How much time did you waste on creating that?
Goodbye to you too.
You'll not be missed :)
From: Steve Litt
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: Remove unwanted, orphaned files and dependencies
On Wed,
From: Jerry Stuckle
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: Remove unwanted, orphaned files and dependencies
> LOL! Last time I was called that was in third grade or so. It shows your
> level of maturity
From: Bob Holtzman
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 1:51 AM
Subject: Re: Remove unwanted, orphaned files and dependencies
> BTW, do you know the difference between a forum and a mailing list? You seem
> to use "
On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 22:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
Horatio Leragon wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Bob Holtzman
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 5:45 AM
> Subject: Re: Remove unwanted, orphaned files and depen
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 10:13:47PM -0700, Horatio Leragon wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Bob Holtzman
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 5:45 AM
> Subject: Re: Remove unwanted, orphaned files and depen
On 6/5/2014 1:13 AM, Horatio Leragon wrote:
*From:* Bob Holtzman
*To:* debian-user@lists.debian.org
*Sent:* Thursday, June 5, 2014 5:45 AM
*Subject:* Re: Remove unwanted, orphaned files and dependencies
> Ralph
Hi Horatio,
On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 22:13 -0700, Horatio Leragon wrote:
> I now understand why Ubuntu is way more popular than Debian
Opinions like that can better be discussed at the Debian off-topic list.
Ubuntu does cast a bad light on free software, regarding to the Unity
lenses spyware that i
From: Bob Holtzman
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 5:45 AM
Subject: Re: Remove unwanted, orphaned files and dependencies
> Ralph, I think your wasting bandwidth on this guy. He's been told this more
> than once y
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 01:16:26AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
snip
>
> "Before You Ask
>
> Before asking a technical question by e-mail, or in a newsgroup, or on a
> website chat board, do the following:
>
> 1. Try to find an answer by searching the archives of the foru
On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 04:18 -0700, Horatio Leragon wrote:
> How do I learn it?
Learning by doing ;).
$ chown --help
Usage: chown [OPTION]... [OWNER][:[GROUP]] FILE...
or: chown [OPTION]... --reference=RFILE FILE...
[snip]
Examples:
chown root /uChange the owner of /u to "root".
c
From: Ralf Mardorf
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: Remove unwanted, orphaned files and dependencies
> A note to the OP. Yet you might not be able to understand the syntax of a
> man(ual)page, b
ed, orphaned files and dependencies
>
>> The advent of apt was a gigantic step forward for Debian. The interplay
>between dpkg and apt is still (to me) quite marvellous.
>> Get a .deb from somewhere (Skype, for example) and
>
>> dpkg -i
>
On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 01:54 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> https://startpage.com/ Search term: apt-get manual > First hit:
> http://linux.die.net/man/8/apt-get
JFTR for the search term: apt-get man
or for: apt-get manpage
The second hit is manpages.debian.net ;).
--
To UNSUBSCR
t;-f, --fix-broken
Fix. Attempt to correct a system with broken dependencies in place."
For research to answer your question yourself, you neither need to
understand the syntax of a manpage, nor you need to read the whole text.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@list
On Tue, 2014-06-03 at 15:50 -0700, Horatio Leragon wrote:
> apt-get -f install
>
> means a "force" install, am I correct?
No, you aren't!
"-f, --fix-broken
Fix; attempt to correct a system with broken dependencies in place." -
http://manpages.debian.org/cgi-
On Tue 03 Jun 2014 at 15:50:38 -0700, Horatio Leragon wrote:
>
> From: Brian
>
> > The advent of apt was a gigantic step forward for Debian. The interplay
> > between dpkg and apt is still (to me) quite marvellous.
> > Get a .deb from somewhere (Skype, for example) and
>
> > dpkg -i
>
> >
From: Brian
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 2:22 AM
Subject: Re: Remove unwanted, orphaned files and dependencies
> The advent of apt was a gigantic step forward for Debian. The interplay
> between dpkg and apt is sti
will
> > take care of proper ordering when needed (Depends:, Pre-Depends:,
> > etc.) and will refuse to install packages without satisfied
> > dependencies unless --force switches are used.
> >
> > I think it's more accurate to say dpkg only handles files (be
s for. It does no dependency checking,
>
> Maybe you didn't mean it this way, but dpkg does indeed do dependency
> checking. When provided with a bunch of .deb files to install it will
> take care of proper ordering when needed (Depends:, Pre-Depends:,
> etc.) and will re
From: The Wanderer
To: "debian-user@lists.debian.org"
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: Remove unwanted, orphaned files and dependencies
> That depends on a number of other factors.
> Literally speaking, dpkg will s
gt;> install it will take care of proper ordering when needed (Depends:,
>> Pre-Depends:, etc.) and will refuse to install packages without
>> satisfied dependencies unless > --force switches are used.
>
> What happens if we choose to use --force switches to install sof
From: Andrei POPESCU
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: Remove unwanted, orphaned files and dependencies
> Maybe you didn't mean it this way, but dpkg does indeed do dependency
> checking. When pr
ay, but dpkg does indeed do dependency
checking. When provided with a bunch of .deb files to install it will
take care of proper ordering when needed (Depends:, Pre-Depends:, etc.)
and will refuse to install packages without satisfied dependencies
unless --force switches are used.
I think it'
On Sun 01 Jun 2014 at 20:05:23 +0200, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:
> My knowledge and experience with aptitude is much better than with
> apt/apt-get/apt-cache. As the first document comparing these tools I recommend
> the one in the package "debian-reference-en" (or another language you prefer)
> whi
My knowledge and experience with aptitude is much better than with
apt/apt-get/apt-cache. As the first document comparing these tools I recommend
the one in the package "debian-reference-en" (or another language you prefer)
which of course is also available on the debian site.
The search option of
On 2014-06-01, Joe wrote:
>
> Other than that, it is a matter of personal preference. Aptitude has
> a command-line text mode and an interactive text-graphics mode, apt-get
> is older and is purely text. Aptitude merges various tools under one
> command, apt-get, apt-cache and others make up a sma
t few upgrades (to my knowledge, maybe always) from one
version of Stable to the next, Debian has recommended that one is used,
as it will deal better with dependencies. As I recall, apt-get was
recommended for the upgrade to Wheezy, and aptitude for the last couple
before that.
Other than that,
On Sun 01 Jun 2014 at 05:49:24 -0700, Horatio Leragon wrote:
> I read somewhere on the internet that Debian discourages its users to
> use the 'aptitude' command. Debian encourages us to use the 'apt'
> command. Is that correct?
No. The context you probably saw that in is important.
> > $ aptitu
From: Jörg-Volker Peetz
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Sunday, June 1, 2014 12:09 AM
Subject: Re: Remove unwanted, orphaned files and dependencies
Thanks for your help, Jorg.
> The aptitude command offers some help:
I read somewhere on
The aptitude command offers some help:
$ aptitude search '~c'
searches for packages that were removed but not purged, i.e., their
configuration files are still present;
to get rid of these files order
$ aptitude purge '~c'
Next:
$ aptitude search '~g'
searches for packages not required by any
Op Sat, 31 May 2014 09:09:22 +0200 schreef Horatio Leragon
:
After installation or uninstallation of software, I am quite sure there
are unwanted files and orphaned dependencies lying around.
How do I do a spring cleaning of my OS?
Try the following commands:
$ sudo apt-get autoremove
After installation or uninstallation of software, I am quite sure there are
unwanted files and orphaned dependencies lying around.
How do I do a spring cleaning of my OS?
as it does for real
packages. In wheezy, looking at the gnome meta-package, the only
package I would say is a genuine Depends: would be gnome-core,
everything else should be a Recommends: or less. Instead of having
dependencies like "libreoffice-writer | abiword" and "libreoffice-calc
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 23:21:55 +1200
Chris Bannister wrote:
> I don't use GNOME, so I'll leave that to you. :)
> GNOME is one of the reasons I use a Window Manager. :)
Nah, I'll pass. Stopped using GNOME back in 2007, never looked back
since then.
Reco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-r
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 10:50:03AM +0400, Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 16:18:01 +1200
> Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 12:26:10AM -0400, PaulNM wrote:
> > > paul@debguis2:~$ aptitude why libreoffice-writer
> > > i gnome Depends libreoffice-writer | abiword (>
Hi.
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 16:18:01 +1200
Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 12:26:10AM -0400, PaulNM wrote:
> > paul@debguis2:~$ aptitude why libreoffice-writer
> > i gnome Depends libreoffice-writer | abiword (>= 2.8)
>
> WTF. Shouldn't that be a recommends?
>
> Seems like a bug
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 12:26:10AM -0400, PaulNM wrote:
> paul@debguis2:~$ aptitude why libreoffice-writer
> i gnome Depends libreoffice-writer | abiword (>= 2.8)
WTF. Shouldn't that be a recommends?
Seems like a bug to me.
--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the pe
Hi there,
I've got a WD MyBook Live on which I want to compile no-ip DUC client. However,
it seems unable to complete some dependencies during installation of
compilation tools for a reason I have yet to understand, as my experience with
Linux is mostly GUI-based. I would like it to fe
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2013-11-01 19:39 +0100, Tom H wrote:
>
>> So the "bad" variables are still documented in the aptitude docs and
>> the "good" variables are undocumented except in the changelog. :(
>
> There seems to be a misunderstanding, the aptitude docume
Le 31.10.2013 17:38, Sven Joachim a écrit :
On 2013-10-31 13:42 +0100, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
Le 31.10.2013 13:12, Tom H a écrit :
Set 'Aptitude::Keep-Suggests "false";' in "/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/"
and
check whether the behavior changes.
Just did the change:
I added a file na
On 2013-11-01 19:39 +0100, Tom H wrote:
> So the "bad" variables are still documented in the aptitude docs and
> the "good" variables are undocumented except in the changelog. :(
There seems to be a misunderstanding, the aptitude documentation clearly
states that Apt::AutoRemove::SuggestsImportan
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2013-10-31 13:42 +0100, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
>
>> Le 31.10.2013 13:12, Tom H a écrit :
>>
>>> Set 'Aptitude::Keep-Suggests "false";' in "/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/" and
>>> check whether the behavior changes.
>>
>> Just did the ch
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:42 PM, wrote:
> Le 31.10.2013 13:12, Tom H a écrit :
>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:16 AM, wrote:
>>> Le 31.10.2013 12:12, Tom H a écrit :
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:44 AM,
wrote:
>
> It seems that even suggested packages are not automatically remov
On 2013-10-31 13:42 +0100, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
> Le 31.10.2013 13:12, Tom H a écrit :
>
>> Set 'Aptitude::Keep-Suggests "false";' in "/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/" and
>> check whether the behavior changes.
>
> Just did the change:
> I added a file name "/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/keep_suggests"
Le 31.10.2013 13:12, Tom H a écrit :
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:16 AM,
wrote:
Le 31.10.2013 12:12, Tom H a écrit :
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:44 AM,
wrote:
It seems that even suggested packages are not automatically
removed (at
least with aptitude), which I think was not the same as wh
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:16 AM, wrote:
> Le 31.10.2013 12:12, Tom H a écrit :
>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:44 AM, wrote:
>>>
>>> It seems that even suggested packages are not automatically removed (at
>>> least with aptitude), which I think was not the same as when I started
>>> using Debian
Le 31.10.2013 12:12, Tom H a écrit :
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:44 AM,
wrote:
It seems that even suggested packages are not automatically removed
(at
least with aptitude), which I think was not the same as when I
started using
Debian.
I just discovered this because I marked mpd as autom
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:44 AM, wrote:
>
> It seems that even suggested packages are not automatically removed (at
> least with aptitude), which I think was not the same as when I started using
> Debian.
>
> I just discovered this because I marked mpd as automatically installed, and
> it was ke
First, sorry for breaking the thread, I have removed the mails from my
mailing box, so I can not use the "reply to" longer.
So, about the subject, what I said was not complete:
It seems that even suggested packages are not automatically removed (at
least with aptitude), which I think was not t
there is one, I
would
be happy to learn it.
Still doesn't make sense to me. I install "zonecheck" only. And that
brought in the dependencies. Then I uninstalled 'zonecheck' it should
have taken back those dependencies with it. None of the packages were
marked recomm
to learn it.
Still doesn't make sense to me. I install "zonecheck" only. And that
brought in the dependencies. Then I uninstalled 'zonecheck' it should
have taken back those dependencies with it. None of the packages were
marked recommended. So how could other packages ou
Le 28.10.2013 01:38, ruckus rogue a écrit :
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Slavko wrote:
I am sorry, perhaps i forgot to mention, that this is my setting.
Or,
to be more precise, i have shortcut to run "aptitude -R".
Thanks all for the replies so far, but still a bit confused.
I've alway
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Slavko wrote:
> I am sorry, perhaps i forgot to mention, that this is my setting. Or,
> to be more precise, i have shortcut to run "aptitude -R".
Thanks all for the replies so far, but still a bit confused.
I've always had a 06norecommends in /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/
Hi,
Dňa Sun, 27 Oct 2013 22:47:00 +1300 Chris Bannister
napísal:
> > There are three types of dependencies:
> >
> > + depended = required
> > + recommended = optional
>
> Unless you explicitly set recommended to optional, then they are
> automatically install
On Sunday 27 October 2013 03:17 PM, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 08:42:18AM +0100, Slavko wrote:
>> Ahoj,
>>
>> Dňa Sat, 26 Oct 2013 20:55:57 -0600 ruckusrogue
>> napísal:
>>
>>> Anyone know the proper tool (shell) to best remove (
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 08:42:18AM +0100, Slavko wrote:
> Ahoj,
>
> Dňa Sat, 26 Oct 2013 20:55:57 -0600 ruckusrogue
> napísal:
>
> > Anyone know the proper tool (shell) to best remove (purge) packages
> > and their dependencies after installing?
>
> Ther
Ahoj,
Dňa Sat, 26 Oct 2013 20:55:57 -0600 ruckusrogue
napísal:
> Anyone know the proper tool (shell) to best remove (purge) packages
> and their dependencies after installing?
There are three types of dependencies:
+ depended = required
+ recommended = optional
+ suggested = optional
ruckusrogue wrote:
> Anyone know the proper tool (shell) to best remove (purge) packages
> and their dependencies after installing?
Yes. Autoremove.
> For instance on a wheezy install when I added 'eog' (eye of
> gnome) it added 15 other dependency packages. Then removing
Anyone know the proper tool (shell) to best remove (purge) packages
and their dependencies after installing?
For instance on a wheezy install when I added 'eog' (eye of
gnome) it added 15 other dependency packages. Then removing ego only
removed eog, literally. The dependencies remaine
Dear Roger,
Roger Leigh wrote:
> If you build things on a regular basis, install "schroot" and "sbuild",
> and configure schroot to use "snapshot" chroots. This will give you
> the same setup used on the buildds. You can create snapshots from
> .tar.gz|bz2|xz (file), LVM LVs (lvm-snapshot) or Bt
instantly remove them again
> or
> b) remove all build dependencies of a given package that are not
>required by others?
>
> I know of deborphan etc., but they are usually rather cumbersome to
> use (you have to iterate manually etc.).
>
> Are there any obvious oth
Dear Florian,
Florian Ernst wrote:
> There is mk-build-deps in the package devscripts, and there once was
> sourcedeps.debian.net (now dysfunctional) which allowed to have a
> sources.list for Build-Depends-metapackages created using mk-build-deps.
> I don't know when and why the latter service wa
Hello all,
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 03:03:51PM +, Claudius Hubig wrote:
> [...]
> Are there any obvious other ways to solve this problem? I managed to
> put together a small shell script[1] that creates a dummy/meta
> package, but I’d really prefer something ‘official’.
There is mk-build-deps
them. This is obviously fine if I use a fresh chroot for every
new build, but is there really no way to either
a) mark such packages as installed automatically in some way that
doesn’t instantly remove them again
or
b) remove all build dependencies of a given package that are not
required by
On 03-Mar-13 01:51, Joao Luis Meloni Assirati wrote:
This seems a fair use case. Note that if the symlink does not exist, a
hierarchy of directories is created automatically by dpkg to accommodate
the files, and the installation process will not explicitly fail.
It doesn't fail - that's correc
> On 02-Mar-13 14:23, Joao Luis Meloni Assirati wrote:
>> So, no. C does not pre-depend on B unless it is explictly stated in its
>> Pre-depends field. Here is an example:
>>
>> bash ==(Depends)==> base-files ==(Pre-Depends)==> awk.
>>
>
> Thanks - that's what I suspected but it wasn't entirely cle
On 02-Mar-13 14:23, Joao Luis Meloni Assirati wrote:
So, no. C does not pre-depend on B unless it is explictly stated in its
Pre-depends field. Here is an example:
bash ==(Depends)==> base-files ==(Pre-Depends)==> awk.
Thanks - that's what I suspected but it wasn't entirely clear when I was
> Hello everyone,
>
> One quick question: If package A pre-depends on package B, and package
> C depends on package A, does package C pre-depend on package B?
>
> In other words, is pre-depends transitive across regular dependencies?
C ==(Depends)==> A ==(Pre-Depends)==&
Hello everyone,
One quick question: If package A pre-depends on package B, and package
C depends on package A, does package C pre-depend on package B?
In other words, is pre-depends transitive across regular dependencies?
Thanks,
--
rbmj
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 22:47:00 +0100
Lisi wrote:
> Is the package you want available in Squeeze backports?
Unfortunately, no. [1]
In another thread of this list I've seen someone suggesting
that /etc/apt/apt.conf has been deprecated, so I've tried creating a
file in /etc/apt/atp.conf.d with the d
On Friday 22 June 2012 17:36:30 Vilius Panevėžys wrote:
> Yes, I'll do that as a fallback, but installing packages the manual way
> looses all the advantages of the package management system. Let's say
> that's an exercise to learn how to use apt along the way, though
> I actually need the newer ve
ut using a testing package
can even break not only you Eclipse installation (remember that testing
packages update very often...) but badly messing up with system packages/
libraries because of dependencies. I mean, just be very cautius with the
repository priorities when feeding from both sources.
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:23:52 + (UTC)
Camaleón wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 18:48:13 +0300, Vilius Panevėžys wrote:
>
> > I need eclipse >= 3.7 to use plug-ins that refuse to work with the
> > eclipse version available in squeeze. So, I'd be happy with the
> > version from testing.
>
> (...
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 18:48:13 +0300, Vilius Panevėžys wrote:
> I need eclipse >= 3.7 to use plug-ins that refuse to work with the
> eclipse version available in squeeze. So, I'd be happy with the version
> from testing.
(...)
Have you considered in getting the upstream package instead¹? Being a
you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
libc6-dev : Br
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 10:06:44PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 02:02:30PM +, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> ...
> > Painfully aware. I fled to xfce. I may go back when it stabilizes. In
> > the meantime, it's getting in the way of smooth upgrades. I guess I
> > coul
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 02:02:30PM +, Hendrik Boom wrote:
...
> Painfully aware. I fled to xfce. I may go back when it stabilizes. In
> the meantime, it's getting in the way of smooth upgrades. I guess I
> could uninstall gnome, but that seems drastic.
Hey, same here ... a refugeee
On 2012-01-05 16:38:04 +, Darac Marjal wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 03:43:22PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > For Debian/unstable:
> >
> > Does there exist a utility to downgrade a package with its
> > dependencies and reverse-dependencies? The old packages w
Darac Marjal a écrit :
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 03:43:22PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
I was in this situation myself a while ago and decided that the best
solution was as follows:
* Before upgrading, take an LVM snapshot (this, of course, assumes
you ARE on LVM).
* Per
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 03:43:22PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> For Debian/unstable:
>
> Does there exist a utility to downgrade a package with its
> dependencies and reverse-dependencies? The old packages would
> be taken from /var/cache/apt/archives, and the tool should be
For Debian/unstable:
Does there exist a utility to downgrade a package with its
dependencies and reverse-dependencies? The old packages would
be taken from /var/cache/apt/archives, and the tool should be
able to find automatically which packages/versions are needed
to satisfy all the dependencies
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 11:27:25 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Mi, 28 dec 11, 02:35:41, Hendrik Boom wrote:
>> Recently, with wheezy, when I try to upgrade using aptitude in teh
>> interactive interface, I get a lot of potentially unsatisfied
>> dependencies. (I use u to up
On Mi, 28 dec 11, 02:35:41, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> Recently, with wheezy, when I try to upgrade using aptitude in teh
> interactive interface, I get a lot of potentially unsatisfied
> dependencies. (I use u to update the package list, then U to make a set
> of upgrades) Apti
Recently, with wheezy, when I try to upgrade using aptitude in teh
interactive interface, I get a lot of potentially unsatisfied
dependencies. (I use u to update the package list, then U to make a set
of upgrades) Aptitude usually suggests I remove a lot of packages. gnome
and its minions
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Fredrik Tolf wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Tom H wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Fredrik Tolf
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if there's a way to inject virtual packages into apt. For
>>> my
>>> part, I'm running a HTTP server that I've compiled and ins
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Fredrik Tolf wrote:
I'm wondering if there's a way to inject virtual packages into apt. For my
part, I'm running a HTTP server that I've compiled and installed from
source, and because apt doesn't know about it, it wants to inst
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Fredrik Tolf wrote:
>
> I'm wondering if there's a way to inject virtual packages into apt. For my
> part, I'm running a HTTP server that I've compiled and installed from
> source, and because apt doesn't know about it, it wants to install Apache or
> some other pa
Dear List,
I'm wondering if there's a way to inject virtual packages into apt. For my
part, I'm running a HTTP server that I've compiled and installed from
source, and because apt doesn't know about it, it wants to install Apache
or some other package providing the virtual for such simple
pa
On Sb, 22 oct 11, 19:11:01, Aniruddha wrote:
> When I install a package with apt-get it gets installed with all it's
> dependencies. However when I remove a packages some dependencies are
> left on the system. For example:
>
> to install:
> apt-get install lxde
>
>
installed with all it's
> dependencies. However when I remove a packages some dependencies are
> left on the system. For example:
>
> to install:
> apt-get install lxde
>
> to remove:
> apt-get remove lxde
> apt-get autoremove
> deborphan
>
> Does not re
When I install a package with apt-get it gets installed with all it's
dependencies. However when I remove a packages some dependencies are
left on the system. For example:
to install:
apt-get install lxde
to remove:
apt-get remove lxde
apt-get autoremove
deborphan
Does not remove all pac
ng this package needs apache2
> package . how can i install dependencies which are mentioned in control
> file. i need to install all packages which are required and mentioned in
> control file at the time of deb package installation automatically .
This question is best asked on the debian-
s package needs apache2
> package . how can i install dependencies which are mentioned in control
> file. i need to install all packages which are required and mentioned in
> control file at the time of deb package installation automatically .
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-rel
Hello.
This is karunakar. I was developed one package. i want convert that package
into deb package. i was created deb package with my source code. i got the
error when i install that package. it saying this package needs apache2
package . how can i install dependencies which are mentioned in
On 01/09/11 00:00, Bruno Martins wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Scott Ferguson
mailto:prettyfly.producti...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello mate.
Thanks for your quick response.
So, to avoid this dependency "problems" in the future, I should make a
clean installation of Debian, without
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:02:39 +0100, Bruno Martins wrote:
> Is there any way to avoid this? Imagine that I simply want to remove the
> evolution package.
(...)
This topic comes from time to time :-)
http://www.google.es/search?q=Form+wizard&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:es-ES:official&c
nstalled
> (before gnome-desktop-environment).
>
> Also consider:-
> # apt-get -s remove evolution > /root/remove_evolution
> so that you've got a reference in case you have problems building your
> custom gnome.
> This will show you dependencies and suggested packages:-
> h
evolution > /root/remove_evolution
so that you've got a reference in case you have problems building your
custom gnome.
This will show you dependencies and suggested packages:-
http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/gnome
This doesn't happen on Debian-based distributions such as Ub
Hello guys.
Is there any way to avoid this? Imagine that I simply want to remove the
evolution package.
root@sputnik:/home/joe# apt-get remove evolution
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages were automatically installed and
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wrote:
> now, i've discussed this on the bugtracker and there clearly isn't -
> and really shouldn't be - a listed debian dependency between
> linux-image-2.6.39 kernel and a userspace library. however, there
> clearly *is* a dependenc
301 - 400 of 1353 matches
Mail list logo
