On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 08:12:59AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 12:48:25PM +0100, Joris Huizer wrote:
> > Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > >On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 10:39:39 -0500
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>I managed to install etch on my AMD-64 system, except that in the
> > >>package selection I could not even ask for it to nstall "minimal system"
> > >>because of dependency conflicts. Neither could I do manual package
> > >>selection -- it just never did that part of the installation even though
> > >>I had reqiested it.
> > >>
> > >>But aptitude will run on my newly installed system.
> > >>
> > >>So my question now is, what virtual package to I ask for in aptitude to
> > >>get the equivalent of "minimal system" during installation?
> > >>
> > >>-- hendrik
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>--
> > >>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > >What do you consider a minimal system might be totally different for
> > >others. When you get to the base-config you already have the minimum to
> > >run a machine ;)
>
> I noticed. And even the networking aptitude needs. Very useful. And
> I'm using it. It's not the file server for my home network. I'm still
^
What a typo! I meant "It's now the file server..."
-- hendrik
> not using the machine directly because the installation is so minimal,
> but I moved my home directory to the new machine from another that
> found itself severely diskspace-challenged, and I'm now using an NFS
> home directory with *no* *problems*.
>
> I'm glad I could complete the installation without the designated
> "minimal system" and get something usable.
>
> > >
> > >Andrei
> >
> > One way to get the system to be really minimal, is to mark *everything*
> > as auto-installed (M in aptitude), and then to select those packages you
> > need to be there as manually installed (m in aptitude)
> > note that this is not for newbies - if you forget to mark some packages
> > as manual, that are necessary for, say, network support, or something
> > else you require, you're in trouble
> >
>
> I'd worry about forgetting the packages necessary to run aptitude and
> the keyboard and monitor in textmode... I suspect that 8al* the
> dependencies aren't there ... for example, most commands don't have a
> dependency on the shell that you need to have so you can type in the
> comand and execute them. Strictly, of course they don't need a shell to
> run -- there are other ways of launching a program, such as the one that
> the kernel uses to launch the shell. Another example is X, where the X
> clients don't need the X server, because, after all, you could be using
> an X server through the internet on a maching halfway around the world.
>
> I wasn't looking for a *truly* minimal system. I was looking (perhaps
> misguidedly) for the collection of packages I usually get during
> installation when I select "minimal system". I would select that
> virtual package, and make any adjustments necessary to resolve the
> conflicts I encountered, and install. As it is, I keep doing
> things and finding out they don't work, switch over to aptitude,
> installing packages containing the missing commands, and so forth.
> Maybe I should just continue in this way and things will stabilize.
>
> -- hendrik
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
