On Thursday 30 June 2016 20:51:37 David Wright wrote: > On Thu 30 Jun 2016 at 19:35:44 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Thursday 30 June 2016 19:25:37 Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > On Thursday 30 June 2016 21:12:46 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > > On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > > Thats not excusable behavior, but whats worse is that debian's > > > > > people are denying there is a problem. 'scuse me? I swear, > > > > > they couldn't smell coffee with a nose full of it. > > > > > > > > Well, if either of you two (that suffered the runaway aptitude > > > > issue) still have the /etc of the box that caused trouble, > > > > kindly do this: > > > > > > > > grep -r Assume-Yes /etc > > > > > > > > If it returns any match in the aptitude config files, there you > > > > have it. > > > > > > I have this on my desktop at home: > > > > > > root@Tux-II:/home/lisi# grep -R Assume-Yes /etc > > > grep: /etc/fonts/conf.d/70-no-bitmaps.conf: No such file or > > > directory Binary file /etc/alternatives/aptitude matches > > > root@Tux-II:/home/lisi > > > > > > It rather looks as though I should be worried? > > > > No, thats just grep being grep, it says that of ANY binary file it > > tries to read as text. I have spent days pouring over the manpages > > for grep, looking for a option to feed it to make grep quit that, > > simply because its so verbose that what you are looking for can get > > lost in its blathering about that. > > I have no idea what that's meant to be the explanation for.
For the fact that it claimed /etc/alternatives/aptitude was a match when Lisi ran the correct grep as quoted in a previous email. > Why does Binary file /etc/alternatives/aptitude trigger a match? Because it is? gene@coyote:/opt$ file /etc/alternatives/aptitude /etc/alternatives/aptitude: symbolic link to /usr/bin/aptitude-curses gene@coyote:/opt$ file /usr/bin/aptitude-curses /usr/bin/aptitude-curses: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter /lib/ld-linux.so.2, for GNU/Linux 2.6.26, BuildID[sha1]=3508f8a2610e542bc916835e4caea373c28eb8f0, stripped > What you were running was aptitude, obviously. On my laptop: Which "you" are you refering to, because Lisi and I have shared that same leaky boat experience with aptitude. > $ which aptitude > /usr/bin/aptitude > $ ls -l /usr/bin/aptitude > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 26 Oct 10 2012 /usr/bin/aptitude -> > /etc/alternatives/aptitude $ ls -l /etc/alternatives/aptitude > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 24 Oct 10 2012 /etc/alternatives/aptitude -> > /usr/bin/aptitude-curses $ ls -l /usr/bin/aptitude-curses > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4340528 Nov 8 2014 /usr/bin/aptitude-curses > > (The last line might be different if you use some version other than > curses.) > > So the question becomes Why does the binary file > /usr/bin/aptitude-curses, that you actually run, match? Who knows, but grep, for this job, lies like a cheap rug. file will tell you more. And it gives a valid answer that aptitude-curses is in fact a binary file. And thats what worried Lisi, needlessly. > Well, in order to decide whether you have typed > aptitude --assume-yes > aptitude needs to contain the string "assume-yes" against which to > check your typing. Ditto Aptitude::CmdLine::Assume-Yes for checking > against the configuration file. > > So a match here is no surprise and no worry. > > However, you should also check for anything in /root/.aptitude/config > as that could override the /etc/ stuff. (Probably nothing.) > So your problem might boil down to why aptitude thought all those > packages should go, ie what happened to the package(s) at the top > of the dependency chain(s) whose job was to keep them all installed. > > Sorry I don't have much experience of aptitude other than the > visual interface (ie no action given on the command line). > I'm really an apt-get user. In order to remove "unused" packages, > I have to type apt-get autoremove which I sometimes do in response > to its telling me there are such packages lying around. It's not > easy for me to tell from the documentation whether "Installed packages > will not be removed unless they are unused (see the section “Managing > Automatically Installed Packages” in the aptitude reference manual)¹" > means that they'll be removed automatically without any further > confirmation. > > ¹safe-upgrade in man aptitude. > > Cheers, > David. Cheers David, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
