richard Owlett wrote:
> I'm interested in the installer  menu titled "Software Selection".
> I want to know explicitly what happens when "Debian desktop environment"
> and/or "MATE" is checked.

Pretty much the same thing that happens when you enter the command
"tasksel," I think.

/usr/bin/tasksel is a perl program, so not impossible for a human to
read and understand. It is less difficult than many perl programs I have
seen, and it also has a man page indicating that it has a test mode that
does nothing, as well as several information options.

In test mode it runs much as you see during and install, but instead of
doing the requested action, it prints on the terminal the apt command
that would be run. (Note that you would have to do this as root or using
the sudo command).

Synaptic or probably aptitude could then be used to identify which
packages would be installed. In the alternative, you could capture the
output and run it in test mode, which would show fairly precisely the
effect.


Regards,
Tom Dial

> TIA

Re: Investigating internals of Debian packages

[Richard Owlett]

On 06/11/2020 06:24 AM, The Wanderer wrote:

On 2020-06-11 at 07:03, Richard Owlett wrote:


I'm interested in the installer  menu titled "Software Selection". I
want to know explicitly what happens when "Debian desktop
environment" and/or "MATE" is checked.


If you want to know the specific sequence of coded actions, you'll have
to look at the source of that menu,


That was what I wanted. I had seen task-mate-desktop before and I'm not 
seeing what I expected from what I installed and how I did the 
installation *THIS TIME*. I'll have to try to reproduce a former 
installation.


Will not have opportunity at least until tomorrow.
Thank you to you and others who responded.



which I expect is part of
debian-installer. (And possibly follow up from there to look in other
places, depending on what that source shows.)

If you just want to know more generally, look at the output of the
following:

$ apt-cache search ^task-

As I understand matters, the things which can be selected for
installation during the Debian installer bootstrap process are called
"tasks", and every single one has a corresponding package whose name
begins with 'task-'. The descriptions of those packages match (and are
probably the origin of) the entries in that menu.

These packages then depend on a selection of other packages, which
actually contain the files necessary to provide the thing selected. As
far as I know, these task-* packages don't contain any files of their
own, other than a single file each under /usr/share/doc/.

In particular, "Debian desktop environment" corresponds to the package
'task-desktop', and "MATE" corresponds to the package
'task-mate-desktop'.

The step-by-step actions which happen to get each selected package and
its dependencies installed (including such details as whether Recommends
are treated as important, and whether something is done to cause the
depended-on packages to be marked as manually installed) I do not know;
if I wanted to find out, then as above, I'd have to investigate
debian-installer itself.

Re: Investigating internals of Debian packages

[Greg Wooledge]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 02:21:50PM +0200, Marco Möller wrote:
> On 11.06.20 13:03, Richard Owlett wrote:
> > I'm interested in the installer  menu titled "Software Selection".
> > I want to know explicitly what happens when "Debian desktop environment"
> > and/or "MATE" is checked.
> > TIA
> 
> The for me most important observation is, that if deactivating all listed
> desktop environments and only keeping activated the initial listed entry
> "Debian desktop environment", then a full-fledged GMOME desktop will be
> installed.

Actually, it depends on which installer image was used.  The "Debian
desktop environment" setting picks *a* desktop environment, but doesn't
tell you which one it will be.  If you use a standard netinst-* or
firmware-* or dvd-1-* installer image, it will be GNOME 3.  If you use
one of the various Live images, however, it could be something else.

Re: Investigating internals of Debian packages

[Brian]

On Thu 11 Jun 2020 at 06:03:28 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:

> I'm interested in the installer  menu titled "Software Selection".
> I want to know explicitly what happens when "Debian desktop environment"
> and/or "MATE" is checked.
> TIA

Checking "Debian desktop environment" alone gets you the task-desktop
package. From

  apt show task-desktop

we see

  Recommends: task-gnome-desktop | task-xfce-desktop | ...

This means that task-gnome-desktop is installed. In other words you get
Gnome as a desktop.

Checking "MATE" alone gets you the task-mate-desktop package. From

  apt show task-mate-desktop

we see

  Depends: tasksel (= 3.53), task-desktop, ...

task-desktop is installed and its Recommends: is fulfilled by the
ask-mate-desktop package. You get MATE.

Checking "Debian desktop environment" and "MATE" is the same as checking
"MATE" alone.

-- 
Brian.

Re: Investigating internals of Debian packages

[Marco Möller]

On 11.06.20 13:03, Richard Owlett wrote:

I'm interested in the installer  menu titled "Software Selection".
I want to know explicitly what happens when "Debian desktop environment" 
and/or "MATE" is checked.

TIA



The for me most important observation is, that if deactivating all 
listed desktop environments and only keeping activated the initial 
listed entry "Debian desktop environment", then a full-fledged GMOME 
desktop will be installed.

Marco.

Re: Investigating internals of Debian packages

[The Wanderer]

On 2020-06-11 at 07:03, Richard Owlett wrote:

> I'm interested in the installer  menu titled "Software Selection". I
> want to know explicitly what happens when "Debian desktop
> environment" and/or "MATE" is checked.

If you want to know the specific sequence of coded actions, you'll have
to look at the source of that menu, which I expect is part of
debian-installer. (And possibly follow up from there to look in other
places, depending on what that source shows.)

If you just want to know more generally, look at the output of the
following:

$ apt-cache search ^task-

As I understand matters, the things which can be selected for
installation during the Debian installer bootstrap process are called
"tasks", and every single one has a corresponding package whose name
begins with 'task-'. The descriptions of those packages match (and are
probably the origin of) the entries in that menu.

These packages then depend on a selection of other packages, which
actually contain the files necessary to provide the thing selected. As
far as I know, these task-* packages don't contain any files of their
own, other than a single file each under /usr/share/doc/.

In particular, "Debian desktop environment" corresponds to the package
'task-desktop', and "MATE" corresponds to the package
'task-mate-desktop'.

The step-by-step actions which happen to get each selected package and
its dependencies installed (including such details as whether Recommends
are treated as important, and whether something is done to cause the
depended-on packages to be marked as manually installed) I do not know;
if I wanted to find out, then as above, I'd have to investigate
debian-installer itself.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Investigating internals of Debian packages

[Richard Owlett]

I'm interested in the installer  menu titled "Software Selection".
I want to know explicitly what happens when "Debian desktop environment" 
and/or "MATE" is checked.

TIA

Re: The simpliest way to automatically rebuild few Debian packages ?

[deloptes]

Vincent Lefevre wrote:

> I was just asking, in case there would be some advantage.
> For instance, it seems to install build dependencies automatically.

I understand. It is bothering to install dependencies, I agree - but it is
one time job. I do it when setting up the build environment - it takes
ages :/

I think your solution is good enough - perhaps you should check which
dependencies are required and decide what to do, or you can script a
workaround it usually fails with a line saying what are the missing
dependencies.
But I even doubt it is possible, because there are alternatives and how
would some code know what to install?

Re: The simpliest way to automatically rebuild few Debian packages ?

[Vincent Lefevre]

On 2020-04-23 08:31:32 +0200, deloptes wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> 
> > I was wondering whether apt-build could automate things even more
> > than my current solution, but it seems that my current solution can
> > do more, at least for the goal of just patching source packages and
> > rebuilding.
> 
> I did not miss this in the beginning. I did not understand why you try to do
> it with apt-build. I still don't

I was just asking, in case there would be some advantage.
For instance, it seems to install build dependencies automatically.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre  - Web: 
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: 
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

Re: The simpliest way to automatically rebuild few Debian packages ?

[deloptes]

Vincent Lefevre wrote:

> I was wondering whether apt-build could automate things even more
> than my current solution, but it seems that my current solution can
> do more, at least for the goal of just patching source packages and
> rebuilding.

I did not miss this in the beginning. I did not understand why you try to do
it with apt-build. I still don't

Re: The simpliest way to automatically rebuild few Debian packages ?

[Vincent Lefevre]

On 2020-04-22 22:18:19 +0200, deloptes wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> 
> > On 2020-04-22 08:29:09 +0200, deloptes wrote:
> >> OK I understand now. I did not have a problem to add a new section in the
> >> changelog with
> >>   dch -v "4:$BUILDISTRO_NAME" -D "$DISTRO_NAME" -c $debian/changelog \
> >>   "Autogenerated by building script"
> >> 
> >> $BUILDISTRO_NAME is the release number (14.1.0-0debian10.3.3+4eko) and
> >> DISTRO_NAME is for example buster
> >> 
> >> for me it works great. For example
> >> 
> >> tdelibs-trinity (4:14.1.0-0debian10.3.3+4eko) buster; urgency=medium
> >> 
> >>   * Autogenerated by building script
> >> 
> >> does it help?
> > 
> > No. Could you give an example with the apt-build call?
> 
> No, cause I use debuild, however your question was how to put it in the
> changelog, or I misunderstood.

You misunderstood, and probably didn't pay attention at the beginning
of the thread. In my message from 21 Apr 2020 17:31:38 +0200, I gave
an example using dch and debuild (which is the solution I've been
using for years). And to the suggestion about using apt-build, I asked
"can one provide a log message associated with each patch?".

> I have no idea what apt-build does. I looked at the package, but not
> likely that I will ever need it

I was wondering whether apt-build could automate things even more
than my current solution, but it seems that my current solution can
do more, at least for the goal of just patching source packages and
rebuilding.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre  - Web: 
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: 
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

Re: The simpliest way to automatically rebuild few Debian packages ?

[deloptes]

Vincent Lefevre wrote:

> On 2020-04-22 08:29:09 +0200, deloptes wrote:
>> OK I understand now. I did not have a problem to add a new section in the
>> changelog with
>>   dch -v "4:$BUILDISTRO_NAME" -D "$DISTRO_NAME" -c $debian/changelog \
>>   "Autogenerated by building script"
>> 
>> $BUILDISTRO_NAME is the release number (14.1.0-0debian10.3.3+4eko) and
>> DISTRO_NAME is for example buster
>> 
>> for me it works great. For example
>> 
>> tdelibs-trinity (4:14.1.0-0debian10.3.3+4eko) buster; urgency=medium
>> 
>>   * Autogenerated by building script
>> 
>> does it help?
> 
> No. Could you give an example with the apt-build call?

No, cause I use debuild, however your question was how to put it in the
changelog, or I misunderstood. I have no idea what apt-build does. I looked
at the package, but not likely that I will ever need it

Re: The simpliest way to automatically rebuild few Debian packages ?

[Vincent Lefevre]

On 2020-04-22 08:29:09 +0200, deloptes wrote:
> OK I understand now. I did not have a problem to add a new section in the
> changelog with
>   dch -v "4:$BUILDISTRO_NAME" -D "$DISTRO_NAME" -c $debian/changelog \
>   "Autogenerated by building script"
> 
> $BUILDISTRO_NAME is the release number (14.1.0-0debian10.3.3+4eko) and
> DISTRO_NAME is for example buster
> 
> for me it works great. For example
> 
> tdelibs-trinity (4:14.1.0-0debian10.3.3+4eko) buster; urgency=medium
> 
>   * Autogenerated by building script
> 
> does it help? 

No. Could you give an example with the apt-build call?

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre  - Web: 
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: 
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

Re: The simpliest way to automatically rebuild few Debian packages ?

[deloptes]

Vincent Lefevre wrote:

> I think that you misunderstood. I'm not talking about the build log
> (which the end user will never see), but the Debian changelog file,
> which will be installed as
> 
> /usr/share/doc//changelog.Debian.gz
> 
> For instance, for libtool on my machines I can see e.g.:
> 
> libtool (2.4.6-13+local1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
> 
> * Applied patch fixing bug #814091 (use a run path for tcc).
> 
> -- Vincent Lefevre   Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:24:48 +0100
> 
> The patch system *alone* (via quilt or not) does not handle that.
> 
>
https://raphaelhertzog.com/2011/07/04/how-to-prepare-patches-for-debian-packages/
> mentions the use of dch, and it seems that the debdiff output
> will contain the change in the Debian changelog file, but even
> if apt-build can handle that (which I doubt), this is not OK
> since after a package upgrade, the debdiff is no longer valid
> (though the original patch may still remain valid, and will
> generally do as I could see; for instance, my patch for the
> above bug has been on the BTS for more than 4 years).

OK I understand now. I did not have a problem to add a new section in the
changelog with
  dch -v "4:$BUILDISTRO_NAME" -D "$DISTRO_NAME" -c $debian/changelog \
  "Autogenerated by building script"

$BUILDISTRO_NAME is the release number (14.1.0-0debian10.3.3+4eko) and
DISTRO_NAME is for example buster

for me it works great. For example

tdelibs-trinity (4:14.1.0-0debian10.3.3+4eko) buster; urgency=medium

  * Autogenerated by building script

does it help? 

Re: The simpliest way to automatically rebuild few Debian packages ?

[Vincent Lefevre]

On 2020-04-21 20:53:42 +0200, deloptes wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> 
> > Patches don't add log messages in general. I meant like what dch
> > does.
> yes because you are working outside of debuild. debuild creates a build file
> that includes all the steps to produce the build
> 
> in any case
> 
> https://raphaelhertzog.com/2011/07/04/how-to-prepare-patches-for-debian-packages/
> 
> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/modify.en.html#fixupstream
> https://wiki.debian.org/debian/patches
> 
> I think what you are missing is the quilt. when you register the patch in
> the debian build, the build log should include some lines like applying
> patch blah blah and at the end unapplying blah blah.

I think that you misunderstood. I'm not talking about the build log
(which the end user will never see), but the Debian changelog file,
which will be installed as

  /usr/share/doc//changelog.Debian.gz

For instance, for libtool on my machines I can see e.g.:

libtool (2.4.6-13+local1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium

  * Applied patch fixing bug #814091 (use a run path for tcc).

 -- Vincent Lefevre   Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:24:48 +0100

The patch system *alone* (via quilt or not) does not handle that.

https://raphaelhertzog.com/2011/07/04/how-to-prepare-patches-for-debian-packages/
mentions the use of dch, and it seems that the debdiff output
will contain the change in the Debian changelog file, but even
if apt-build can handle that (which I doubt), this is not OK
since after a package upgrade, the debdiff is no longer valid
(though the original patch may still remain valid, and will
generally do as I could see; for instance, my patch for the
above bug has been on the BTS for more than 4 years).

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre  - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

Re: The simpliest way to automatically rebuild few Debian packages ?

[deloptes]

Vincent Lefevre wrote:

> Patches don't add log messages in general. I meant like what dch
> does.
yes because you are working outside of debuild. debuild creates a build file
that includes all the steps to produce the build

in any case

https://raphaelhertzog.com/2011/07/04/how-to-prepare-patches-for-debian-packages/

https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/modify.en.html#fixupstream
https://wiki.debian.org/debian/patches

I think what you are missing is the quilt. when you register the patch in
the debian build, the build log should include some lines like applying
patch blah blah and at the end unapplying blah blah.

Re: The simpliest way to automatically rebuild few Debian packages ?

[Vincent Lefevre]

On 2020-04-21 18:37:03 +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 05:31:38PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2020-04-21 16:44:57 +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > apt install apt-build
> > > 
> > > Requires some scripting to run without a human intervention, it's
> > > relatively simple.
> > 
> > Can it handle the rebuild for multiple architectures?
> 
> No. As far as I can tell, you cannot pass it that '-a' flag for
> dpkg-buildpackage.
> But then, '-a' means cross-compilation, and that tends to implement its
> own, unique problems.

My solution handles that without any problem. I forgot to give
an example for this case. For my rebuild of libtool, I have at
the end of my script:

arch=()

for i in $(dpkg --print-foreign-architectures)
do
  if dpkg -s libltdl-dev:$i >& /dev/null; then
arch+=$i
  fi
done

md_build $arch

Also I forgot to say that my script won't install build dependencies
automatically. If there are missing build dependencies, debuild ends
with a meaningful message, telling what is missing.

> > And can one provide a log message associated with each patch?
> 
> I'm unsure what you mean by that. It longs the whole building
> process to stdout, that includes applying the patches.

Patches don't add log messages in general. I meant like what dch
does.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre  - Web: 
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: 
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

Re: The simpliest way to automatically rebuild few Debian packages ?

[Reco]

Hi.

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 05:31:38PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2020-04-21 16:44:57 +0300, Reco wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:23:37PM +0200, Thomas Martin wrote:
> > > My goal is simple : I'm applying few modifications on some Debian
> > > packages and would like those packages to be rebuilt with my changes
> > > when a new package version is available.
> > 
> > apt install apt-build
> > 
> > Requires some scripting to run without a human intervention, it's
> > relatively simple.
> 
> Can it handle the rebuild for multiple architectures?

No. As far as I can tell, you cannot pass it that '-a' flag for
dpkg-buildpackage.
But then, '-a' means cross-compilation, and that tends to implement its
own, unique problems.

> And can one provide a log message associated with each patch?

I'm unsure what you mean by that. It longs the whole building process to
stdout, that includes applying the patches.

Reco

Re: The simpliest way to automatically rebuild few Debian packages ?

[Vincent Lefevre]

Hi,

On 2020-04-21 16:44:57 +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:23:37PM +0200, Thomas Martin wrote:
> > My goal is simple : I'm applying few modifications on some Debian
> > packages and would like those packages to be rebuilt with my changes
> > when a new package version is available.
> 
> apt install apt-build
> 
> Requires some scripting to run without a human intervention, it's
> relatively simple.

Can it handle the rebuild for multiple architectures?
And can one provide a log message associated with each patch?

FYI, I currently use a script (one for each source package)
based on common functions (attached).

A typical script consists of:


#!/usr/bin/env zsh

set -e

. $0:h/mkdebs-functions

apt-get source -t unstable 

cd -*

[patch code]

dch -l +local ""

md_build "$@"


Note that mkdebs-functions does the cd to a temporary directory.

If I wish to add another patch before the rebuild, I can insert:

[patch code 2]
dch -a ""

If I wish to add another patch after a rebuild (so that I need
to increase the local version):

[patch code 2]
dch -l +local ""

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre  - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
# mkdebs support
#
# Note: the shell must be zsh so that "trap" behaves as wanted
# (POSIX does not provide enough specification).
#
# The md_build function optionally takes architectures in arguments.

debdir=$HOME/software/deb
tmpdir=$(mktemp -d /tmp/mkdebs-)

cleanup_and_exit()
{
  local exitstat=$?
  echo "Clean-up..."
  rm -rf -- $tmpdir
  exit $exitstat
}

trap cleanup_and_exit EXIT SIGHUP SIGINT SIGQUIT SIGTERM

cd $tmpdir

md_build()
{
  local i
  # Use debuild in order to have a sanitized environment for the build.
  # There must be no spaces between the "-a" option and its value; see
  #   https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=898706
  for i in '' $@
  do
printf > /dev/tty "\e]2;Build of %s${i:+ for $i}\x07" \
  "$(head -n 1 debian/changelog | sed 's/(\([^)]*\)).*/\1/')"
debuild -i -us -uc -b ${=i:+-a$i}
  done
  cd ..
  mkdir -p "$debdir"
  mv -v *.deb "$debdir"
}

# local variables:
# mode: sh
# eval: (sh-set-shell "zsh")
# end:
#
# $Id: mkdebs-functions 125239 2020-02-10 13:26:05Z vinc17/cventin $

Re: The simpliest way to automatically rebuild few Debian packages ?

[Thomas Martin]

Hi,

Thank you, I will check this out.


Thomas

Le mar. 21 avr. 2020 à 15:45, Reco  a écrit :
>
> Hi.
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:23:37PM +0200, Thomas Martin wrote:
> > My goal is simple : I'm applying few modifications on some Debian
> > packages and would like those packages to be rebuilt with my changes
> > when a new package version is available.
>
> apt install apt-build
>
> Requires some scripting to run without a human intervention, it's
> relatively simple.
>
> Reco
>

Re: The simpliest way to automatically rebuild few Debian packages ?

[Reco]

Hi.

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:23:37PM +0200, Thomas Martin wrote:
> My goal is simple : I'm applying few modifications on some Debian
> packages and would like those packages to be rebuilt with my changes
> when a new package version is available.

apt install apt-build

Requires some scripting to run without a human intervention, it's
relatively simple.

Reco

The simpliest way to automatically rebuild few Debian packages ?

[Thomas Martin]

Hello,

I would like to know what is the simplest way to rebuild Debian
packages automatically when a new version of the package is released ?

My goal is simple : I'm applying few modifications on some Debian
packages and would like those packages to be rebuilt with my changes
when a new package version is available.

For example, when a new Buster ssh version is released i would like to
automatically :
- download the new sources version
- apply my custom
- build the package


I took a look at buildd and sbuild but they seems quite heavy for my
needs (and I'm actually having an hard time debugging buildd).

Should I create my own script ?

Any tips would be much appreciated.
Thanks!

Regards,
Thomas

Re: Install OpenSMTPD from source or use the Debian packages?

[Tom Browder]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 14:29 Greg Wooledge  wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 02:26:26PM -0600, Tom Browder wrote:
> > Tixy, thanks. I did check the latest Deb 10 version but not the change
> log.
> > I was fooled by the Debian version number which looks like the BSD number
> > which I guess never changes.
>
> https://www.debian.org/security/faq#version
>

Greg, thanks for the link.

I am very grateful for all the helpful replies.

And I am very glad to have learned some new things, including more
reinforcement for my having chosen Debian as my go-to distro  since Debian
4: a gift that keeps on giving!

Debian users are a nice (and talented) bunch of people.

Cheers!

-Tom

Re: Install OpenSMTPD from source or use the Debian packages?

[Greg Wooledge]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 02:26:26PM -0600, Tom Browder wrote:
> Tixy, thanks. I did check the latest Deb 10 version but not the change log.
> I was fooled by the Debian version number which looks like the BSD number
> which I guess never changes.

https://www.debian.org/security/faq#version

Re: Install OpenSMTPD from source or use the Debian packages?

[Tom Browder]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 12:13 Tixy  wrote:

> On Wed, 2020-02-12 at 11:53 -0600, Tom Browder wrote:
> > I started looking in to use of OpenSMPTD for a mail server and have
> > installed it from Debian packages.
> >
> > In the process of reading a blog article by the current developer I
> > discovered the upstream is now at version 6.6.2p1+ after some serious
> > security issues were discovered by SSL Labs (Qualys). Note that
> > Debian
> > 10 is only at version 6.0.3p1!
>
> Are the security issues you are worried about not already fixed in
> Debian's package? To check, you can look at the changelog for the
> security update released two weeks ago...
>
> https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/o/opensmtpd/opensmtpd_6.0.3p1-5+deb10u3_changelog


Tixy, thanks. I did check the latest Deb 10 version but not the change log.
I was fooled by the Debian version number which looks like the BSD number
which I guess never changes. The change log does show the 6.6 and the
vulnerability mentioned which Debian fixed.

That is a good lesson for me for the future.

-Tom

Re: Install OpenSMTPD from source or use the Debian packages?

[Reco]

Hi.

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:53:09AM -0600, Tom Browder wrote:
> In the process of reading a blog article by the current developer I
> discovered the upstream is now at version 6.6.2p1+ after some serious
> security issues were discovered by SSL Labs (Qualys). Note that Debian
> 10 is only at version 6.0.3p1!

It's a common mistake to look at the beginning of the version of Debian
package, disregarding the rest.
Debian package is actually 6.0.3p1-5+deb10u3, and that deb10u3 part
contains the patches that fixed CVE-2020-7247 you're referring to.


> I would like to install from source but I wonder if that is such a
> smart move,

No, it does not. Specifically, if you're aiming at version 6.6.2p1 -
install opensmtpd from the backports.


> especially when we now use systemd and the source is set
> up with the traditional GNU automake system and I don't see any
> provision for systemd.  I don't grok systemd very well and usually
> rely on others for the proper setup.

And that's why the lazy among us use Debian packages - because packages
tend to fix such problems.


> I have asked for help on the OpenSMTPD mailing list,

But you'll likely to get OpenBSD-specific answer.

Reco

Re: Install OpenSMTPD from source or use the Debian packages?

[Mike Oliver]

Tom Browder writes:

> I started looking in to use of OpenSMPTD for a mail server and have
> installed it from Debian packages.
>
> In the process of reading a blog article by the current developer I
> discovered the upstream is now at version 6.6.2p1+ after some serious
> security issues were discovered by SSL Labs (Qualys). Note that Debian
> 10 is only at version 6.0.3p1!  See the source at:
>
>   https://github.com/OpenSMTPD/OpenSMTPD
>
> I would like to install from source but I wonder if that is such a
> smart move, especially when we now use systemd and the source is set
> up with the traditional GNU automake system and I don't see any
> provision for systemd.  I don't grok systemd very well and usually
> rely on others for the proper setup.
>
> I have asked for help on the OpenSMTPD mailing list, but I suggested
> my first effort would be to use the systemd setup used by the Debian
> installation (with appropriate renaming). I haven't received an answer
> yet.
>
> Opinions?
>
I'd suggest installing it from buster-backports. It looks like they have
the version you need:
https://packages.debian.org/buster-backports/mail/opensmtpd

If you don't already have backports enabled, you can read about doing so
here:
https://backports.debian.org/Instructions/

> Thanks.
>
> -Tom


--
Mike Oliver

Re: Install OpenSMTPD from source or use the Debian packages?

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Tom Browder (2020-02-12 18:53:09)
> I started looking in to use of OpenSMPTD for a mail server and have 
> installed it from Debian packages.
> 
> In the process of reading a blog article by the current developer I 
> discovered the upstream is now at version 6.6.2p1+ after some serious 
> security issues were discovered by SSL Labs (Qualys). Note that Debian 
> 10 is only at version 6.0.3p1!  See the source at:
> 
>   https://github.com/OpenSMTPD/OpenSMTPD
> 
> I would like to install from source but I wonder if that is such a 
> smart move, especially when we now use systemd and the source is set 
> up with the traditional GNU automake system and I don't see any 
> provision for systemd.  I don't grok systemd very well and usually 
> rely on others for the proper setup.
> 
> I have asked for help on the OpenSMTPD mailing list, but I suggested 
> my first effort would be to use the systemd setup used by the Debian 
> installation (with appropriate renaming). I haven't received an answer 
> yet.

Please beware that Debian backports bugfixes for stable releases, so it 
is not enough to look at version numbers to know if a package is 
vulnerable or not, you need to also inspect which patches has been 
applied.

That said, feel free to try do a better job than Debian.  If you like 
such work, then please do consider joining Debian so that others can 
benefit from the refinements that you make for yourself - that's why 
most if not all of us Debian developers do what we do: maintain and 
distribute our refinements as a coherent whole :-)


Kind regards,

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: Install OpenSMTPD from source or use the Debian packages?

[Eduardo M KALINOWSKI]

On qua, 12 fev 2020, Tom Browder wrote:


I started looking in to use of OpenSMPTD for a mail server and have
installed it from Debian packages.

In the process of reading a blog article by the current developer I
discovered the upstream is now at version 6.6.2p1+ after some serious
security issues were discovered by SSL Labs (Qualys). Note that Debian
10 is only at version 6.0.3p1!  See the source at:

  https://github.com/OpenSMTPD/OpenSMTPD

I would like to install from source but I wonder if that is such a
smart move, especially when we now use systemd and the source is set
up with the traditional GNU automake system and I don't see any
provision for systemd.  I don't grok systemd very well and usually
rely on others for the proper setup.

I have asked for help on the OpenSMTPD mailing list, but I suggested
my first effort would be to use the systemd setup used by the Debian
installation (with appropriate renaming). I haven't received an answer
yet.


buster-backports has 6.6.2p1:  
https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=opensmtpd


But note that while Debian stable rarely gets new versions, security  
fixes are backported onto the stable versions, so 6.0.3p1 might be  
"old", but probably has the security bugs fixed. You can see the  
status in  
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/opensmtpd .

--
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
edua...@kalinowski.com.br

Re: Install OpenSMTPD from source or use the Debian packages?

[Tixy]

On Wed, 2020-02-12 at 11:53 -0600, Tom Browder wrote:
> I started looking in to use of OpenSMPTD for a mail server and have
> installed it from Debian packages.
> 
> In the process of reading a blog article by the current developer I
> discovered the upstream is now at version 6.6.2p1+ after some serious
> security issues were discovered by SSL Labs (Qualys). Note that
> Debian
> 10 is only at version 6.0.3p1!

Are the security issues you are worried about not already fixed in
Debian's package? To check, you can look at the changelog for the
security update released two weeks ago...
https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/o/opensmtpd/opensmtpd_6.0.3p1-5+deb10u3_changelog

If you really want a newer version, buster-backports contains 6.6.2p1
but note that backports don't get official security support.

-- 
Tixy

Re: Install OpenSMTPD from source or use the Debian packages?

[Greg Wooledge]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:53:09AM -0600, Tom Browder wrote:
>   https://github.com/OpenSMTPD/OpenSMTPD
> 
> I would like to install from source but I wonder if that is such a
> smart move, especially when we now use systemd and the source is set
> up with the traditional GNU automake system and I don't see any
> provision for systemd.  I don't grok systemd very well and usually
> rely on others for the proper setup.
> 
> I have asked for help on the OpenSMTPD mailing list, but I suggested
> my first effort would be to use the systemd setup used by the Debian
> installation (with appropriate renaming). I haven't received an answer
> yet.

Well, you have two main issues.

First, you'll want to make sure *other* packages know that you have
a mail-transport-agent installed.  The Debian answer to this is a
package called "equivs" which lets you build dummy packages that
tell the package manager that you have various things, so it doesn't
freak out.

I believe equivs even comes with a sample control file that builds
a package that "provides:" mail-transport-agent.  Mine's named
mta-local.

Second, you'll need a way to start up your service after building and
installing it.  I don't know OpenSMTPD, and I don't know what its Debian
systemd unit file looks like.  If you intend to build and install
the upstream version in a way that looks just like the Debian package
does, then you might consider copying the Debian systemd unit file,
changing its ExecStart= line(s) to point to your daemon, and dropping
it in /etc/systemd/system/.

On the other hand, if the Debian package does a lot of crazy crap
that you do not intend to duplicate, you might find it easier to
write a systemd unit file from scratch.

Install OpenSMTPD from source or use the Debian packages?

[Tom Browder]

I started looking in to use of OpenSMPTD for a mail server and have
installed it from Debian packages.

In the process of reading a blog article by the current developer I
discovered the upstream is now at version 6.6.2p1+ after some serious
security issues were discovered by SSL Labs (Qualys). Note that Debian
10 is only at version 6.0.3p1!  See the source at:

  https://github.com/OpenSMTPD/OpenSMTPD

I would like to install from source but I wonder if that is such a
smart move, especially when we now use systemd and the source is set
up with the traditional GNU automake system and I don't see any
provision for systemd.  I don't grok systemd very well and usually
rely on others for the proper setup.

I have asked for help on the OpenSMTPD mailing list, but I suggested
my first effort would be to use the systemd setup used by the Debian
installation (with appropriate renaming). I haven't received an answer
yet.

Opinions?

Thanks.

-Tom

Re: Advantages of downloading Debian packages over tor

[Jonathan Sélea]

I do it for machines that is accessible over Tor only.

And in some cases, just because I can do it.

-- 
Jonathan Sélea

PGP Key: 0x8B35B3C894B964DD
Fingerprint: 4AF2 10DE 996B 673C 0FD8  AFA0 8B35 B3C8 94B9 64DD 

On tor, 2019-03-28 at 07:18 +, André Rodier wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> Is there any advantage, in terms of privacy, to download Debian
> packages 
> over the Tor network?
> 
> Are you doing it yourself, and if yes, for what reason(s)?
> 
> Is using the Tor transport better than a standard http proxy (e.g. 
> privoxy → tor) ?
> 
> Thanks for your insights.
> 
> André Rodier
> 

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Advantages of downloading Debian packages over tor

[ghe]

On 3/28/19 9:17 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:

> No. Because the least Google track is your IP address. It is true that
> Tor is meant to obscure your IP address, but "trackers", in your use
> of the word, are mostly Javascript code snippets (sometimes invisible
> images and things like that) made to convince your browser to betray
> you. And it'll betray you even through Tor.

Rats. Got a fix for that?

-- 
Glenn English

Re: Advantages of downloading Debian packages over tor

[Lee]

On 3/28/19, André Rodier  wrote:
> On 2019-03-28 16:12, John Hasler wrote:
>> tomas writes:
>>> No. Because the least Google track is your IP address. It is true that
>>> Tor is meant to obscure your IP address, but "trackers", in your use
>>> of the word, are mostly Javascript code snippets (sometimes invisible
>>> images and things like that) made to convince your browser to betray
>>> you. And it'll betray you even through Tor.
>>
>> But JS trackers are easily blocked by simply disallowing JS.
>
> I have not seen any valid reason to download packages over tor, neither
> to use the apt-transport-tor package.

If you get your packages from an .onion site you get end-to-end
encryption as well as hiding which packages you've downloaded from
whoever is watching your network traffic.

ref
https://bits.debian.org/2016/08/debian-and-tor-services-available-as-onion-services.html

Regards
Lee

Re: Advantages of downloading Debian packages over tor

[John Hasler]

tomas writes:
> No. Because the least Google track is your IP address. It is true that
> Tor is meant to obscure your IP address, but "trackers", in your use
> of the word, are mostly Javascript code snippets (sometimes invisible
> images and things like that) made to convince your browser to betray
> you. And it'll betray you even through Tor.

But JS trackers are easily blocked by simply disallowing JS.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

Re: Advantages of downloading Debian packages over tor

[tomas]

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 08:27:08AM -0600, ghe wrote:
> On 3/28/19 1:18 AM, André Rodier wrote:
> 
> > Is there any advantage, in terms of privacy, to download Debian packages
> > over the Tor network?
> 
> Tor's job is to keep the trackers away by bouncing your packets around
> so Google starts tracking the wrong IP address.

No. Because the least Google track is your IP address. It is true that
Tor is meant to obscure your IP address, but "trackers", in your use
of the word, are mostly Javascript code snippets (sometimes invisible
images and things like that) made to convince your browser to betray
you. And it'll betray you even through Tor.

Cheers
-- t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Advantages of downloading Debian packages over tor

[ghe]

On 3/28/19 1:18 AM, André Rodier wrote:

> Is there any advantage, in terms of privacy, to download Debian packages
> over the Tor network?

Tor's job is to keep the trackers away by bouncing your packets around
so Google starts tracking the wrong IP address. But the last hop is in
the clear, so its encryption is less than optimal -- not as thorough as GPG.

Privoxy is, as I understand it, a very competent ad blocker. The two do
different jobs. I used privoxy for a long time, before Tor came along,
but now just use the Firefox addon.

Debian and its mirrors don't do any of the nasty things, I think (hope).
So privoxy wouldn't help at all. And Tor wouldn't be much help unless
some mirrors started tracking people, so Tor might be of some help for
the truly paranoid.

> Are you doing it yourself, and if yes, for what reason(s)?

I don't. It'd never occurred to me. But I, as a true paranoid, will be
looking into it :-)

-- 
Glenn English

Re: Debian packages for Sparc

[Fred]

On 10/07/2017 06:48 PM, Sven Hartge wrote:

Fred  wrote:


I have a Sun Ultra 5 that needs to continue running Wheezy for a
while.  I tried to apt-update but binary_sparc is no longer at
http://security.debian.org/dists/wheezy/updates/Release.  What do I
need to change the sources list to?

Debian Wheezy LTS is only available for i386 and amd64. Official support
for Debian Wheezy for Sparc endet in April 2016.

So you are out of luck with official packages, but since the sources are
all available you are perfectly able to recompile packages where updates
have been released yourself.

Grüße,
Sven.


That sounds like a huge can of worms.  Thank you for letting me know.

Best regards,
Fred

Re: Debian packages for Sparc

[Sven Hartge]

Fred  wrote:

> I have a Sun Ultra 5 that needs to continue running Wheezy for a
> while.  I tried to apt-update but binary_sparc is no longer at
> http://security.debian.org/dists/wheezy/updates/Release.  What do I
> need to change the sources list to?

Debian Wheezy LTS is only available for i386 and amd64. Official support
for Debian Wheezy for Sparc endet in April 2016. 

So you are out of luck with official packages, but since the sources are
all available you are perfectly able to recompile packages where updates
have been released yourself.

Grüße,
Sven.

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

Debian packages for Sparc

[Fred]

Hello,

I have a Sun Ultra 5 that needs to continue running Wheezy for a while.  
I tried to apt-update but binary_sparc is no longer at 
http://security.debian.org/dists/wheezy/updates/Release.  What do I need 
to change the sources list to?


Best regards,
Fred

Re: Is there a list contains all debian packages and it's license ?

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 11:08:34AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 10:25:33 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > Not a readymade solution [...]

> It does, and Debian Policy says it must. That information ends up in
> /usr/share/doc/${binary_package}/copyright where ${binary_package} is the
> binary package [...]

Thanks, Simon: this fills a gap in my knowledge by providing the mising
piece :)

To the OP, since it seems to me that this wasn't explicit enough: a
Debian source packagee can be the origin of several binary packages.
A typical case wold be an SQL server, whose source contains server,
server libs, client and client libs -- but you don't want to install
the whole kaboodle in your embedded box which just wants to access
a database.

Cheers
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlnGNngACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaGCQCdHWfn0O844cuNYR61+nOkL+Pm
DT0An0qFbZgF1k0+qQNLo2UhJqo4G+1j
=53OW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Is there a list contains all debian packages and it's license ?

[Simon McVittie]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 10:25:33 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> Not a readymade solution, but perhaps a lead to follow: package copyright
> info is supposed to be in a file debian/copyright within the package source
> archive[1]. I don't know at the moment whether this info percolates to
> the package binary when building.

It does, and Debian Policy says it must. That information ends up in
/usr/share/doc/${binary_package}/copyright where ${binary_package} is the
binary package. For instance, the dbus source package produces binary
packages that include dbus, dbus-x11 and libdbus-1-3, so its
debian/copyright gets copied to /usr/share/doc/dbus/copyright,
/usr/share/doc/dbus-x11/copyright and /usr/share/doc/libdbus-1-3/copyright,
among others.

In rare cases the binary package copyright file is not identical to the
source copyright: if a package foo has a GPL part packaged as foo-utils
and a LGPL part packaged as libfoo0, it would be valid to list both GPL
and LGPL in debian/copyright, only GPL in /u/s/d/foo-utils/copyright
and only LGPL in /u/s/d/libfoo0/copyright. However, in practice
maintainers don't make use of this, because it creates extra work for
little or no benefit, and carries a risk of accidentally providing
incomplete or untrue copyright/licensing information.

S

Re: Is there a list contains all debian packages and it's license ?

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 04:05:49PM +0800, Yanhao Mo wrote:

[...]

> Nothing, I was just curious. :P

Not a readymade solution, but perhaps a lead to follow: package copyright
info is supposed to be in a file debian/copyright within the package source
archive[1]. I don't know at the moment whether this info percolates to
the package binary when building.

Note that one specific difficulty is that a package may consist of several
parts, all of them licensed differently.

There'san effort underway to make this license info machine readable [2]

Hope that helps to get you started

Cheers


[1] A debian source package is, basically, the original source hierarchy
   (aka "upstream") augmented by one subdirectory at top level, named
   "debian", containing debian specific patches, build recipes and all
   kind of debian specific metadata (dependency info, whatnot).
   This debian subdir is distributed as a separate .tar.gz
   cf. 
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-handbook/sect.source-package-structure.en.html

[2] https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/

- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlnGGn0ACgkQBcgs9XrR2ka6bgCcCrKXjk2gy6thfCUJypOoLqnI
tecAnRNEuvdgDJ8uni9BU8l/pB5p5hgJ
=KIle
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Is there a list contains all debian packages and it's license ?

[Yanhao Mo]

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 02:32:36PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Yanhao Mo wrote:
> 
> > but what I really want to know is that is there such a list that display
> > all debian packages with their licenses, just like the following link
> > about rhel[1].
> 
> There is no single list of licenses for each Debian package,
> just the individual copyright files in each source/binary package.
I see. Thanks for answering.
> What are you doing that requires a single list for all packages?
Nothing, I was just curious. :P


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is there a list contains all debian packages and it's license ?

[Paul Wise]

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Yanhao Mo wrote:

> but what I really want to know is that is there such a list that display
> all debian packages with their licenses, just like the following link
> about rhel[1].

There is no single list of licenses for each Debian package,
just the individual copyright files in each source/binary package.

What are you doing that requires a single list for all packages?

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Is there a list contains all debian packages and it's license ?

[Yanhao Mo]

Hi,

I do known how to find license info about packages those have been
installed on my system and how to generate a list about it.
but what I really want to know is that is there such a list that display
all debian packages with their licenses, just like the following link
about rhel[1].

[1] 
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html-single/Package_Manifest/index.html

Yanhao,


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Lets make `eudev + uselessd` Debian packages?

[Tanstaafl]

On 10/27/2014 10:20 PM, Martinx - ジェームズ 
wrote:
> Hey guys,
> 
>  I would like to evaluate both `eudev` (or any other *udev), plus
> `uselessd`, on Debian sid/testing.
> 
>  Lets do it?!
> 
>  I' m planning to achieve, at least, "CGroups Process" with `uselessd`
> (no init scripts).

I would strongly encourage you to get in touch with the eudev
maintainers and offer to help.

The biggest criticism I heard on the gentoo list when eudev was forked
from udev (by a couple of gentoo devs a long time ago when systemd
consumed udev) - by systemd proponents - and actually, it was more
snarky derisive remarks - was that eudev was not keeping up with all of
the 'improvements' that were being pushed into udev by the systemd devs,
and so the systems of anyone using eudev were somehow less secure and/or
at risk...

So, the first thing to do is start helping out the eudev devs to get it
fully up to date with the current state (non-systemd-related) of the
mainline udev, and see what can be done about keeping it there (at least
with respect to anything critical/important)...

Who knows, uselessd+eudev may become the new default gentoo init system,
and alternative init system for anyone wanting a systemd-less system.

I imagine there would at the very least have to also be maintained
something like the systemd-shim, that would act as the interface for
programs that require systemd, to provide an alternate means of
accomplishing whatever is needed by the dependency.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5450d393.1070...@libertytrek.org

Re: Lets make `eudev + uselessd` Debian packages?

[berenger . morel]

Le 28.10.2014 14:34, Jonathan Dowland a écrit :
Andrei's reply has lots of useful stuff in it, I just had two things 
to add:


On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:20:24AM -0200, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote:

 If things goes well, I think that `uselessd + new udev` might be a
good path to follow, mostly because it will not required 
"double-work"
on maintaining both "systemd-stuff + sysinit scripts"... And you get 
a

new cool init system! Only a new _init system_... Am I right?!


Wrong, I'm afraid. Debian policy is to provide init scripts and to 
support
multiple init systems, so daemon packages can't stop doing that, they 
have

to support sysvinit scripts for the forseeable future.


What he meant is probably that it won't add work to anybody since 
people are more on the move to only support systemd's units (which will 
probably be compatible with uselessd, but I doubt it will be as perfect 
as I would, since uselessd does less things...).



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/1f8cafa9e57b2a5f14612fcc68f65...@neutralite.org

Re: Lets make `eudev + uselessd` Debian packages?

[Jonathan Dowland]

Andrei's reply has lots of useful stuff in it, I just had two things to add:

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:20:24AM -0200, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote:
>  If things goes well, I think that `uselessd + new udev` might be a
> good path to follow, mostly because it will not required "double-work"
> on maintaining both "systemd-stuff + sysinit scripts"... And you get a
> new cool init system! Only a new _init system_... Am I right?!

Wrong, I'm afraid. Debian policy is to provide init scripts and to support
multiple init systems, so daemon packages can't stop doing that, they have
to support sysvinit scripts for the forseeable future.

Secondly, if you want to discuss creating Debian packages, please use
debian-ment...@lists.debian.org and not debian-user@ for that.


Thanks,

-- 
Jonathan Dowland


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141028133452.ga28...@chew.redmars.org

Re: Lets make `eudev + uselessd` Debian packages?

[berenger . morel]

Le 28.10.2014 03:20, Martinx - ジェームズ a écrit :

Hey guys,

 I would like to evaluate both `eudev` (or any other *udev), plus
`uselessd`, on Debian sid/testing.

 Lets do it?!

 I' m planning to achieve, at least, "CGroups Process" with 
`uselessd`

(no init scripts).

 If things goes well, I think that `uselessd + new udev` might be a
good path to follow, mostly because it will not required 
"double-work"
on maintaining both "systemd-stuff + sysinit scripts"... And you get 
a

new cool init system! Only a new _init system_... Am I right?!

 Also, I would like to evaluate the quality of `eudev` itself and the
alternatives (including fallback to "static /dev").

 BTW, I see that if `useelssd + eudev` works, then, a Debian fork
might not appear, because we can have a "systemd-free Debian" without
extra work of maintaining two completely different init systems.

What about that?!


I support you. If you need some tester, I could do that.



Cheers!
Thiago



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/144baf80386ff3561b5775e873cb7...@neutralite.org

Re: Lets make `eudev + uselessd` Debian packages?

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Ma, 28 oct 14, 00:20:24, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote:
> 
>  I would like to evaluate both `eudev` (or any other *udev), plus
> `uselessd`, on Debian sid/testing.

There's already a Request For Package (RFP) bug[1] against the wnpp[2] 
pseudo-package, you might want to post your progress there. I'd suggest 
anyone interested to subscribe to the bug.

If you start working on a package that could be uploaded to Debian do 
retitle the RFP to an Intent To Package (ITP), take ownership of it and 
file a Request For Sponsor (RFS) bug against sponsorship-requests.

For questions about packaging you should probably ask on debian-mentors.

[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=763499
[2] http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Lets make `eudev + uselessd` Debian packages?

[Martinx - ジェームズ]

Hey guys,

 I would like to evaluate both `eudev` (or any other *udev), plus
`uselessd`, on Debian sid/testing.

 Lets do it?!

 I' m planning to achieve, at least, "CGroups Process" with `uselessd`
(no init scripts).

 If things goes well, I think that `uselessd + new udev` might be a
good path to follow, mostly because it will not required "double-work"
on maintaining both "systemd-stuff + sysinit scripts"... And you get a
new cool init system! Only a new _init system_... Am I right?!

 Also, I would like to evaluate the quality of `eudev` itself and the
alternatives (including fallback to "static /dev").

 BTW, I see that if `useelssd + eudev` works, then, a Debian fork
might not appear, because we can have a "systemd-free Debian" without
extra work of maintaining two completely different init systems.

What about that?!

Cheers!
Thiago


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAJSM8J3b+ig5=25YCoZmHrnoassZ0h2BWmvRVd=em7nwixt...@mail.gmail.com

libvirt and QEMU Debian packages with support for GlusterFS?

[ML mail]

Hi,

I am planning to install OpenNebula 4.6 on Debian 7 to be used with GlusterFS 
storage servers. In the documentation of OpenNebula 4.6 one care read the 
following:

"The hypervisor nodes need to be part of a working GlusterFS cluster and the 
Libvirt and QEMU packages need to be recent enough to have support for 
GlusterFS."

So my question here is: does Debian's wheezy packages of libvirt and QEMU have 
both support for GlusterFS? or else how can I find out?

Regards
ML


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/1398871891.18966.yahoomail...@web162501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com

Re: How to updated after install? [Re: Setting up wordpress on wheezy using the debian packages?]

[Scott Ferguson]

On 06/12/13 19:27, Rick Thomas wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Scott.  See my notes interlineated below…

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback/testing.

> 
> 
> On Dec 5, 2013, at 9:20 PM, Scott Ferguson
>  wrote:
> 
>> On 06/12/13 13:30, Rick Thomas wrote:

> 
> 
> 
>>> There was some recent discussion on the mentors list about
>>> recruiting new folks to help with maintaining the Debian
>>> WordPress packages.  I presume we won't see any updates past
>>> 3.6.1 until that issue is resolved?
>> 
>> Yes, but it won't mean much, the existing package (see further
>> down) will still work fine, it'll just require you to update
>> WordPress once it's installed to be up-to-date with the latest
>> stable upstream version.
>> 
>> 3.6.1 is the version of WordPress *packaged* in the Debian
>> WordPress package you installed. It can/should be updated to the
>> latest version of WordPress (3.7.1) once installed (login to
>> WordPress and look on the WordPress Dashboard).
> 
> OK.  I want to try updating: I log into my new wordpress site as
> "admin".  I see, in the upper left corner, there is a link labeled
> "updates 2".  There is also a double arrow circle icon and the
> numeral "2".  Both places have the text "two theme updates".  They
> both link to
> "http://macpro.rcthomas.org/blog/wp-admin/update-core.php";
> 
> If I click one of them, I get to a page titled "Wordpress Updates"
> that says, "You have the latest version of WordPress."  The numeral
> "2" in both places does not change.  Should I expect it to become "0"
> if updates had been installed?

*If* upgrades have been installed. ;p

The 2 indicated are theme upgrades - upgrade WordPress first (though you
don't need to). You'll find those themes will upgrade when you upgrade
WordPress anyway.

> 
> Also, it still identifies itself as "Wordpress 3.6.1".
> 
> Clearly there's something I'm overlooking.   ???

Semi-stripped Wheezy with WordPress installed per wiki

fresh installation using wordpress_3.6.1+dfsg-1~deb7u1_all.deb

wordpress3.6.1+dfsg-1~de

grep -v "#" /etc/apt/sources.list
deb http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/debian/ wheezy main non-free contrib
deb http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/debian/ wheezy-updates main non-free
contrib
deb http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/debian-security/ wheezy/updates main
non-free contrib

package list:-
http://paste.debian.net/69647/

Try this (you'll need ftp configured), let me know how it goes for you:-

1. http://postimg.org/image/z82eo5ggb/
2. http://postimg.org/image/knlbtblhn/
3. http://postimg.org/image/5qcusb897/


Otherwise follow manual upgrade instructions:-
http://codex.wordpress.org/Updating_WordPress#Manual_Update


Login to WordPress admin
go to the Plugins page
select all your plugins
deactivate them all
# cd ~
# wget http://wordpress.org/latest.tar.gz
# mv /usr/share/wordpress/wp-includes{,-3.6.1}
# mv /usr/share/wordpress/wp-admin{,-3.6.1}
# tar -zxvf latest.tar.gz -C /usr/share wordpress/wp-admin
# tar -zxvf latest.tar.gz -C /usr/share wordpress/wp-includes
# tar -zxvf latest.tar.gz -C /usr/share wordpress/wp-content
# tar --wildcards -zxvf latest.tar.gz -C /usr/share/ 'wordpress/*.php'
Back in WordPress agree to reload/upgrade the database
then reactivate plugins


Upgraded to freshly baked stable:-
http://postimg.org/image/t8enkhvnv/  (notice the changes to the upgrade
options?).


NOTE: nothing to stop you using the same process to upgrade to the beta
version of WordPress if you want.






Kind regards


-- 
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/52a1b1bd.1030...@gmail.com

How to updated after install? [Re: Setting up wordpress on wheezy using the debian packages?]

[Rick Thomas]

Thanks, Scott.  See my notes interlineated below…


On Dec 5, 2013, at 9:20 PM, Scott Ferguson 
 wrote:

> On 06/12/13 13:30, Rick Thomas wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks to all who replied.  I got lots of useful suggestions.
>> 
>> The one that finally got me off the ground is this one…  Somehow I
>> missed it in all my googling.
> 
> :)
> It didn't exist when you did your Googling. I wrote it *after* reading
> your post.

Wow!  Thanks!  As noted, it was a tremendous help.



>> https://wiki.debian.org/WordPress
>> 
>> By *carefully* following *all* the instructions there, I was able to
>> get a functioning WordPress v3.6.1 (latest available in the Debian
>> Wheezy archives).  I believe this will do the job for the time
>> being.
> 
> When I get some time I'll try and update the wiki to include
> instructions for installing WordPress for individual users
> (apache2-suexec-custom), and using Nginx instead of Apache (you'll note
> that the WordPress package doesn't automagically install Apache2, that's
> why).

I'm looking forward to seeing and trying that when it arrives.



>> There was some recent discussion on the mentors list about recruiting
>> new folks to help with maintaining the Debian WordPress packages.  I
>> presume we won't see any updates past 3.6.1 until that issue is
>> resolved?
> 
> Yes, but it won't mean much, the existing package (see further down)
> will still work fine, it'll just require you to update WordPress once
> it's installed to be up-to-date with the latest stable upstream version.
> 
> 3.6.1 is the version of WordPress *packaged* in the Debian WordPress
> package you installed. It can/should be updated to the latest version of
> WordPress (3.7.1) once installed (login to WordPress and look on the
> WordPress Dashboard).

OK.  I want to try updating: I log into my new wordpress site as "admin".  I 
see, in the upper left corner, there is a link labeled "updates 2".  There is 
also a double arrow circle icon and the numeral "2".  Both places have the text 
"two theme updates".  They both link to 
"http://macpro.rcthomas.org/blog/wp-admin/update-core.php";

If I click one of them, I get to a page titled "Wordpress Updates" that says, 
"You have the latest version of WordPress."  The numeral "2" in both places 
does not change.  Should I expect it to become "0" if updates had been 
installed?

Also, it still identifies itself as "Wordpress 3.6.1".

Clearly there's something I'm overlooking.   ???



> The most recently baked Debian WordPress package has just been released,
> it includes v3.7.1[*1].  NOTE: *you* don't need it to upgrade to the
> latest version of WordPress.
> 
> [*1]http://raphaelhertzog.com/2013/12/01/my-free-software-activities-in-november-2013/
> 
>> 
>> If there's anything I can do as a non-developer -- such as, perhaps,
>> testing new releases on a quick-turnaround basis with non-x86
>> architectures (I have PowerPC and ARM boxes that I can use for
>> testing)
> 
> Contact Raphael, I'm sure he'd appreciate the offer, and, you don't need
> to be a developer to package.

OK. I will do that.



--
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/70e8ba02-9adb-4e56-870d-14c68aaba...@pobox.com

Re: Setting up wordpress on wheezy using the debian packages?

[Scott Ferguson]

On 06/12/13 13:30, Rick Thomas wrote:
> 
> Thanks to all who replied.  I got lots of useful suggestions.
> 
> The one that finally got me off the ground is this one…  Somehow I
> missed it in all my googling.

:)
It didn't exist when you did your Googling. I wrote it *after* reading
your post.

> 
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/WordPress
> 
> By *carefully* following *all* the instructions there, I was able to
> get a functioning WordPress v3.6.1 (latest available in the Debian
> Wheezy archives).  I believe this will do the job for the time
> being.

When I get some time I'll try and update the wiki to include
instructions for installing WordPress for individual users
(apache2-suexec-custom), and using Nginx instead of Apache (you'll note
that the WordPress package doesn't automagically install Apache2, that's
why).

> 
> There was some recent discussion on the mentors list about recruiting
> new folks to help with maintaining the Debian WordPress packages.  I
> presume we won't see any updates past 3.6.1 until that issue is
> resolved?

Yes, but it won't mean much, the existing package (see further down)
will still work fine, it'll just require you to update WordPress once
it's installed to be up-to-date with the latest stable upstream version.

3.6.1 is the version of WordPress *packaged* in the Debian WordPress
package you installed. It can/should be updated to the latest version of
WordPress (3.7.1) once installed (login to WordPress and look on the
WordPress Dashboard).

The most recently baked Debian WordPress package has just been released,
it includes v3.7.1[*1].  NOTE: *you* don't need it to upgrade to the
latest version of WordPress.

[*1]http://raphaelhertzog.com/2013/12/01/my-free-software-activities-in-november-2013/

> 
> If there's anything I can do as a non-developer -- such as, perhaps,
> testing new releases on a quick-turnaround basis with non-x86
> architectures (I have PowerPC and ARM boxes that I can use for
> testing)

Contact Raphael, I'm sure he'd appreciate the offer, and, you don't need
to be a developer to package.

> 
> 
> Enjoy!
> 
> Rick
> 


Kind regards


-- 
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/52a15e9f.4020...@gmail.com

Re: Setting up wordpress on wheezy using the debian packages?

[Rick Thomas]

Thanks to all who replied.  I got lots of useful suggestions.

The one that finally got me off the ground is this one…  Somehow I missed it in 
all my googling.


https://wiki.debian.org/WordPress

By *carefully* following *all* the instructions there, I was able to get a 
functioning WordPress v3.6.1 (latest available in the Debian Wheezy archives).  
I believe this will do the job for the time being.

There was some recent discussion on the mentors list about recruiting  new 
folks to help with maintaining the Debian WordPress packages.  I presume we 
won't see any updates past 3.6.1 until that issue is resolved? 

If there's anything I can do as a non-developer -- such as, perhaps, testing 
new releases on a quick-turnaround basis with non-x86 architectures (I have 
PowerPC and ARM boxes that I can use for testing)


Enjoy!

Rick

--
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/983d2290-1012-4baf-babe-6e220051a...@pobox.com

Re: Setting up wordpress on wheezy using the debian packages?

[Rick Thomas]

On Nov 27, 2013, at 12:38 AM, Scott Ferguson 
 wrote:

>> Hi Rick,
>> 
>> These instructions should work for Debian as well:
>> http://movingtofreedom.org/2007/05/09/how-to-wordpress-on-ubuntu-gnu-linux/
>> 
>> The main thing is to get Apache & PHP configured properly. Once that's
>> done, Wordpress config goes easily.
>> 
>> I'll be happy to help you troubleshoot this if needed.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> Kailash
>> 
>> 
> 
> The OP was emphatic about wanting to use the Debian package, and the
> answer has already been provided. (https://wiki.debian.org/WordPress)
> 
> NOTE: also that the page you refer to is many years out of date.
> 
> 
> Kind regards

Wow!  Thanks folks.  The Debian users list to the rescue again!  (-: (-:

Yes, I do need to do it in Debian -- primarily because the machine I want to 
use for it is a G5 PowerPC Macintosh and Debian is the only distro I know of 
that supports that hardware -- but I'm guessing that Ubuntu, even out of date 
Ubuntu, will be sufficiently like Debian as to be useful.

Due to the US Thanksgiving holidays, I won't be able to attack this until after 
the weekend.  But at least now I've got a couple of places to read up on doing 
it, and a couple of people who have offered to help me over the rough spots.

The folks on this list are so great!

Rick

--
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/6f03f5a0-d4d8-42e4-b9e8-f6c97518c...@pobox.com

Re: Setting up wordpress on wheezy using the debian packages?

[Scott Ferguson]

On 27/11/13 19:21, Kailash wrote:
> On Sunday 24 November 2013 07:09 AM, Rick Thomas wrote:
>>
>> Can someone point me at step-by-step instructions for going from
>>  sudo aptitude install wordpress
>> on a freshly scrubbed, newly installed Wheezy system to a working wordpress 
>> website on the same machine?
>>
>> I've read the README.Debian in /usr/share/doc/wordpress/ and the stuff in 
>> examples/ but they are just hints, I think.
>>
>> I've googled till I'm blue in the face, but all I find is people who insist 
>> on installing wordpress from the downloadable tarball at the wordpress 
>> development site and ignore the debian package entirely.  I'd much rather do 
>> things the "Debian way".
>>
>> Somebody must have done it, I would think -- or what's the point of having a 
>> Debian package in the first place?  If you have, can you share your recipe?
>>
>> All help will be appreciated!
>>
>> Rick
>>
> Hi Rick,
> 
> These instructions should work for Debian as well:
> http://movingtofreedom.org/2007/05/09/how-to-wordpress-on-ubuntu-gnu-linux/
> 
> The main thing is to get Apache & PHP configured properly. Once that's
> done, Wordpress config goes easily.
> 
> I'll be happy to help you troubleshoot this if needed.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Kailash
> 
> 

The OP was emphatic about wanting to use the Debian package, and the
answer has already been provided. (https://wiki.debian.org/WordPress)

NOTE: also that the page you refer to is many years out of date.


Kind regards


-- 
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/5295af8f.5080...@gmail.com

Re: Setting up wordpress on wheezy using the debian packages?

[Kailash]

On Sunday 24 November 2013 07:09 AM, Rick Thomas wrote:
> 
> Can someone point me at step-by-step instructions for going from
>   sudo aptitude install wordpress
> on a freshly scrubbed, newly installed Wheezy system to a working wordpress 
> website on the same machine?
> 
> I've read the README.Debian in /usr/share/doc/wordpress/ and the stuff in 
> examples/ but they are just hints, I think.
> 
> I've googled till I'm blue in the face, but all I find is people who insist 
> on installing wordpress from the downloadable tarball at the wordpress 
> development site and ignore the debian package entirely.  I'd much rather do 
> things the "Debian way".
> 
> Somebody must have done it, I would think -- or what's the point of having a 
> Debian package in the first place?  If you have, can you share your recipe?
> 
> All help will be appreciated!
> 
> Rick
> 
Hi Rick,

These instructions should work for Debian as well:
http://movingtofreedom.org/2007/05/09/how-to-wordpress-on-ubuntu-gnu-linux/

The main thing is to get Apache & PHP configured properly. Once that's
done, Wordpress config goes easily.

I'll be happy to help you troubleshoot this if needed.

Sincerely,
Kailash


-- 
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/5295ab94.10...@gmail.com

Re: Setting up wordpress on wheezy using the debian packages?

[Scott Ferguson]

On 25/11/13 12:10, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 25/11/13 10:13, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
>> Rick Thomas wrote:
>>> Can someone point me at step-by-step instructions for going from
>>> sudo aptitude install wordpress
>>> on a freshly scrubbed, newly installed Wheezy system to a working
>>> wordpress website on the same machine?
>>>
>>> I've read the README.Debian in /usr/share/doc/wordpress/ and the stuff
>>> in examples/ but they are just hints, I think.

More explanations of the Debianization as shown in the
/usr/share/doc/examples.



>>>
>>> Somebody must have done it, I would think -- or what's the point of
>>> having a Debian package in the first place?  If you have, can you
>>> share your recipe?

OK. :)

See https://wiki.debian.org/WordPress

Takes about 5 minutes to set up. (I've only shown the simple single
install, run as www-data method using apache2 and mysql).



> 
> 
> I just installed the Debian package then went to the wp admin page in my
> browser and began using it as you would normally. The debian package
> just does the installation for you.
> 
> 
> Kind regards
> 


Just spent 10 minutes with the Wheezy WordPress package either it's
not as simple as it used to be or I'd mis-remembered the process in
Squeeze (most likely the latter).

Kind regards


-- 
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/5294786f.30...@gmail.com

Re: Setting up wordpress on wheezy using the debian packages?

[Scott Ferguson]

On 25/11/13 10:13, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> Rick Thomas wrote:
>> Can someone point me at step-by-step instructions for going from
>> sudo aptitude install wordpress
>> on a freshly scrubbed, newly installed Wheezy system to a working
>> wordpress website on the same machine?
>>
>> I've read the README.Debian in /usr/share/doc/wordpress/ and the stuff
>> in examples/ but they are just hints, I think.
>>
>> I've googled till I'm blue in the face, but all I find is people who
>> insist on installing wordpress from the downloadable tarball at the
>> wordpress development site and ignore the debian package entirely. 
>> I'd much rather do things the "Debian way".
>>
>> Somebody must have done it, I would think -- or what's the point of
>> having a Debian package in the first place?  If you have, can you
>> share your recipe?
>>
> 
> In 2004 I set up WP on this system using the upstream tarball, exactly
> because at that time I could not find step-by-step instructions using
> Debian.
> 
> Hugo
> 
> 


I just installed the Debian package then went to the wp admin page in my
browser and began using it as you would normally. The debian package
just does the installation for you.


Kind regards


-- 
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/5292a375.10...@gmail.com

Fwd: Re: Setting up wordpress on wheezy using the debian packages?

[Miles Fidelman]

--- Begin Message ---

Rick Thomas wrote:

Can someone point me at step-by-step instructions for going from
sudo aptitude install wordpress
on a freshly scrubbed, newly installed Wheezy system to a working wordpress 
website on the same machine?

I've read the README.Debian in /usr/share/doc/wordpress/ and the stuff in 
examples/ but they are just hints, I think.

I've googled till I'm blue in the face, but all I find is people who insist on installing 
wordpress from the downloadable tarball at the wordpress development site and ignore the 
debian package entirely.  I'd much rather do things the "Debian way".

Somebody must have done it, I would think -- or what's the point of having a 
Debian package in the first place?  If you have, can you share your recipe?

There's a reason everyone says do it from the wordpress site - and 
follow the directions THERE (which are for dummies).  apt packaging is 
great for binaries, not so good for PHP and database configuration.  
There are times to do stuff the "Debian way" and times when it makes no 
sense.


Miles Fidelman

--- End Message ---

Re: Setting up wordpress on wheezy using the debian packages?

[Hugo Vanwoerkom]

Rick Thomas wrote:

Can someone point me at step-by-step instructions for going from
sudo aptitude install wordpress
on a freshly scrubbed, newly installed Wheezy system to a working wordpress 
website on the same machine?

I've read the README.Debian in /usr/share/doc/wordpress/ and the stuff in 
examples/ but they are just hints, I think.

I've googled till I'm blue in the face, but all I find is people who insist on installing 
wordpress from the downloadable tarball at the wordpress development site and ignore the 
debian package entirely.  I'd much rather do things the "Debian way".

Somebody must have done it, I would think -- or what's the point of having a 
Debian package in the first place?  If you have, can you share your recipe?



In 2004 I set up WP on this system using the upstream tarball, exactly 
because at that time I could not find step-by-step instructions using 
Debian.


Hugo


--
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/l6u15t$4lt$1...@ger.gmane.org

Re: Setting up wordpress on wheezy using the debian packages?

[Miles Fidelman]

I'd avoid the packages.  Wordpress is basically a bunch of php scripts 
that get dumped inside a directory on your Apache server, plus some 
setup for your database.  You're a lot safer just downloading the zip 
file and following the instructions.  At least, that's how I've always 
had the best luck.


Miles Fidelman

Rick Thomas wrote:

Thanks, Sharon!

That's good advice if all I want is wordpress.  But I'm a sysadmin, and like to 
understand the details.  So, for the time being, I'd prefer to do it from 
scratch if I can.

If I succeed (with help from the list) I promise to write up the step-by-step 
procedure for the wiki, so the next person can benefit from our experience.

Thanks in advance!

Rick

On Nov 24, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Sharon Kimble  wrote:


On Sat, 23 Nov 2013 17:39:20 -0800
Rick Thomas  wrote:


Can someone point me at step-by-step instructions for going from
sudo aptitude install wordpress
on a freshly scrubbed, newly installed Wheezy system to a working
wordpress website on the same machine?

I've read the README.Debian in /usr/share/doc/wordpress/ and the
stuff in examples/ but they are just hints, I think.

I've googled till I'm blue in the face, but all I find is people who
insist on installing wordpress from the downloadable tarball at the
wordpress development site and ignore the debian package entirely.
I'd much rather do things the "Debian way".

Somebody must have done it, I would think -- or what's the point of
having a Debian package in the first place?  If you have, can you
share your recipe?

All help will be appreciated!

Rick.
A few months ago I was considering doing this, hosting my wordpress
blog on this computer, but after considering all the disadvantages of
self-hosting I chose someone to do it for me in a local web-hosting
company for 4UKP a month, which is a very good price. Since then we've
worked together to reduce the sites footprint in size and speed it up.
Now I take full backups of it twice a day, and they just take a few
minutes over a distance of about 25 miles. I can only suggest you do the
same as it saves a lot of heartache and worry too.

Sharon.
--
A taste of linux = http://www.sharons.org.uk
efever = http://www.efever.blogspot.com/
efever = http://sharon04.livejournal.com/
my git repo = https://bitbucket.org/boudiccas/dots
Debian testing, Fluxbox 1.3.5, LibreOffice 4.1.3.2
Registered Linux user 561944





--
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/52928748.6030...@meetinghouse.net

Re: Setting up wordpress on wheezy using the debian packages?

[Rick Thomas]

Thanks, Sharon!

That's good advice if all I want is wordpress.  But I'm a sysadmin, and like to 
understand the details.  So, for the time being, I'd prefer to do it from 
scratch if I can.

If I succeed (with help from the list) I promise to write up the step-by-step 
procedure for the wiki, so the next person can benefit from our experience.

Thanks in advance!

Rick

On Nov 24, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Sharon Kimble  wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Nov 2013 17:39:20 -0800
> Rick Thomas  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Can someone point me at step-by-step instructions for going from
>>  sudo aptitude install wordpress
>> on a freshly scrubbed, newly installed Wheezy system to a working
>> wordpress website on the same machine?
>> 
>> I've read the README.Debian in /usr/share/doc/wordpress/ and the
>> stuff in examples/ but they are just hints, I think.
>> 
>> I've googled till I'm blue in the face, but all I find is people who
>> insist on installing wordpress from the downloadable tarball at the
>> wordpress development site and ignore the debian package entirely.
>> I'd much rather do things the "Debian way".
>> 
>> Somebody must have done it, I would think -- or what's the point of
>> having a Debian package in the first place?  If you have, can you
>> share your recipe?
>> 
>> All help will be appreciated!
> 
> Rick.
> A few months ago I was considering doing this, hosting my wordpress
> blog on this computer, but after considering all the disadvantages of
> self-hosting I chose someone to do it for me in a local web-hosting
> company for 4UKP a month, which is a very good price. Since then we've
> worked together to reduce the sites footprint in size and speed it up.
> Now I take full backups of it twice a day, and they just take a few
> minutes over a distance of about 25 miles. I can only suggest you do the
> same as it saves a lot of heartache and worry too. 
> 
> Sharon.
> -- 
> A taste of linux = http://www.sharons.org.uk
> efever = http://www.efever.blogspot.com/
> efever = http://sharon04.livejournal.com/
> my git repo = https://bitbucket.org/boudiccas/dots
> Debian testing, Fluxbox 1.3.5, LibreOffice 4.1.3.2
> Registered Linux user 561944


--
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/6dc011f2-5150-4590-9428-d80ac4ddd...@pobox.com

Re: Setting up wordpress on wheezy using the debian packages?

[Sharon Kimble]

On Sat, 23 Nov 2013 17:39:20 -0800
Rick Thomas  wrote:

> 
> Can someone point me at step-by-step instructions for going from
>   sudo aptitude install wordpress
> on a freshly scrubbed, newly installed Wheezy system to a working
> wordpress website on the same machine?
> 
> I've read the README.Debian in /usr/share/doc/wordpress/ and the
> stuff in examples/ but they are just hints, I think.
> 
> I've googled till I'm blue in the face, but all I find is people who
> insist on installing wordpress from the downloadable tarball at the
> wordpress development site and ignore the debian package entirely.
> I'd much rather do things the "Debian way".
> 
> Somebody must have done it, I would think -- or what's the point of
> having a Debian package in the first place?  If you have, can you
> share your recipe?
> 
> All help will be appreciated!

Rick.
A few months ago I was considering doing this, hosting my wordpress
blog on this computer, but after considering all the disadvantages of
self-hosting I chose someone to do it for me in a local web-hosting
company for 4UKP a month, which is a very good price. Since then we've
worked together to reduce the sites footprint in size and speed it up.
Now I take full backups of it twice a day, and they just take a few
minutes over a distance of about 25 miles. I can only suggest you do the
same as it saves a lot of heartache and worry too. 

Sharon.
-- 
A taste of linux = http://www.sharons.org.uk
efever = http://www.efever.blogspot.com/
efever = http://sharon04.livejournal.com/
my git repo = https://bitbucket.org/boudiccas/dots
Debian testing, Fluxbox 1.3.5, LibreOffice 4.1.3.2
Registered Linux user 561944


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Setting up wordpress on wheezy using the debian packages?

[Rick Thomas]

Can someone point me at step-by-step instructions for going from
sudo aptitude install wordpress
on a freshly scrubbed, newly installed Wheezy system to a working wordpress 
website on the same machine?

I've read the README.Debian in /usr/share/doc/wordpress/ and the stuff in 
examples/ but they are just hints, I think.

I've googled till I'm blue in the face, but all I find is people who insist on 
installing wordpress from the downloadable tarball at the wordpress development 
site and ignore the debian package entirely.  I'd much rather do things the 
"Debian way".

Somebody must have done it, I would think -- or what's the point of having a 
Debian package in the first place?  If you have, can you share your recipe?

All help will be appreciated!

Rick

--
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/ec8aa022-d5a6-4ce7-a59d-7c261508e...@pobox.com

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Osamu Aoki]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 02:36:43PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 16 oct 12, 14:00:10, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>  
> > $ aptitude search ~Astable | wc -l
> > 43004
> > $ aptitude search ~Astable~scontrib | wc -l
> > 271
> > $ aptitude search ~Astable~snon-free | wc -l
> > 583
> 
> Oups, 'stable' will also match 'unstable', so the correct search (also 
> excluding non-Debian sources) is:
> 
> $ aptitude search '~A^stable~ODebian' | wc -l
> 28875
> $ aptitude search '~A^stable~ODebian~scontrib' | wc -l
> 189
> $ aptitude search '~A^stable~ODebian~snon-free' | wc -l
> 408
> 
> My numbers are still a bit bigger than the count from the Packages file, 
> but don't know why (it doesn't seem to be due to virtual packages).

I think your number is about right for squeeze.

Debian FAQ package number is not scripted.  So needs to file bug report
to package.

Osamu


-- 
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/20121019152347.GB21775@goofy.localdomain

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Osamu Aoki]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:30:41AM +0100, Lisi wrote:
> Hello, all!
> I have searched Wikipedia and the Debian wiki.  I have Googled.  I am clearly 
> using the wrong search terms, although I tried rewording in sundry different 
> ways.
> 
> Approximately, in round terms, how may packages are available in Debian 
> (Squeeze?)
> 1. in main
> 2. in main, contrib and non-free

See Debian Reference on Debian site which should be displaying such
number scanned last night :-) I just updated.

  
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html#listofdebianarchivearea

 area number of packages
 main38064
 contrib   231
 non-free  508

This is for upcoming wheezy :)

> I have an idea of roughly 20,000 in my head, but cannot remember why I think 
> it and it may be vastly out.  Nor into which of my two categories the figure 
> falls, if by any miracle it is correct.

Off by half

Osamu


-- 
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/20121019151512.GA21775@goofy.localdomain

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Tom H]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Andrei POPESCU
 wrote:
> On Ma, 16 oct 12, 08:01:59, Tom H wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Darac Marjal  
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> According to my reading of the manual:
>>>
>>> aptitude search '~smain'
>>>  and
>>> aptitude search '~smain|~scontrib|~snon-free'
>>>
>>> should give you the answers you seek, however, I seem to get 0 for the
>>> first and only 626 for the second, so my search-fu is failing me today.
>>
>> Because "~s" ("?section()") doesn't correspond to main/contrib/non-free.
>
> In theory true, but in practice:
>
> $ apt-cache show nvidia-glx | grep ^Section
> Section: non-free/x11
>
> This means a search for contrib or non-free with ~s will succeed, but
> not for for main, since packages in main don't advertise the archive
> component in the Section field.

Thanks for the correction. Although I consider this a cheat or a bonus
depending on the point of view, it's a practical one because AFAIR
dpkg-query doesn't have a "${Archive}" option.


-- 
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=SxUMPXCO74rWnfnvJsQcqEbE0H=rcvepksvokaftrx...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Ma, 16 oct 12, 19:22:22, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> 
> No, compiling shouldn't be needed. This is a discussion we very often
> had on jack mailing list, when split packages failed.
> I don't know why an app should crash, as long as it doesn't try to
> access the missing lib. It might crash, I don't know, but it should be
> possible to get an app without jackd support and to load jackd support
> as a plugin or something like that. 

Yes, but that depends on how the application is written. Some use 
plugins (vlc), others have compile time options (mplayer, XBMC).

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 20:10 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 16 oct 12, 18:44:20, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > >  
> > > Why should every application *capable* of outputting to jackd force one 
> > > to install jackd?
> > 
> > Jackd could be a "suggested dependency", if you don't use jackd, why
> > should the app link against the lib? The app should link against it, as
> > soon as you configure the app to use jackd and than you need jackd
> > completely, not only the lib.
> 
> As far as I know (not my area of expertise, but I have been struggling 
> to compile XBMC for my Raspberry Pi recently), such capabilities are 
> compile time options.
> 
> When you compile an application with output capability to jackd and/or 
> pulseaudio the corresponding library becomes a hard dependency (i.e. the 
> application may even crash if the library is not installed).
> 
> Or would you expect regular users to recompile applications just to 
> choose between plain alsa, pulseaudio or jackd output?

No, compiling shouldn't be needed. This is a discussion we very often
had on jack mailing list, when split packages failed.
I don't know why an app should crash, as long as it doesn't try to
access the missing lib. It might crash, I don't know, but it should be
possible to get an app without jackd support and to load jackd support
as a plugin or something like that. There was a mail about Iceweasel and
language support some minutes ago. All language packages get installed
by default, so they could become one package. Ok, it's possible to
remove them manually, after installing, pff, it's also possible to
delete the files manually after installing ;).



-- 
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/1350408142.1236.135.camel@localhost.localdomain

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Ma, 16 oct 12, 18:44:20, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> >  
> > Why should every application *capable* of outputting to jackd force one 
> > to install jackd?
> 
> Jackd could be a "suggested dependency", if you don't use jackd, why
> should the app link against the lib? The app should link against it, as
> soon as you configure the app to use jackd and than you need jackd
> completely, not only the lib.

As far as I know (not my area of expertise, but I have been struggling 
to compile XBMC for my Raspberry Pi recently), such capabilities are 
compile time options.

When you compile an application with output capability to jackd and/or 
pulseaudio the corresponding library becomes a hard dependency (i.e. the 
application may even crash if the library is not installed).

Or would you expect regular users to recompile applications just to 
choose between plain alsa, pulseaudio or jackd output?

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 18:56 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 16 oct 12, 17:34:19, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > FWIW tons of packages doesn't mean tons of apps etc., since of the
> > strange policy to split some packages in an insane way, e.g. the jackd
> > packages are split really insane. Or does any package depend to libjack
> > without jackd? And if so, why?
>  
> Why should every application *capable* of outputting to jackd force one 
> to install jackd?

Jackd could be a "suggested dependency", if you don't use jackd, why
should the app link against the lib? The app should link against it, as
soon as you configure the app to use jackd and than you need jackd
completely, not only the lib.

> > There often is the argument that shared libs will keep a system small,
> > but bad hard dependencies often enlarge a system. On Arch there e.g. is
> > a dependency to systemd. I use intitscripts, not systemd, but have got
> > systemd installed. On Debian for example there's a hard dependency to
> > pulseaudio for some apps, even if it's completely useless.
> 
> Care to provide some examples? Looking through the reverse dependencies 
> of the package 'pulseaudio' the only strange one is 
> kde-telepathy-call-ui. If you meant dependency to libpulse, then the 
> answer is the same as for jackd.

Ok, I only know one GNOME package, but to use GNOME you need this
package.

> > And FWIW, meta-packages only summarize some other packages, so the count
> > of packages gives information about big nothing.
> 
> We don't know anything about Lisi's use case, so this is maybe a bit 
> premature?

Yesno. I also like to hear about the count of packages, but this
information is nearly useless.

Regards,
Ralf


-- 
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/1350405860.1236.115.camel@localhost.localdomain

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Ma, 16 oct 12, 17:34:19, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> FWIW tons of packages doesn't mean tons of apps etc., since of the
> strange policy to split some packages in an insane way, e.g. the jackd
> packages are split really insane. Or does any package depend to libjack
> without jackd? And if so, why?
 
Why should every application *capable* of outputting to jackd force one 
to install jackd?

> There often is the argument that shared libs will keep a system small,
> but bad hard dependencies often enlarge a system. On Arch there e.g. is
> a dependency to systemd. I use intitscripts, not systemd, but have got
> systemd installed. On Debian for example there's a hard dependency to
> pulseaudio for some apps, even if it's completely useless.

Care to provide some examples? Looking through the reverse dependencies 
of the package 'pulseaudio' the only strange one is 
kde-telepathy-call-ui. If you meant dependency to libpulse, then the 
answer is the same as for jackd.

> And FWIW, meta-packages only summarize some other packages, so the count
> of packages gives information about big nothing.

We don't know anything about Lisi's use case, so this is maybe a bit 
premature?

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Ma, 16 oct 12, 08:01:59, Tom H wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Darac Marjal  
> wrote:
> >
> > According to my reading of the manual:
> >
> > aptitude search '~smain'
> >  and
> > aptitude search '~smain|~scontrib|~snon-free'
> >
> > should give you the answers you seek, however, I seem to get 0 for the
> > first and only 626 for the second, so my search-fu is failing me today.
> 
> Because "~s" ("?section()") doesn't correspond to main/contrib/non-free.

In theory true, but in practice:

$ apt-cache show nvidia-glx | grep ^Section
Section: non-free/x11

This means a search for contrib or non-free with ~s will succeed, but 
not for for main, since packages in main don't advertise the archive 
component in the Section field.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Ralf Mardorf]

FWIW tons of packages doesn't mean tons of apps etc., since of the
strange policy to split some packages in an insane way, e.g. the jackd
packages are split really insane. Or does any package depend to libjack
without jackd? And if so, why?

There often is the argument that shared libs will keep a system small,
but bad hard dependencies often enlarge a system. On Arch there e.g. is
a dependency to systemd. I use intitscripts, not systemd, but have got
systemd installed. On Debian for example there's a hard dependency to
pulseaudio for some apps, even if it's completely useless.

And FWIW, meta-packages only summarize some other packages, so the count
of packages gives information about big nothing.

2 Cents,
Ralf


-- 
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/1350401659.1236.66.camel@localhost.localdomain

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Joe]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:59:21 +0100
Brian  wrote:

> 
> Without the faffing about with getting a root prompt and using an
> editor:
> 
> cat /var/lib/dpkg/available | grep '^Section:' | wc -l
> cat /var/lib/dpkg/available | grep '^Section: non-free' | wc -l
> cat /var/lib/dpkg/available | grep '^Section: contrib' | wc -l
> 
> 28,795, 403 and 187 respectively for me.
> 
> 
The first one gives me 926 on an amd64 X-less squeeze server, which is
around the number of installed packages.

sources.list:
deb http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/ squeeze main non-free contrib
deb-src http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/ squeeze main non-free contrib

deb http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates main contrib non-free
deb-src http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates main contrib
non-free

# squeeze-updates, previously known as 'volatile'
deb http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/ squeeze-updates main contrib
non-free
deb-src http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/ squeeze-updates main contrib
non-free



'apt-cache stats' from the same machine gives:

Total package names: 37481 (750 k)
Total package structures: 37481 (2,099 k)
  Normal packages: 28432
  Pure virtual packages: 390
  Single virtual packages: 3261
  Mixed virtual packages: 258
  Missing: 5140
Total distinct versions: 28904 (2,081 k)
Total distinct descriptions: 28904 (694 k)
Total dependencies: 177309 (4,965 k)
Total ver/file relations: 30947 (743 k)
Total Desc/File relations: 28904 (694 k)
Total Provides mappings: 5838 (117 k)
Total globbed strings: 133 (1,465 )
Total dependency version space: 734 k
Total slack space: 49.2 k
Total space accounted for: 10.1 M

Being X-less, there's no Synaptic, however on my sid workstation,
Synaptic reports '39614 packages listed' as being the sum of stats'
'Normal packages' and 'Mixed virtual packages', which would be 28,690
here.

-- 
Joe


-- 
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/20121016161523.0f3f1...@jretrading.com

Re: Number of Debian packages available. and thank you to everyone.

[Lisi]

On Tuesday 16 October 2012 13:59:21 Brian wrote:
> On Tue 16 Oct 2012 at 12:06:17 +0100, Lisi wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 October 2012 11:55:55 Brian wrote:
> > > Edit your /etc/apt/sources.list to have only the line
> > >
> > >deb  squeeze non-free
> > >
> > > Then
> > >
> > >apt-get update
> > >
> > > and look at the output.
> > >
> > > Add "contrib" to the line above and repeat, Do the same with "main"
> > > added. Do sums.
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> Without the faffing about with getting a root prompt and using an
> editor:
>
> cat /var/lib/dpkg/available | grep '^Section:' | wc -l
> cat /var/lib/dpkg/available | grep '^Section: non-free' | wc -l
> cat /var/lib/dpkg/available | grep '^Section: contrib' | wc -l
>
> 28,795, 403 and 187 respectively for me.

That's terrific!  Thanks, Brian.

Thanks all of you for your informative and helpful replies.

Lisi


-- 
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/201210161416.25887.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Brian]

On Tue 16 Oct 2012 at 12:06:17 +0100, Lisi wrote:

> On Tuesday 16 October 2012 11:55:55 Brian wrote:
> >
> > Edit your /etc/apt/sources.list to have only the line
> >
> >deb  squeeze non-free
> >
> > Then
> >
> >apt-get update
> >
> > and look at the output.
> >
> > Add "contrib" to the line above and repeat, Do the same with "main" added.
> > Do sums.
> 
> Thanks!

Without the faffing about with getting a root prompt and using an
editor:

cat /var/lib/dpkg/available | grep '^Section:' | wc -l
cat /var/lib/dpkg/available | grep '^Section: non-free' | wc -l
cat /var/lib/dpkg/available | grep '^Section: contrib' | wc -l

28,795, 403 and 187 respectively for me.


-- 
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/20121016125921.GH4530@desktop

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Tom H]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Darac Marjal  wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 08:01:59AM -0400, Tom H wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Darac Marjal  
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > According to my reading of the manual:
>> >
>> > aptitude search '~smain'
>> >  and
>> > aptitude search '~smain|~scontrib|~snon-free'
>> >
>> > should give you the answers you seek, however, I seem to get 0 for the
>> > first and only 626 for the second, so my search-fu is failing me today.
>>
>> Because "~s" ("?section()") doesn't correspond to main/contrib/non-free.
>
> What does, then?

(Andrei uses this search term in his replies)

"~A" ("?archive()")

You can see the section to which a package belongs ("utils" in this
case) if you request that information when specifying a format for the
output of aptitude or dpkg-query, for example:

[th@localhost:~]$ dpkg-query -W
-f='${Package}\t${Section}\t${Version}\n' util-linux
util-linux  utils   2.20.1-5.2
[th@localhost:~]$ aptitude search -F '%p %s %t %v' util-linux
util-linux utils
testing 2.20.1-5.2
util-linux-locales utils
testing 
[th@localhost:~]$ aptitude search -F '%p %s %t %v' util-linux\$
util-linux utils
testing 2.20.1-5.2
[th@localhost:~]$


-- 
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=symddhzhepvt4ckzesd860_4hdrazma-issplkofg2...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Darac Marjal]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 08:01:59AM -0400, Tom H wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Darac Marjal  
> wrote:
> >
> > According to my reading of the manual:
> >
> > aptitude search '~smain'
> >  and
> > aptitude search '~smain|~scontrib|~snon-free'
> >
> > should give you the answers you seek, however, I seem to get 0 for the
> > first and only 626 for the second, so my search-fu is failing me today.
> 
> Because "~s" ("?section()") doesn't correspond to main/contrib/non-free.

What does, then?



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Tom H]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Darac Marjal  wrote:
>
> According to my reading of the manual:
>
> aptitude search '~smain'
>  and
> aptitude search '~smain|~scontrib|~snon-free'
>
> should give you the answers you seek, however, I seem to get 0 for the
> first and only 626 for the second, so my search-fu is failing me today.

Because "~s" ("?section()") doesn't correspond to main/contrib/non-free.


-- 
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=Sygz=MNAT_u1JGwYf5YOR=stm=Rzg=_qy0cdk=_sbp...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Ma, 16 oct 12, 14:00:10, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
 
> $ aptitude search ~Astable | wc -l
> 43004
> $ aptitude search ~Astable~scontrib | wc -l
> 271
> $ aptitude search ~Astable~snon-free | wc -l
> 583

Oups, 'stable' will also match 'unstable', so the correct search (also 
excluding non-Debian sources) is:

$ aptitude search '~A^stable~ODebian' | wc -l
28875
$ aptitude search '~A^stable~ODebian~scontrib' | wc -l
189
$ aptitude search '~A^stable~ODebian~snon-free' | wc -l
408

My numbers are still a bit bigger than the count from the Packages file, 
but don't know why (it doesn't seem to be due to virtual packages).

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Lisi]

On Tuesday 16 October 2012 11:55:55 Brian wrote:
> On Tue 16 Oct 2012 at 11:30:41 +0100, Lisi wrote:
> > I have searched Wikipedia and the Debian wiki.  I have Googled.  I am
> > clearly using the wrong search terms, although I tried rewording in
> > sundry different ways.
> >
> > Approximately, in round terms, how may packages are available in Debian
> > (Squeeze?)
> > 1. in main
> > 2. in main, contrib and non-free
>
> Edit your /etc/apt/sources.list to have only the line
>
>deb  squeeze non-free
>
> Then
>
>apt-get update
>
> and look at the output.
>
> Add "contrib" to the line above and repeat, Do the same with "main" added.
> Do sums.

Thanks!

Lisi


-- 
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/201210161206.17192.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Lisi]

On Tuesday 16 October 2012 11:46:01 Titanus Eramius wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:30:41 +0100
>
> Lisi  wrote:
> > Hello, all!
> > I have searched Wikipedia and the Debian wiki.  I have Googled.  I am
> > clearly using the wrong search terms, although I tried rewording in
> > sundry different ways.
> >
> > Approximately, in round terms, how may packages are available in
> > Debian (Squeeze?)
> > 1. in main
> > 2. in main, contrib and non-free
> >
> > I have an idea of roughly 20,000 in my head, but cannot remember why
> > I think it and it may be vastly out.  Nor into which of my two
> > categories the figure falls, if by any miracle it is correct.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lisi
>
> Maybe from Synaptic? It lists a total of packages it can fetch in the
> bottom left corner. I have all three archives active + backports,
> testing and unstable and Synaptic reports 43132 packages is available.

Thanks!  That is exactly what I wanted to know.  I have not got Synaptic 
installed, since I prefer the command line for package management.  Perhaps 
the information is also available in aptitude's n-curses interface.  I didn't 
think to look. :-(  There is also probably a command line way to do it in 
either apt-get or aptitude.  I just don't know it. :-(

> But the question might be, what's a package, and what's a libary? Just
> my thoughts though.

D'oh!  I had thought (or rather, clearly not thought) that for present 
purposes that wasn't all that significant.  Though come to think of it, that 
may be why I had the figure of 20,000 in my head.  Applications and not 
libraries.

So I asked the wrong question anyway.

Thanks for all the pointers!

Lisi


-- 
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/201210161204.57282.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Ma, 16 oct 12, 11:56:34, Jon Dowland wrote:
> This can be answered (by a developer) using UDD -
> http://wiki.debian.org/UltimateDebianDatabase
> 
> The answer today is
> 
> udd=> select count(*),release from public.packages group by release;
>  count  | release  
> +--
>   2 | wheezy-security
>  272170 | wheezy
>  189517 | squeeze
>  298810 | sid
>   13816 | squeeze-backports
>8712 | squeeze-security
>   34908 | experimental
> 746 | wheezy-proposed-updates
> 372 | squeeze-updates
> 625 | squeeze-proposed-updates
> (10 rows)

The numbers are too big in my opinion, is this maybe for all 
architectures?
 
> or source packages
> 
> udd=> select count(*),release from public.sources group by release;
>  count | release  
> ---+--
>  1 | wheezy-security
>  17867 | wheezy
>  14969 | squeeze
>  18854 | sid
>599 | squeeze-backports
>207 | squeeze-security
>   1007 | experimental
> 16 | wheezy-proposed-updates
>  6 | squeeze-updates
>  9 | squeeze-proposed-updates
> (10 rows)

Only main?

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Tom Grace]

On 16/10/12 11:30, Lisi wrote:
> Approximately, in round terms, how may packages are available in Debian 
> (Squeeze?)
> 
>From doing:
for i in main contrib non-free; do echo $i:; curl -s
ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/$i/binary-amd64/Packages.bz2 |
bunzip2 -c | grep Package: | sort -u | wc -l ;done

I get:
main:
28128
contrib:
182
non-free:
383

All a bit unscientific, but it might suit your needs


-- 
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/507d3e97.1060...@deathbycomputers.co.uk

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Ma, 16 oct 12, 11:30:41, Lisi wrote:
> Hello, all!
> I have searched Wikipedia and the Debian wiki.  I have Googled.  I am clearly 
> using the wrong search terms, although I tried rewording in sundry different 
> ways.
> 
> Approximately, in round terms, how may packages are available in Debian 
> (Squeeze?)
> 1. in main
> 2. in main, contrib and non-free

Source or binary packages? If you consider source packages then Open 
Office counts as one package, but if you consider binary packages it 
will be a lot more (especially since Debian Maintainers have the good 
habit of splitting big packages to accommodate various use cases.
 
> I have an idea of roughly 20,000 in my head, but cannot remember why I think 
> it and it may be vastly out.  Nor into which of my two categories the figure 
> falls, if by any miracle it is correct.

http://www.debian.org/intro/about mentions "over 29000". aptitude gets 
me 43004 binary packages for squeeze (i386, of which contrib 271 and 
non-free 583) so those should be source packages:

$ aptitude search ~Astable | wc -l
43004
$ aptitude search ~Astable~scontrib | wc -l
271
$ aptitude search ~Astable~snon-free | wc -l
583

(~s works because the archive component is part of the section name for 
packages not in main)

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Darac Marjal]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:46:01PM +0200, Titanus Eramius wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:30:41 +0100
> Lisi  wrote:
> 
> > Hello, all!
> > I have searched Wikipedia and the Debian wiki.  I have Googled.  I am
> > clearly using the wrong search terms, although I tried rewording in
> > sundry different ways.
> > 
> > Approximately, in round terms, how may packages are available in
> > Debian (Squeeze?)
> > 1. in main
> > 2. in main, contrib and non-free
> > 
> > I have an idea of roughly 20,000 in my head, but cannot remember why
> > I think it and it may be vastly out.  Nor into which of my two
> > categories the figure falls, if by any miracle it is correct.

According to my reading of the manual:

aptitude search '~smain'
 and
aptitude search '~smain|~scontrib|~snon-free'

should give you the answers you seek, however, I seem to get 0 for the
first and only 626 for the second, so my search-fu is failing me today.

> 
> Maybe from Synaptic? It lists a total of packages it can fetch in the
> bottom left corner. I have all three archives active + backports,
> testing and unstable and Synaptic reports 43132 packages is available.
> 
> But the question might be, what's a package, and what's a libary? Just
> my thoughts though.

Everything's a package, though it'd make sense to remove virtual
packages from the list.



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Jon Dowland]

This can be answered (by a developer) using UDD -
http://wiki.debian.org/UltimateDebianDatabase

The answer today is

udd=> select count(*),release from public.packages group by release;
 count  | release  
+--
  2 | wheezy-security
 272170 | wheezy
 189517 | squeeze
 298810 | sid
  13816 | squeeze-backports
   8712 | squeeze-security
  34908 | experimental
746 | wheezy-proposed-updates
372 | squeeze-updates
625 | squeeze-proposed-updates
(10 rows)

or source packages

udd=> select count(*),release from public.sources group by release;
 count | release  
---+--
 1 | wheezy-security
 17867 | wheezy
 14969 | squeeze
 18854 | sid
   599 | squeeze-backports
   207 | squeeze-security
  1007 | experimental
16 | wheezy-proposed-updates
 6 | squeeze-updates
 9 | squeeze-proposed-updates
(10 rows)


-- 
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/20121016105634.GB15436@debian

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Brian]

On Tue 16 Oct 2012 at 11:30:41 +0100, Lisi wrote:

> I have searched Wikipedia and the Debian wiki.  I have Googled.  I am clearly 
> using the wrong search terms, although I tried rewording in sundry different 
> ways.
> 
> Approximately, in round terms, how may packages are available in Debian 
> (Squeeze?)
> 1. in main
> 2. in main, contrib and non-free

Edit your /etc/apt/sources.list to have only the line

   deb  squeeze non-free

Then

   apt-get update

and look at the output.

Add "contrib" to the line above and repeat, Do the same with "main" added.
Do sums.


-- 
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/2012101610.GG4530@desktop

Re: Number of Debian packages available.

[Titanus Eramius]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:30:41 +0100
Lisi  wrote:

> Hello, all!
> I have searched Wikipedia and the Debian wiki.  I have Googled.  I am
> clearly using the wrong search terms, although I tried rewording in
> sundry different ways.
> 
> Approximately, in round terms, how may packages are available in
> Debian (Squeeze?)
> 1. in main
> 2. in main, contrib and non-free
> 
> I have an idea of roughly 20,000 in my head, but cannot remember why
> I think it and it may be vastly out.  Nor into which of my two
> categories the figure falls, if by any miracle it is correct.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lisi
> 
> 

Maybe from Synaptic? It lists a total of packages it can fetch in the
bottom left corner. I have all three archives active + backports,
testing and unstable and Synaptic reports 43132 packages is available.

But the question might be, what's a package, and what's a libary? Just
my thoughts though.

Cheers :)


-- 
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/20121016124601.0f492...@asrock.local.aptget.dk

Re: Number of Debian packages available. ERRATUM

[Lisi]

On Tuesday 16 October 2012 11:30:41 Lisi wrote:
> Approximately, in round terms, how may packages are available in Debian
   
> (Squeeze?)
> 1. in main
> 2. in main, contrib and non-free

many, not may :-(

Lisi


-- 
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/201210161141.31671.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Number of Debian packages available.

[Lisi]

Hello, all!
I have searched Wikipedia and the Debian wiki.  I have Googled.  I am clearly 
using the wrong search terms, although I tried rewording in sundry different 
ways.

Approximately, in round terms, how may packages are available in Debian 
(Squeeze?)
1. in main
2. in main, contrib and non-free

I have an idea of roughly 20,000 in my head, but cannot remember why I think 
it and it may be vastly out.  Nor into which of my two categories the figure 
falls, if by any miracle it is correct.

Thanks,
Lisi


-- 
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/201210161130.41942.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: Debian packages depending in libslang2

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Mi, 18 iul 12, 01:35:25, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> Is there a way to find all the Debian packages that depend upon libslang2?
> Like I know that mc and slnr do, but how does one find them all?

aptitude search ~Rlibslang2

or

aptitude search ?reverse-depends(libslang2)

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Debian packages depending in libslang2

[Hugo Vanwoerkom]

On 2012-07-18, John Hasler  wrote:
> apt-cache rdepends libslang2

Thanks John.

Hugo


-- 
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/ju587m$c2p$2...@dough.gmane.org