On Fri 28 Jun 2019 at 09:21:31 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 06/28/2019 08:58 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 08:50:02AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > > On Fri 28 Jun 2019 at 08:04:43 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote:
> > > > "apt-get install" will report the size of the
On Friday 28 June 2019 11:21:45 Curt wrote:
> On 2019-06-28, Richard Owlett wrote:
> >> I read the OP's question as "the total installed size including
> >> dependencies" -- assuming none of those dependencies has been
> >> installed before (ex nihilo, so to speak).
> >
> > Explicitly *YES*!
> >
On 2019-06-28, Richard Owlett wrote:
>>
>> I read the OP's question as "the total installed size including
>> dependencies" -- assuming none of those dependencies has been
>> installed before (ex nihilo, so to speak).
>
> Explicitly *YES*!
> It's nice to have someone actually read what I write ;)
Quoting Richard Owlett (2019-06-28 16:21:31)
> On 06/28/2019 08:58 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 08:50:02AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> >> On Fri 28 Jun 2019 at 08:04:43 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote:
> >>> "apt-get install" will report the size of the new files to be
> >
On 06/28/2019 08:58 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 08:50:02AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
On Fri 28 Jun 2019 at 08:04:43 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote:
"apt-get install" will report the size of the new files to be
installed when it asks for confirmation.
I'm looking for som
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 08:57:24AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
[...]
> READ my second sentence!
> ESPECIALLY from "{" to "}".
Cool down, Richard, and accept that your questions may be
difficult for others to understand (although their meaning
always seem crystal clear for /you/).
Communication
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 08:50:02AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 28 Jun 2019 at 08:04:43 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote:
> > "apt-get install" will report the size of the new files to be
> > installed when it asks for confirmation.
> >
> > I'm looking for something similar which will base its
On 06/28/2019 08:50 AM, David Wright wrote:
On Fri 28 Jun 2019 at 08:04:43 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote:
"apt-get install" will report the size of the new files to be
installed when it asks for confirmation.
I'm looking for something similar which will base its calculation
*ONLY* on the conten
On Fri 28 Jun 2019 at 08:04:43 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote:
> "apt-get install" will report the size of the new files to be
> installed when it asks for confirmation.
>
> I'm looking for something similar which will base its calculation
> *ONLY* on the contents of /var/lib/apt/lists/ {ignoring w
"apt-get install" will report the size of the new files to be installed
when it asks for confirmation.
I'm looking for something similar which will base its calculation *ONLY*
on the contents of /var/lib/apt/lists/ {ignoring what is already on the
current system}.
I noticed the following difference in the reported
'Provides' value.
$ sudo apt-cache show python3
Package: python3
Provides: python3-profiler
$ sudo apt-cache showpkg python3
...
Provides:
3.5.3-1 - python3-profiler:i386 (= ) python3:any (= 3.5.3-1)
python3-profiler (=
without User knowledge that it's even a possibility that needs
conscious security protection considerations at all times.
*hm... sorry.* :)
PPPS Some MORE thinking while repeatedly proofreading (to see what
common sense point I may be overlooking): Perhaps "apt-cache pkgnames"
i
On Fri 06 Apr 2018 at 08:54:56 (+), Curt wrote:
> On 2018-04-06, David Wright wrote:
> >>
> >> Certainly I have no proof except my experience
> >
> > Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think you've shared any.
>
> I've found something ambivalently concrete.
>
> Note
> Since apt / apt-get
On 2018-04-06, David Wright wrote:
>>
>> Certainly I have no proof except my experience
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think you've shared any.
I've found something ambivalently concrete.
Note
Since apt / apt-get and aptitude share auto-installed package status
(see Section 2.5.5, “
On Fri 06 Apr 2018 at 07:36:09 (+0900), Mark Fletcher wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 09:31:11AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 07:47:05AM +0900, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > I'm not sure if you really did what it sounds like you did here, but if
> >
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 09:31:11AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 07:47:05AM +0900, Mark Fletcher wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I'm not sure if you really did what it sounds like you did here, but if
> > you did... you can't mix and match commands to apt-get and aptitude.
>
>
On Mon 02 Apr 2018 at 10:53:07 (+0200), Jean-Baptiste Thomas wrote:
> The reason why it failed is that it looked for Packages.xz which
> did not exist on my mirror. The reason why my mirror did not
> have a Packages.xz file is that it was made with the version of
> debmirror in Debian 8, which onl
>> What I'd like to know now is : what prevents apt-get from
>> downloading the Packages file from the mirror ? Wget can !
>
> Move all the files out of /var/lib/apt/lists/ so that apt-get update
> has to download fresh copies. That should get you back on track.
>
> By all means take the opportuni
On Wed 28 Mar 2018 at 21:07:35 (+0200), Jean-Baptiste Thomas wrote:
> > Try running:
> > sudo apt-get update # one more time, to be sure
> > # then
> > apt-cache policy ntp
> >
> > and see what version it refers to.
>
> Thanks for the suggestions fol
Jean-Baptiste Thomas wrote:
> /var/lib/apt/lists/, which may be why it thinks that not being
> able to download it is not a problem.
>
> Unfortunately, the Packages file in /var/lib/apt/lists/ is out
> of date by months because it pertains to 9.2 while the mirror
> has 9.4. Diffing the two shows wh
> Try running:
> sudo apt-get update # one more time, to be sure
> # then
> apt-cache policy ntp
>
> and see what version it refers to.
Thanks for the suggestions folks but there's not much to see
there, no packages are pinned.
I've made some progress, though. A close
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 07:47:05AM +0900, Mark Fletcher wrote:
[...]
> I'm not sure if you really did what it sounds like you did here, but if
> you did... you can't mix and match commands to apt-get and aptitude.
I think this is false, at least in
[...]
and it fails because the version of the package in the Debian 9
mirror listed in /etc/apt/sources.list is +deb9u2 :
How is this possible ? I'm confused.
Try running:
sudo apt-get update # one more time, to be sure
# then
apt-cache policy ntp
and see what version it refers to.
--
John
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 07:50:03PM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Thomas wrote:
> After apt-get update, attempting to install ntp tries to
> download version 1:4.2.8p10+dfsg-3+deb9u1 and fails. It tries
> to download +deb9u1 because
>
> $ aptitude show ntp
> Package: ntp
> Version: 1:4.2.8p10+dfsg-3+d
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:50:03 +0200 (CEST) Jean-Baptiste Thomas said:
> How is this possible ? I'm confused.
In my Buster system the situation is like this:
~$ apt-cache policy ntp
ntp:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 1:4.2.8p10+dfsg-6
Version table:
1:4.2.8p10+dfsg-6 500
After apt-get update, attempting to install ntp tries to
download version 1:4.2.8p10+dfsg-3+deb9u1 and fails. It tries
to download +deb9u1 because
$ aptitude show ntp
Package: ntp
Version: 1:4.2.8p10+dfsg-3+deb9u1
State: not installed
[...]
and it fails because the version of the packag
Op Tue, 14 Nov 2017 18:02:21 +0100 schreef Jilguero ostras
:
Hi,
the command "apt-cache show" displays package information, including
package size after installation, but units are not >reported (Mb, Kb,
etc). I have seen a bug report long ago:
Debian Bug report logs -#1
Hi,
the command "apt-cache show" displays package information, including
package size after installation, but units are not reported (Mb, Kb, etc).
I have seen a bug report long ago:
Debian Bug report logs - #173120 <173...@bugs.debian.org>
but it seems this is not fixed.
On 09/15/2017 06:02 AM, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
Hi,
i ran
apt-get update
apt-get dist-ugrade
on my Sid VM, one year after the last such run.
It announced to need 1.2 GB more of disk space, which is astounding on its own,
but in the end it consumed 2.4 GB.
When looking for the reason of the
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 03:02:50PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
Before i run apt-get commands from the web like "clean" or "autoclean",
i'd like to know for what use case Debian keeps this wealth of .deb files.
The internet mainly has the story that it grows a lot, for the purpose
of re-installin
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 03:02:50PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> When looking for the reason of the waste i got to nearly 5 GB of
> /var/cache/apt
>
> Before i run apt-get commands from the web like "clean" or "autoclean",
> i'd like to know for what use case Debian keeps this wealth of .deb fi
Hi,
i ran
apt-get update
apt-get dist-ugrade
on my Sid VM, one year after the last such run.
It announced to need 1.2 GB more of disk space, which is astounding on its own,
but in the end it consumed 2.4 GB.
When looking for the reason of the waste i got to nearly 5 GB of
/var/cache/apt
Be
Hi Brian,
>> This morning I wanted to do an apt-get update / upgrade cycle on my
>> system. The update went ok, but during the upgrade I got a " No space
>> left on device" warning.
>> [...]
>> Preparing to replace ssh 1:6.0p1-4+deb7u3 (using
>> .../ssh_1%3a6.0p1-4+deb7u4_all.deb) ...
>> Unpac
On Wed 20 Apr 2016 at 06:52:22 +, Bonno Bloksma wrote:
> This morning I wanted to do an apt-get update / upgrade cycle on my
> system. The update went ok, but during the upgrade I got a " No space
> left on device" warning.
> [...]
> Preparing to replace ssh 1:6.0p1-4+deb7u3 (using
> .../ssh
* Bonno Bloksma [2016-04-20 06:52 +]:
> Hi,
>
[...]
>
> My /var partition had filled up, it seems out of the 3GB there was about
> 2.5GB in /var/cache/apt/archives.
> The solution was simple, just an apt-get autoclean, I now have 2.2GB free on
> my /var partition. ;-)
>
> But. What w
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:52:22AM +, Bonno Bloksma wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This morning I wanted to do an apt-get update / upgrade cycle on my system.
> The update went ok, but during the upgrade I got a " No space left on device"
> warning.
> [...]
> Preparing to replace ssh 1:6.0p1-4+deb7u3 (usin
Hi,
This morning I wanted to do an apt-get update / upgrade cycle on my system.
The update went ok, but during the upgrade I got a " No space left on device"
warning.
[...]
Preparing to replace ssh 1:6.0p1-4+deb7u3 (using
.../ssh_1%3a6.0p1-4+deb7u4_all.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement ssh ...
Proc
On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 02:16:09PM -0700, Jimmy Johnson wrote:
[BIG snip]
>
> Installing 'flashplayer-mozilla' that is in Debian main will solve the flash
> problem.
# apt-cache show flashplayer-mozilla
N: Can't select versions from package 'flashplayer-mozilla&#x
_media_sdb1_wheezy_dvd-1_dists_wheezy_main_i18n_Translation-en.gz
/var/lib/apt/lists# gunzip $_
/var/lib/apt/lists# apt-cache show less
Package: less
Version: 444-4
Installed-Size: 286
Maintainer: Anibal Monsalve Salazar
Architecture: amd64
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.11), libtinfo5, debianutils (>= 1.8)
Descript
nslation-en
Hit http://security.debian.org wheezy/updates/main Translation-en
When I show details of a package with apt-cache command I got a short
description of the searched package. It seems that english translation
files aren't merged into /var/lib/apt/lists/ directory:
# apt-cache
On Lu, 12 nov 12, 10:31:52, Nicolas T wrote:
>
> My Release files on mirrors are correct :
> It reports for exemples headers like this :
>
> Origin: Debian
> Label: Debian
> Suite: stable-updates
> Codename: squeeze-updates
> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 08:17:11 UTC
> Valid-Until: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:
Dear all,
I've got troubles with apt-cache policy and pinning.
We created some mirrors of official distrib mirrors and I am not able to
get the "Release, Origin, Version, Label etc" on apt-cache policy.
Sometimes I got it, sometimes not.. and I don't know why. It causes my
On Thu, 05 May 2011 05:10:53 -0700, Regid Ichira wrote:
> $ apt-cache --names-only search apm | grep sleepd
> sleepd - puts an inactive or low battery laptop to sleep
>
> Am I right that, according to man apt-cache, mentioning sleepd is a bug?
(...)
Yep, well... kind of. Alre
$ apt-cache --names-only search apm | grep sleepd
sleepd - puts an inactive or low battery laptop to sleep
Am I right that, according to man apt-cache, mentioning sleepd is a bug?
$ man apt-cache | grep -A20 ' search regex' | head
search reg
Dne, 19. 04. 2011 01:17:34 je Alan McConnell napisal(a):
A general point, for the wonderful Debian developers:
I feel that this apt-cdrom action should have been done
automatically at the install, as it was with my
etch DVDs.
At some po
; > to believe, since the install went so well) Is there any way of
> > adjusting something so that apt-cache and aptitude work as well
> > as they did with my 'etch' DVDs?
>
> Did you add them to your sources.list with apt-cdrom? That is,
>
> # -d being moun
using my eight DVDs that I had bought
> from LinuxCollections.com.
>
> The install went beautifully, and my system is now very elegant, as
> far as it exists. But I noticed that I used only Disk 1.
>
> Now I want to install e.g. Lilypond(the music typesetter) and
> the Window Man
went beautifully, and my system is now very elegant, as
far as it exists. But I noticed that I used only Disk 1.
Now I want to install e.g. Lilypond(the music typesetter) and
the Window Manager sawfish. But when I go e.g.
apt-cache search lilypond
(from a terminal, naturally) the prompt ret
On 13/03/11 13:58, Camaleón wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 21:06:58 +, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
The manual page should be then updated accordingly to reflect the
current status of the "--names-only" argument :-)
Done:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=618017
Thank you,
I sho
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 21:06:58 +, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
> The manual page should be then updated accordingly to reflect the
> current status of the "--names-only" argument :-)
Done:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=618017
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 20:09:29 +, Dom wrote:
> On 12/03/11 19:25, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>> So indeed, only package name should be queried in the regex which does
>> not seem to be the case. I also get false positives, for example:
>>
>> sm01@stt008:~$ apt-cache --na
On 12/03/11 19:25, Camaleón wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 18:17:47 +, Camaleón wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 19:22:38 +0200, Πρεκατές Αλέξανδρος wrote:
apt-cache --names-only search '^a' except from packages name started
with 'a' (intented) will also give packages tha
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 18:17:47 +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 19:22:38 +0200, Πρεκατές Αλέξανδρος wrote:
>
>> apt-cache --names-only search '^a' except from packages name started
>> with 'a' (intented) will also give packages that they have
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 19:22:38 +0200, Πρεκατές Αλέξανδρος wrote:
> apt-cache --names-only search '^a' except from packages name started
> with 'a' (intented) will also give packages that they have a source
> file whos name starts with 'a'. is that an er
Hi
apt-cache --names-only search '^a' except from
packages name started with 'a' (intented) will also give
packages that they have a source file whos name starts with
'a'. is that an error?
eg:
$apt-cache --names-only search '^a'
...
xul-ext
or installed packages...
For all packages, run
aptitude -F "%a%c %p %v %d" search parted
(I have inverted the action and current states of my first post to use
"dpkg -l"'s order)
Or, just with dpkg
dpkg -l "*parted*"
Or with apt-cache (using Aaron's post)
dp
> 3a) I'd like to get an output list including all the packages from
> step 1 above,
> 3b) Showing the package name, & its installed status (ii, un, etc)
> like from step 2.
>
> Note: One way might be to:
> 1) Do the apt-cache search
Note that that searche
2010/6/27 giovanni_re :
> Is there a way to mashup "apt-cache search " & "dpkg -l"
> - so that given a SearchTerm,
> it would find all the related package names in the cache,
> then do a "dpkg -l" on those package names?
>
>
> --
> To
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:27:14 -0700, "giovanni_re" said:
> Note: One way might be to:
> 1) Do the apt-cache search
> 2) For each line
> 2a) Pull out the package name
> 2b) Write an apt-cache search for that name only to a temp file
Er, that should have been a "dpk
6/26/2010 5:57 PM, giovanni_re wrote:
> >>> Is there a way to mashup "apt-cache search " & "dpkg -l"
> >>> - so that given a SearchTerm,
> >>> it would find all the related package names in the cache,
> >>> then do
Thanks Aaron & Tom -
That's progress, but not there yet. ;)
Further suggestion? Thanks :)
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 04:39:41 -0400, "Tom H" said:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 7:57 PM, giovanni_re wrote:
> > Is there a way to mashup "apt-cache search " &
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 7:57 PM, giovanni_re wrote:
> Is there a way to mashup "apt-cache search " & "dpkg -l"
> - so that given a SearchTerm,
> it would find all the related package names in the cache,
> then do a "dpkg -l" on those package names?
On 6/26/2010 6:58 PM, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> On 6/26/2010 6:55 PM, Aaron Toponce wrote:
>> On 6/26/2010 5:57 PM, giovanni_re wrote:
>>> Is there a way to mashup "apt-cache search " & "dpkg -l"
>>> - so that given a SearchTerm,
>>&
On 6/26/2010 6:55 PM, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> On 6/26/2010 5:57 PM, giovanni_re wrote:
>> Is there a way to mashup "apt-cache search " & "dpkg -l"
>> - so that given a SearchTerm,
>> it would find all the related package names in the cache,
On 6/26/2010 5:57 PM, giovanni_re wrote:
> Is there a way to mashup "apt-cache search " & "dpkg -l"
> - so that given a SearchTerm,
> it would find all the related package names in the cache,
> then do a "dpkg -l" on those package names?
dpkg -l
Is there a way to mashup "apt-cache search " & "dpkg -l"
- so that given a SearchTerm,
it would find all the related package names in the cache,
then do a "dpkg -l" on those package names?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.o
In <4a8ae5a0.7040...@alice.it>, lc wrote:
>The command apt-cache policy gives 2 answers:
I often get many answers:
$ apt-cache policy broffice.org
broffice.org:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 1:2.4.1+dfsg-1
Version table:
1:3.1.1~rc1-1 0
300 http://localhost experime
On Ter, 18 Ago 2009, lc wrote:
The command apt-cache policy gives 2 answers:
for example:
~# apt-cache policy wxmaxima
wxmaxima:
Installed: 0.7.1-1
Candidate: 0.8.2-1
Version table:
0.8.2-1 0
700 http://ftp.it.debian.org unstable/main Packages
*** 0.7.1-1 0
100 /var
The command apt-cache policy gives 2 answers:
for example:
~# apt-cache policy wxmaxima
wxmaxima:
Installed: 0.7.1-1
Candidate: 0.8.2-1
Version table:
0.8.2-1 0
700 http://ftp.it.debian.org unstable/main Packages
*** 0.7.1-1 0
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
why this
If you want to compile something which requires xulrunner you need the package
"xulrunner-dev".
--
Best regards,
Jörg-Volker.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
s post.
My bad
/tony
Anthony Baldwin wrote:
I need xulrunner.
I get
apt-cache search xulrunner
conkeror - keyboard focused web browser with Emacs look and feel
conkeror-spawn-process-helper - spawn external processes in Conkeror
iceape-dev - Development files for the Iceape Internet Suite
On 2009-07-02 20:08 +0200, Anthony Baldwin wrote:
> I need xulrunner.
It is only available in Etch aka oldstable.
> I get
>
> apt-cache search xulrunner
> conkeror - keyboard focused web browser with Emacs look and feel
> conkeror-spawn-process-helper - spawn external pro
I need xulrunner.
I get
apt-cache search xulrunner
conkeror - keyboard focused web browser with Emacs look and feel
conkeror-spawn-process-helper - spawn external processes in Conkeror
iceape-dev - Development files for the Iceape Internet Suite
liferea - feed aggregator for GNOME
liferea
Raj Kiran Grandhi wrote:
> > LÉVAI Dániel wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> >
> > Why could it be, that when I use apt-cache search as a normal
> > user, its output is only a subset of the one when I'm running it as
> > root?
> >
> >
LÉVAI Dániel wrote:
Hi!
Why could it be, that when I use apt-cache search as a normal user, its
output is only a subset of the one when I'm running it as root?
Like this:
$ apt-cache search ia32
ia32-libs - ia32 shared libraries for use on amd64 and ia64 systems
# apt-cache search
Hi!
Why could it be, that when I use apt-cache search as a normal user, its
output is only a subset of the one when I'm running it as root?
Like this:
$ apt-cache search ia32
ia32-libs - ia32 shared libraries for use on amd64 and ia64 systems
# apt-cache search ia32
elilo - Bootloade
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 04:08:31PM -0700, Ray Liere wrote:
> I have installed Debian 4.0r3 (etch). I am new to Debian (but have quite
> a bit of experience using linux). I do not understand the meaning of
> the "|" that appears once in a while in the output of the "depen
I have installed Debian 4.0r3 (etch). I am new to Debian (but have quite
a bit of experience using linux). I do not understand the meaning of
the "|" that appears once in a while in the output of the "depends" and
"rdepends" apt-cache commands.
Examples (shorten
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 04:14:28PM +, Hendrik Boom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:32:23 -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > You can delete all the downloaded .deb files by running "aptitude clean".
>
> I didn't know aptitude had that option. Is there any differ
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:32:23 -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
>
> Most of that space is stored in /var/cache/apt/archives. The rest of
> /var/cache/apt can be deleted but it'll be recreated next time you run
> apt; it's a binary cache of data that's used to speed apt up.
>
> I think it's mostly
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 05:34:59PM +, Hendrik Boom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> I can get some space back by doing apt-get autoclean.
>
> I can get more back by apt-get clean.
>
> This deletes lots and lots of files from my system. Judging from du's
> output, /var/cache/apt/ tak
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 05:34:59PM +, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> I can get some space back by doing apt-get autoclean.
>
> I can get more back by apt-get clean.
>
> This deletes lots and lots of files from my system. Judging from du's
> output, /var/cache/apt/ takes a bit more than a third of my
On 24-Apr-08, at 11:04 PM, Hendrik Boom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can get some space back by doing apt-get autoclean.
I can get more back by apt-get clean.
This deletes lots and lots of files from my system. Judging from du's
output, /var/cache/apt/ takes a bit more than a third of my dis
Hendrik Boom wrote:
I can get some space back by doing apt-get autoclean.
I can get more back by apt-get clean.
This deletes lots and lots of files from my system. Judging from du's
output, /var/cache/apt/ takes a bit more than a third of my disk space.
Now I've been keeping these files aro
I can get some space back by doing apt-get autoclean.
I can get more back by apt-get clean.
This deletes lots and lots of files from my system. Judging from du's
output, /var/cache/apt/ takes a bit more than a third of my disk space.
Now I've been keeping these files around, just in case.
But
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 08:14:12PM +0530, Amogh Hooshdar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> Why this difference? Why two blocks of output for the same package in
> apt-cache show. I have included the full outputs of both the tools
> below.
aptitude only shows the current/la
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 08:14:12PM +0530, Amogh Hooshdar wrote:
> Why this difference? Why two blocks of output for the same package in
> apt-cache show. I have included the full outputs of both the tools
> below.
Because you have 2 apt line for binary package (testing and unsta
I always use the aptitude package manager. I never use the apt-get
package manager.
Today, I noticed that apt-cache show and aptitude show are reporting
different dependencies for the package:- linux-image-2.6-486. If you
see the aptitude output, it clearly shows:-
Depends: linux-image-2.6.22-3
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 11:34:21AM -0700, Freddy Freeloader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> Does this mean that apt-cache reads the local database + the server
> repositories rather than the just the server repositories? I tend to
> see that as a bug, not a feature, as
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:45:12 -0400
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Florian Kulzer wrote:
> > I think many people would not like it if apt-cache no longer found the
> > local packages, custom kernels, etc. If a package is still installed
> > then its information i
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 23:11 +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 13:47:50 -0700, Freddy Freeloader wrote:
> > Florian Kulzer wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> I think many people would not like it if apt-cache no longer found the
> >> local packages,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 13:47:50 -0700, Freddy Freeloader wrote:
> Florian Kulzer wrote:
[...]
>> I think many people would not like it if apt-cache no longer found the
>> local packages, custom kernels, etc. If a package is still installed
>> then its information is incl
Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 11:34:21AM -0700, Freddy Freeloader wrote:
Florian Kulzer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 08:08:22 -0700, Freddy Freeloader wrote:
Does this mean that apt-cache reads the local database + the server
repositories rather than
updated and upgraded this morning as a
result of troubleshooting this issue. On machine #1 I can apt-cache show
nhfsstone and it returns the expected data on nhfsstone. On machines 2
and 3 it tells me that the nhfsstone package cannot be found. Running
apt-cache search nfs on all machines yeilds
Florian Kulzer wrote:
> I think many people would not like it if apt-cache no longer found the
> local packages, custom kernels, etc. If a package is still installed
> then its information is included in apt's package cache, and "apt-cache"
> bases all its results on th
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 11:34:21AM -0700, Freddy Freeloader wrote:
> Florian Kulzer wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 08:08:22 -0700, Freddy Freeloader wrote:
> Does this mean that apt-cache reads the local database + the server
> repositories rather than the just the server r
ll were updated and upgraded this morning as a
>>> result of troubleshooting this issue. On machine #1 I can apt-cache show
>>> nhfsstone and it returns the expected data on nhfsstone. On machines 2
>>> and 3 it tells me that the nhfsstone package cannot be found. Runn
Florian Kulzer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 08:08:22 -0700, Freddy Freeloader wrote:
I have three separate machines that have identical entries in
/etc/apt/sources.list. All were updated and upgraded this morning as a
result of troubleshooting this issue. On machine #1 I can apt-cache
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 08:08:22 -0700, Freddy Freeloader wrote:
> I have three separate machines that have identical entries in
> /etc/apt/sources.list. All were updated and upgraded this morning as a
> result of troubleshooting this issue. On machine #1 I can apt-cache show
> n
Joe Hart wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Freddy Freeloader wrote:
I have three separate machines that have identical entries in
/etc/apt/sources.list. All were updated and upgraded this morning as a
result of troubleshooting this issue. On machine #1 I can apt-cache
1 - 100 of 244 matches
Mail list logo
