Re: Desktop CDs: Around 60 MB saved on the installed system, 28 MB in binary packages
On 08/12/2010 07:04 AM, Martin Pitt wrote: Binary Package *.deb file installed system openprinting-ppds ~4 MB ~5 MB openprinting-ppds-extra~18 MB ~28 MB hplip-data ~4 MB ~26 MB [...] Note also that the splitting of openprinting-ppds and openprinting-ppds-extra was done to remove a big part of the space-consuming PPD files from the Desktop CD. Now as the data is vastly compressed I am thinking about merging the PPDs of openprinting-ppds-extra back into openprinting-ppds and doing away with openprinting-ppds-extra. WDYT? That would add 15 MB after removing 8 MB, so this would still be a net loss of 7 MB; Why does it add 15 MB? openprinting-ppds-extra is also compressed: The package is 1.4 MB and the space occupation in an installed system 2 MB. Till -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Desktop CDs: Around 60 MB saved on the installed system, 28 MB in binary packages
Hello Till, Till Kamppeter [2010-08-12 8:22 +0200]: Why does it add 15 MB? Because I can't read numbers properly. (sorry..) Wow, this is an amazing reduction! You introduced 8 MB of savings, so you are of course very entitled to put back 1.5 MB :) so please go ahead. Thanks! Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Desktop CDs: Around 60 MB saved on the installed system, 28 MB in binary packages
On 08/12/2010 08:43 AM, Martin Pitt wrote: Hello Till, Till Kamppeter [2010-08-12 8:22 +0200]: Why does it add 15 MB? Because I can't read numbers properly. (sorry..) Wow, this is an amazing reduction! You introduced 8 MB of savings, so you are of course very entitled to put back 1.5 MB :) so please go ahead. OK, I have merged openprinting-ppds-extra into openprinting-ppds now. Till -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Desktop CDs: Around 60 MB saved on the installed system, 28 MB in binary packages
On 08/12/2010 08:43 AM, Martin Pitt wrote: Hello Till, Till Kamppeter [2010-08-12 8:22 +0200]: Why does it add 15 MB? Because I can't read numbers properly. (sorry..) Wow, this is an amazing reduction! You introduced 8 MB of savings, so you are of course very entitled to put back 1.5 MB :) so please go ahead. And I have freed another 2.3 MB (60 KB of .debs) in the installed system, by applying the PPD compression to splix. /usr/share/ppd is below 1 MB now. Till -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Desktop CDs: Around 60 MB saved on the installed system, 28 MB in binary packages
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Till Kamppeter till.kamppe...@gmail.com wrote: And I have freed another 2.3 MB (60 KB of .debs) in the installed system, by applying the PPD compression to splix. /usr/share/ppd is below 1 MB now. You, sir, win one internets! :D http://www.flickr.com/photos/goopymart/3125898045/in/set-72157594362502502/ CK -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Maverick Alpha3 +nvidia-96 +updates
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2010-August/000744.html On 12 August 2010 04:43, NoOp gl...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Loaded up Maverick Alpha3 a simple test 32bit machine (Intel Motherboard 1Ghz/348Mb) with an nVidia NV25GL [Quadro4 900 XGL] card. All working well; get notification for a driver is available (nvidia-96), install the driver via jockey, reboot, got to System|Preferences|Appearance|Visual Effects|click 'Extra' compiz works (well for a change) with wobbly windows all. Packages installed are: $ apt-cache policy xserver-xorg xserver-xorg: Installed: 1:7.5+6ubuntu2 Candidate: 1:7.5+6ubuntu3 Version table: 1:7.5+6ubuntu3 0 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/main i386 Packages *** 1:7.5+6ubuntu2 0 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt-cache policy xserver-xorg-core xserver-xorg-core: Installed: 2:1.8.1.902-0ubuntu2 Candidate: 2:1.8.99.905-1ubuntu1 Version table: 2:1.8.99.905-1ubuntu1 0 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/main i386 Packages *** 2:1.8.1.902-0ubuntu2 0 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $ apt-cache policy nvidia-96 nvidia-96: Installed: 96.43.18-0ubuntu1 Candidate: 96.43.18-0ubuntu1 Version table: *** 96.43.18-0ubuntu1 0 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ maverick/restricted i386 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status Then the trouble begins... do an update and that installs 1.8.99.905: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg-server/2:1.8.99.905-1ubuntu1 And that breaks everything. Reboot system stalls at plymouth splash screen. Booting into single user mode (Recovery) gets me to a terminal mode, but startx, gdm et all do not work. I can purge nvidia-96 and get the gdm login back. I can even purge nouveau and reinstall nvidia-96 and get the gdm login back; but I can't enable the nvidia drivers as 'sudo nvidia-xconfig' creates an /etc/X11/xorg.conf that does not work. So I reinstall 10.10 Alpha3 and get nvidia-96 working again (including fading wobbly windows). This time I 'force version' of xserver-common and xserver-xorg-core to 1.8.1.902 via Synaptic. I purposely leave xserver-xorg available for update reboot as update-manager keeps crashing interestingly enough shows a download size of 1Kb for 256 selected updates... So I pin the packages via dpkg: $ sudo -s # echo xserver-common hold | dpkg --set-selections # echo xserver-xorg-core hold | dpkg --set-selections # exit $ sudo apt-get update sudo apt-get upgrade Update the system again reboot: nvidia-96 and compiz are still working fine. So my suspicion is that 2:1.8.99.905-1ubuntu1 is the primary issue. Unfortunately, pinning to the 1.8.1.902 version seems to cause holding back 43 other packages: The following packages have been kept back: gbrainy gir1.0-freedesktop gir1.0-glib-2.0 python-gobject python-gobject-cairo xserver-common xserver-xorg xserver-xorg-core xserver-xorg-input-evdev xserver-xorg-input-mouse xserver-xorg-input-synaptics xserver-xorg-input-vmmouse xserver-xorg-input-wacom xserver-xorg-video-apm xserver-xorg-video-ark xserver-xorg-video-ati xserver-xorg-video-chips xserver-xorg-video-cirrus xserver-xorg-video-fbdev xserver-xorg-video-i128 xserver-xorg-video-i740 xserver-xorg-video-intel xserver-xorg-video-mach64 xserver-xorg-video-mga xserver-xorg-video-neomagic xserver-xorg-video-nouveau xserver-xorg-video-nv xserver-xorg-video-openchrome xserver-xorg-video-r128 xserver-xorg-video-radeon xserver-xorg-video-rendition xserver-xorg-video-s3 xserver-xorg-video-s3virge xserver-xorg-video-savage xserver-xorg-video-siliconmotion xserver-xorg-video-sis xserver-xorg-video-sisusb xserver-xorg-video-tdfx xserver-xorg-video-trident xserver-xorg-video-tseng xserver-xorg-video-vesa xserver-xorg-video-vmware xserver-xorg-video-voodoo 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 43 not upgraded. Before I wander off to launchpad land to file a bug, can anyone else verify the same issue with nvidia-96 and/or offer suggestions as to how to resolve with the updated xserver packages? -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
The new installer.
I wonder what will the new installer install if I check the install proprietary software.. Media codecs? Drivers? A lot of my friends have the broadcom wifi in their laptops, the driver is shipped with the Ubuntu CD. bcmwl-kernel-source. Would be great to have it installed automatically if the hardware is detected. -- Owais Lone he...@owaislone.org http://www.owaislone.org -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Apache2 in default Ubuntu install
Why is apache2 in the default Ubuntu install? I upgraded from 9.10 to 10.04 LTS today, and the upgrade procedure installed Apache2 onto my box, even though I have had it autoremoved for a long time. It also did this on another server I upgraded, and that server runs lighttpd too! Selecting previously deselected package apache2.2-bin. Unpacking apache2.2-bin (from .../apache2.2-bin_2.2.14-5ubuntu8_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package apache2-utils. Unpacking apache2-utils (from .../apache2-utils_2.2.14-5ubuntu8_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package apache2.2-common. Unpacking apache2.2-common (from .../apache2.2-common_2.2.14-5ubuntu8_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package apache2-mpm-prefork. Unpacking apache2-mpm-prefork (from .../apache2-mpm-prefork_2.2.14-5ubuntu8_i386.deb) ... Why do you do this, Ubuntu developers? Apache2 isn't required for an Ubuntu install, and heck, it SHOULDN'T be in a default install. If a user wants to run a httpd, they can install it themselves. Thanks. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Apache2 in default Ubuntu install
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Harry Strongburg harry.ubu...@harry.luwrote: Why is apache2 in the default Ubuntu install? It is not AFAIK. I upgraded from 9.10 to 10.04 LTS today, and the upgrade procedure installed Apache2 onto my box, even though I have had it autoremoved for a long time. You might have had the apache2 metapackage installed. Cheers, Krenar Qehaja -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Apache2 in default Ubuntu install
Harry Strongburg harry.ubu...@harry.lu wrote: Why is apache2 in the default Ubuntu install? I upgraded from 9.10 to 10.04 LTS today, and the upgrade procedure installed Apache2 onto my box, even though I have had it autoremoved for a long time. It also did this on another server I upgraded, and that server runs lighttpd too! Selecting previously deselected package apache2.2-bin. Unpacking apache2.2-bin (from .../apache2.2-bin_2.2.14-5ubuntu8_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package apache2-utils. Unpacking apache2-utils (from .../apache2-utils_2.2.14-5ubuntu8_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package apache2.2-common. Unpacking apache2.2-common (from .../apache2.2-common_2.2.14-5ubuntu8_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package apache2-mpm-prefork. Unpacking apache2-mpm-prefork (from .../apache2-mpm-prefork_2.2.14-5ubuntu8_i386.deb) ... Why do you do this, Ubuntu developers? Apache2 isn't required for an Ubuntu install, and heck, it SHOULDN'T be in a default install. If a user wants to run a httpd, they can install it themselves. It's not in the default install. Look at the output of aptitude why apache2-mpm-prefork to see what pulled it in. Scott K -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Apache2 in default Ubuntu install
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 09:34:24PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: It's not in the default install. Look at the output of aptitude why apache2-mpm-prefork to see what pulled it in. So it just happened to have been auto-installed on all the boxes I upgraded from 9.10 to 10.04? That's weird. How do I find out why it was installed? -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Maverick Alpha3 +nvidia-96 +updates
On 08/12/2010 03:18 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2010-August/000744.html Right... and 2:1.8.99.905-1ubuntu would be included in that? Or would it primarily be the difference between the updates inlcuded in 2:1.8.99.905-1ubuntu from 2:1.8.1.902-0ubuntu2 that broke the nvidia-96 package? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg-server/2:1.8.99.905-1ubuntu1 I'm trying to sort out if it's worth responding on this bug report: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nvidia-graphics-drivers/+bug/616023 [nVidia card : X won't start since 1.9 update, no screens found] which seems to point to nVidia 256.x drivers (mine are nvidia-96), or file a new report under xserver-xorg: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg-server I'm trying to avoid uncessary noise on launchpad by trying to pin down the actual breakage report on the proper package, so any advise regarding that will be appreciated. ... -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Apache2 in default Ubuntu install
Hi, Not wishing to get involved in arguments, but an LTS is just that. As apache is the major market of hhtp [1] it is imprortant for LTS that it will be able to be supported for five years. This would not be possible with apache1. Regards, Phill [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_HTTP_Server On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Harry Strongburg harry.ubu...@harry.luwrote: Why is apache2 in the default Ubuntu install? I upgraded from 9.10 to 10.04 LTS today, and the upgrade procedure installed Apache2 onto my box, even though I have had it autoremoved for a long time. It also did this on another server I upgraded, and that server runs lighttpd too! Selecting previously deselected package apache2.2-bin. Unpacking apache2.2-bin (from .../apache2.2-bin_2.2.14-5ubuntu8_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package apache2-utils. Unpacking apache2-utils (from .../apache2-utils_2.2.14-5ubuntu8_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package apache2.2-common. Unpacking apache2.2-common (from .../apache2.2-common_2.2.14-5ubuntu8_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package apache2-mpm-prefork. Unpacking apache2-mpm-prefork (from .../apache2-mpm-prefork_2.2.14-5ubuntu8_i386.deb) ... Why do you do this, Ubuntu developers? Apache2 isn't required for an Ubuntu install, and heck, it SHOULDN'T be in a default install. If a user wants to run a httpd, they can install it themselves. Thanks. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Apache2 in default Ubuntu install
Harry Strongburg harry.ubu...@harry.lu wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 09:34:24PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: It's not in the default install. Look at the output of aptitude why apache2-mpm-prefork to see what pulled it in. So it just happened to have been auto-installed on all the boxes I upgraded from 9.10 to 10.04? That's weird. How do I find out why it was installed? Read the second sentence of my last message. Scott K -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Apache2 in default Ubuntu install
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 03:55:24AM +0100, Phillip Whiteside wrote: Not wishing to get involved in arguments, but an LTS is just that. As apache is the major market of hhtp [1] it is imprortant for LTS that it will be able to be supported for five years. This would not be possible with apache1. Why is apache2 in the default Ubuntu install? I upgraded from 9.10 to 10.04 LTS today, and the upgrade procedure installed Apache2 onto my box, even though I have had it autoremoved for a long time. It also did this on another server I upgraded, and that server runs lighttpd too! Selecting previously deselected package apache2.2-bin. Unpacking apache2.2-bin (from .../apache2.2-bin_2.2.14-5ubuntu8_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package apache2-utils. Unpacking apache2-utils (from .../apache2-utils_2.2.14-5ubuntu8_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package apache2.2-common. Unpacking apache2.2-common (from .../apache2.2-common_2.2.14-5ubuntu8_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package apache2-mpm-prefork. Unpacking apache2-mpm-prefork (from .../apache2-mpm-prefork_2.2.14-5ubuntu8_i386.deb) ... Why do you do this, Ubuntu developers? Apache2 isn't required for an Ubuntu install, and heck, it SHOULDN'T be in a default install. If a user wants to run a httpd, they can install it themselves. You missed the point. I am *not* suggesting apache1 be added instead of apache2, I am saying NO apache *at all* should be installed out-of-the-box. I found out why though, it's packaged with php5, which is also pretty stupid to do. If a user installs PHP, they should also install any httpd they want. Not Apache automatically. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Apache2 in default Ubuntu install
Hello Harry, Harry Strongburg [2010-08-13 4:55 +]: I found out why though, it's packaged with php5, which is also pretty stupid to do. If a user installs PHP, they should also install any httpd they want. Not Apache automatically. php5 installs everything related to PHP, which includes the web server module. If you only want the command line interpreter, but none of the web stuff, just install php5-cli instead. But I dare to claim that most people who want PHP actually want it as a web server platform. Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Maverick Alpha3 +nvidia-96 +updates
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:15 PM, NoOp gl...@sbcglobal.net wrote: On 08/12/2010 03:18 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2010-August/000744.html Right... and 2:1.8.99.905-1ubuntu would be included in that? Or would it primarily be the difference between the updates inlcuded in 2:1.8.99.905-1ubuntu from 2:1.8.1.902-0ubuntu2 that broke the nvidia-96 package? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg-server/2:1.8.99.905-1ubuntu1 I'm trying to sort out if it's worth responding on this bug report: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nvidia-graphics-drivers/+bug/616023 [nVidia card : X won't start since 1.9 update, no screens found] which seems to point to nVidia 256.x drivers (mine are nvidia-96), or file a new report under xserver-xorg: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg-server I'm trying to avoid uncessary noise on launchpad by trying to pin down the actual breakage report on the proper package, so any advise regarding that will be appreciated. ... -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:15 PM, NoOp gl...@sbcglobal.net wrote: On 08/12/2010 03:18 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2010-August/000744.html Right... and 2:1.8.99.905-1ubuntu would be included in that? Or would it primarily be the difference between the updates inlcuded in 2:1.8.99.905-1ubuntu from 2:1.8.1.902-0ubuntu2 that broke the nvidia-96 package? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg-server/2:1.8.99.905-1ubuntu1 I'm trying to sort out if it's worth responding on this bug report: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nvidia-graphics-drivers/+bug/616023 [nVidia card : X won't start since 1.9 update, no screens found] which seems to point to nVidia 256.x drivers (mine are nvidia-96), or file a new report under xserver-xorg: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg-server I'm trying to avoid uncessary noise on launchpad by trying to pin down the actual breakage report on the proper package, so any advise regarding that will be appreciated. ... -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss You are going to have to use nouveau for now, the proprietary nvidia-96 and nvidia-173 drivers do not work with xserver 1.9 and most likely will not until right before release. 256.44 that is in ppa:ubuntu-x-swat/x-updates does work for the GPU's it supports with IgnoreABI added to the serverflags section in your xorg.conf but the older releases don't. If you want accelerated 3D (for compiz) with nouveau you can install the libgl1-mesa-dri-experimental package if you are using the mesa 7.8 that is in maverick. http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=14 is the proper place to report the problem, we can't do anything about it with the binary drivers. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
