On Friday 03 July 2020 16:59:25 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 04:49:50PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Interesting blog, but falls face first in its morning oatmeal
> > because the local insulation is not perfect [...] nominally .0001
> > degrees above absolute zer
On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 04:49:50PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
[...]
> Interesting blog, but falls face first in its morning oatmeal because the
> local insulation is not perfect [...] nominally .0001 degrees above
> absolute zero [...]
Trying to picture oatmeal at 1e-4 Kelvin, I think I give up
On Friday 03 July 2020 16:19:15 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 07:43:32PM +0100, Brian wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > On reflection, a typo in a command may have consequences, unlike
> > mispeling Debain. So I accept the criticism is not bad form.
>
> OTOH, having command names which on
On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 07:43:32PM +0100, Brian wrote:
[...]
> On reflection, a typo in a command may have consequences, unlike
> mispeling Debain. So I accept the criticism is not bad form.
OTOH, having command names which only differ in letter case is
somewhat... evil?
> Meanwhile, I am tryin
On Fri 03 Jul 2020 at 11:06:42 -0600, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 09:23:26 +0200
> wrote:
>
> > > > [...] (And the capital A is wrong, but we all know
> > > > that, and it's bad form to harp on it.)
> > >
> > > But, for want of a better response, you could not resist comme
On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 09:23:26 +0200
wrote:
> > > [...] (And the capital A is wrong, but we all know
> > > that, and it's bad form to harp on it.)
> >
> > But, for want of a better response, you could not resist commenting
> > on the typo. As you say - bad form. :)
>
> Still possibly usef
On Friday, July 03, 2020 10:34:19 AM David Wright wrote:
> Have you tried out your suggestion?
I guess you're talking to me, and the answer is no, I haven't. And I have
read the rest of your email.
When I first came to Linux, the way I decided on my initial distro (which,
iirc, was Mandrake, b
Babu writes:
> Im trying to install all Deb files through single name Apt-get install
> multimedia Multimedia need have all multimedia related packages ex :
> gstremer ,alsa,ffmpeg,vlc etc.. Please guide me how to do
Type
apt-cache --names-only search multimedia | less
and look through
On Fri 03 Jul 2020 at 06:37:07 (-0400), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 03, 2020 06:18:04 AM l0f...@tuta.io wrote:
> > 2 juil. 2020 à 21:37 de baab...@gmail.com:
> > > Im trying to install all Deb files through single name
> > >
> > > Apt-get install multimedia
> > > Multimedia need hav
Le 03/07/2020 à 11:43, Baabu JOY a écrit :
> Hello Mr didier
>Thanks for your valuable reply . i need depth
> understanding how ur doing (apt search multimedia-animation/stable 0.7 )
> Im also expecting same output like this . can u please share information
> regarding t
On Friday, July 03, 2020 06:18:04 AM l0f...@tuta.io wrote:
> Considering the answers you've got so far, I have nothing better to suggest
> but a single question because you've intrigued me ;) => Do you mind
> sharing a practical use case of such a request please?
>
> Indeed, from my side, even if
Hi,
2 juil. 2020 à 21:37 de baab...@gmail.com:
> Im trying to install all Deb files through single name
>
> Apt-get install multimedia
> Multimedia need have all multimedia related packages ex : gstremer
> ,alsa,ffmpeg,vlc etc..
>
> Please guide me how to do
>
Considering the answers you've go
Hello
There are metapackages (groups of packages) in Debian.
I am not aware a a global multimedia Debian metapackage
There are some multimedia metapackages, though:
$ apt search multimedia-
[...]
multimedia-ambisonics/stable 0.7 all
Packages for working with ambisonics (3D surround sound)
m
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 11:54:13PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Thu 02 Jul 2020 at 16:11:49 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
[...]
> > > Is 'Apt-get install multimedia' a valid command?
> >
> > [...] (And the capital A is wrong, but we all know
> > that, and it's bad form to harp on it.)
>
> But, f
On Thu 02 Jul 2020 at 16:11:49 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 09:06:26PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > On Thu 02 Jul 2020 at 15:50:30 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 01:07:42AM +0530, Baabu JOY wrote:
> > > > Hello debain organization
> > > >
On 02/07/2020 20:37, Baabu JOY wrote:
> Hello debain organization
> I'm babu.
> Im trying to install all Deb files through single name
>
> Apt-get install multimedia
> Multimedia need have all multimedia related packages ex : gstremer
> ,alsa,ffmpeg,vlc etc..
>
>
>
> Please
On Thu 02 Jul 2020 at 15:50:30 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 01:07:42AM +0530, Baabu JOY wrote:
> > Hello debain organization
> > I'm babu.
> > Im trying to install all Deb files through single name
> >
> > Apt-get install multimedia
> > Multimedia
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 09:06:26PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Thu 02 Jul 2020 at 15:50:30 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 01:07:42AM +0530, Baabu JOY wrote:
> > > Hello debain organization
> > > I'm babu.
> > > Im trying to install all Deb files thro
On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 01:07:42AM +0530, Baabu JOY wrote:
> Hello debain organization
> I'm babu.
> Im trying to install all Deb files through single name
>
> Apt-get install multimedia
> Multimedia need have all multimedia related packages ex : gstremer
> ,alsa,ffmpeg,vlc
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:07:10 -0500
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 10/16/2011 5:02 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>
> > Which is fine. What problem are you seeing here?
> >
> > "php5" is a metapackage that requires to install *one of these* packages:
> >
> > a) libapache2-mod-php5 (or)
> > b) libapache2-mod-ph
On Sun 16 Oct 2011 at 22:23:59 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> I'm no package management expert. I only install packages when I need
> new capabilities, or when doing security updates. I discovered during
> this apache2 troubleshooting that I had 1.6GB of .deb files in the apt
> package cache. I
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:07:10 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 10/16/2011 5:02 AM, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>> No need to be a jedi, just put care in what the installer is telling
>> you.
>>
>> When you run apt-get or aptitude to install "roundcube-core" and you
>> see a set of packages named "apac
On 10/16/2011 5:02 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> Which is fine. What problem are you seeing here?
>
> "php5" is a metapackage that requires to install *one of these* packages:
>
> a) libapache2-mod-php5 (or)
> b) libapache2-mod-php5filter (or)
> c) php5-cgi
>
> You only have to do the right selection b
On 10/16/2011 3:51 AM, Brian wrote:
> On Sat 15 Oct 2011 at 22:00:19 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> ~$ dpkg -l|grep -i apache
>> rc apache2.2-common
>> rc libapache2-mod-php5
>> rc libapr1
>> rc libaprutil1
>>
>> What does the 'rc' mean? The others are apparently completely removed
>> now,
Stan Hoeppner wrote, on 10/16/11 05:00:
> Moving forward... I removed all of the apache2 junk with
> '--purge-unused', ran aptitude update and aptitude safe-upgrade, and
> none of the apache2 junk shows up in the upgrade list, which was the
> original immediate goal here. I've probably got more c
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 22:00:19 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 10/15/2011 7:42 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:51:15 +0100, Brian wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat 15 Oct 2011 at 11:21:30 +, Camaleón wrote:
>>>
There you have it.
"libapache2-mod-php5" depends (requires) "apache
On Sat 15 Oct 2011 at 22:00:19 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> ~$ dpkg -l|grep -i apache
> rc apache2.2-common
> rc libapache2-mod-php5
> rc libapr1
> rc libaprutil1
>
> What does the 'rc' mean? The others are apparently completely removed
> now, but these 4 still show up. Is there something
On 10/15/2011 7:42 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:51:15 +0100, Brian wrote:
>
>> On Sat 15 Oct 2011 at 11:21:30 +, Camaleón wrote:
>>
>>> There you have it.
>>>
>>> "libapache2-mod-php5" depends (requires) "apache2-mpm-prefork" and also
>>> "apache2.2-common".
>>>
>>> Now you hav
Stan Hoeppner wrote, on 10/15/11 13:16:
> On 10/15/2011 3:56 AM, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:
>> I would try the following:
>>
>> - to find out what is installed
>> aptitude search '~iapache'
>
> i apache2-mpm-prefork
> i apache2-utils
> i apache2.2-bin
> i apache2.2-common
> i libapache
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:51:15 +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Sat 15 Oct 2011 at 11:21:30 +, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> There you have it.
>>
>> "libapache2-mod-php5" depends (requires) "apache2-mpm-prefork" and also
>> "apache2.2-common".
>>
>> Now you have to find out why "libapache2-mod-php5" got inst
On Sat 15 Oct 2011 at 11:21:30 +, Camaleón wrote:
> There you have it.
>
> "libapache2-mod-php5" depends (requires) "apache2-mpm-prefork" and also
> "apache2.2-common".
>
> Now you have to find out why "libapache2-mod-php5" got installed in your
> system because it's an Apache 2 module.
T
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 06:45:11 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
(...)
> So, if I'm reading this correctly, and these aren't phantom
> dependencies, if one wishes to run php5 with lighttpd, one has to have
> all of apache2 installed also? Is that correct? That seems strange to
> have one httpd so entir
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>~$ aptitude why apache2
>i phpsysinfo Depends apache2 | httpd
>
>phpsysinfo seems to have a false dependency--appears the package
>maintainer assumes the only httpd server on earth is apache2...
This shows that the phpsysinfo dependency is also fulfilled by httpd,
which is
On 10/15/2011 4:00 AM, Bernd Semler wrote:
> aptitude why $packagename
~$ aptitude why apache2 --show-summary
Packages requiring apache2:
phpsysinfo
> and/or in combination with --show-summary (there is an example in the
> man page).
>
> Another proposal is:
>
> apt-cache rdepends $package
On 10/15/2011 3:56 AM, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:
> I would try the following:
>
> - to find out what is installed
> aptitude search '~iapache'
i apache2-mpm-prefork
i apache2-utils
i apache2.2-bin
i apache2.2-common
i libapache2-mod-php5
> - why it is installed
> aptitude why ap
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 06:06:48 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 10/15/2011 4:40 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> What does "dpkg -l|grep -i apache" say?
>
(...)
> ii libapache2-mod-php55.3.3-7+squeeze3
(...)
There you have it.
"libapache2-mod-php5" depends (requires) "apache2-mpm-pref
On 10/15/2011 4:40 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> What does "dpkg -l|grep -i apache" say?
ii apache2-mpm-prefork2.2.16-6+squeeze1
ii apache2-utils 2.2.16-6+squeeze1
ii apache2.2-bin 2.2.16-6+squeeze1
ii apache2.2-common 2.2.16
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 23:53:55 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Symptoms:
> I've never used apache2 on the machine in question. I use lighttpd.
> "aptitude show apache2" tells me apache2 is not installed.
>
> Package: apache2
> State: not installed
(...)
> The problem:
> ~$ aptitude safe-upgrade
>
Stan Hoeppner schrieb am 14.10.2011 23:53 -0500:
> The problem:
> ~$ aptitude safe-upgrade
> Resolving dependencies...
> The following packages will be upgraded:
> apache2-mpm-prefork apache2-utils apache2.2-bin apache2.2-common
>
> This has gone on for many years, including when the system
I would try the following:
- to find out what is installed
aptitude search '~iapache'
- why it is installed
aptitude why apache2-mpm-worker
maybe this one is only recommended by another package
- and what depends on this package
aptitude search '~i~Dapache2-mpm-worker'
- finally,
aptitude accept almost all apt-get commands... but is better...
About apt-get for the future...
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-whats-new.en.html#pkgmgmt
Regards.
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
Yes, you're using aptitude. Return to the apt* which
On 02/27/2009 12:15 PM, Daryl Styrk wrote:
Someone told me long ago never to mix apt-get and aptitude. Since then,
I've only used aptitude and never had a problem. Or perhaps I'm not
utilizing it's full potential.
God's just waiting for you to get complacent, and decide to create a
mixed
Someone told me long ago never to mix apt-get and aptitude. Since then,
I've only used aptitude and never had a problem. Or perhaps I'm not
utilizing it's full potential.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm
On 02/27/2009 07:15 AM, thveillon.debian wrote:
Roger Leigh wrote :
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 05:28:13PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Thursday 26 February 2009 16:34:38 Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/26/2009 03:20 PM, Urs Thuermann wrote:
So, am I doing something completely wrong here?
Ye
On 02/27/2009 11:33 AM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Thursday 26 February 2009 18:14:14 Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/26/2009 05:28 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
That is, unless you are trying to script the package manager. In that
case I think apt-get or libapt are better choices.
Then ap
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 05:24:19PM -0600, "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr."
was heard to say:
> On Thursday 26 February 2009 15:20:58 Urs Thuermann wrote:
> >which caused aptitude to run for an hour generating thousands of
> >messages about resolving open/closed/defered dependency conflicts
> >
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:39:49AM -0600, "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr."
was heard to say:
> On Friday 27 February 2009 05:56:12 Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 05:28:13PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > > Aptitude has been the recommended (by DDs) package manager
> > > since Et
On Friday 27 February 2009 07:15:23 thveillon.debian wrote:
> But when running a system which is a mix of testing, sid and
> experimental, plus a few debian-multimedia goodies thrown in, aptitude
> performs better.
Maybe I just happen to be in this case as well. I have main for
stable(+security+
On Thursday 26 February 2009 18:14:14 Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/26/2009 05:28 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > That is, unless you are trying to script the package manager. In that
> > case I think apt-get or libapt are better choices.
>
> Then aptitude should remove the CLI interface and st
On Friday 27 February 2009 05:56:12 Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 05:28:13PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > Aptitude has been the recommended (by DDs) package manager
> > since Etch was released. It has better dependency resolution, is more
> > user-friendly, and is a bit
On Fri, 2009-02-27, 058, thveillon.debian wrote:
> But when running a system which is a mix of testing, sid and
> experimental, plus a few debian-multimedia goodies thrown in, aptitude
> performs better. In this situation I am really happy that aptitude is
> showing me the nuts and bolts of the tri
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 13:15:23 +, thveillon.debian
(thveillon.deb...@googlemail.com) wrote:
> Hi, just sharing a user experience with aptitude, which I use. You do
> have a point about apparent simplicity regarding apt-get, most of the
> time it just seems to "work", period. It is all the
Roger Leigh wrote :
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 05:28:13PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> On Thursday 26 February 2009 16:34:38 Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> On 02/26/2009 03:20 PM, Urs Thuermann wrote:
So, am I doing something completely wrong here?
>>> Yes, you're using aptitude. Return to
Ron Johnson wrote:
Yes, you're using aptitude. Return to the apt* which God intended us to
use: apt-get.
*That* must be the reason I use apt-get and not aptitude...
Hugo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 05:28:13PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Thursday 26 February 2009 16:34:38 Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On 02/26/2009 03:20 PM, Urs Thuermann wrote:
> > > So, am I doing something completely wrong here?
> >
> > Yes, you're using aptitude. Return to the apt* which God
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 05:31:29PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Thursday 26 February 2009 16:58:25 Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > Use aptitude in full-screen mode so you can see what is happening.
>
> I do this a lot and find it helpful--particularly when resolving dependency
> conflict
Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> Yes, you're using aptitude. Return to the apt* which God intended us to
> use: apt-get.
>
Whaa?!??! Wait a sec. This just an unsubstantiated claim.
Since I learned about aptitude (a few years ago?), I have been using it
consistently. It gives more information than apt-g
On 26 Feb 2009 22:20:58 +0100
Urs Thuermann wrote:
...
> 1. aptitude has the nice feature of marking packages that are install
>automatically, qhich I always missed in apt-get. But every once in
>a while I check the installed package with
>
> aptitude search . | grep ^i
>
>
On 02/26/2009 05:28 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Thursday 26 February 2009 16:34:38 Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/26/2009 03:20 PM, Urs Thuermann wrote:
So, am I doing something completely wrong here?
Yes, you're using aptitude. Return to the apt* which God intended
us to use: apt-get.
I
On Thursday 26 February 2009 16:58:25 Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> Use aptitude in full-screen mode so you can see what is happening.
I do this a lot and find it helpful--particularly when resolving dependency
conflicts.
Still the CUI is no substitute for knowing how to use the aptitude command-
li
On Thursday 26 February 2009 16:34:38 Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/26/2009 03:20 PM, Urs Thuermann wrote:
> > So, am I doing something completely wrong here?
>
> Yes, you're using aptitude. Return to the apt* which God intended
> us to use: apt-get.
Ignore Ron. Aptitude has been the recommended (b
On Thursday 26 February 2009 15:20:58 Urs Thuermann wrote:
> I use Debian testing on 2 desktop machines and a notebook, the oldest
> of them is 4-5 years old. While in the begining I found apt-get and
> dpkg quite usable (but didn't like dselect), now aptitude tends more
> and more to annoy me, fo
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:20:58PM +0100, Urs Thuermann wrote:
> I use Debian testing on 2 desktop machines and a notebook, the oldest
> of them is 4-5 years old. While in the begining I found apt-get and
> dpkg quite usable (but didn't like dselect), now aptitude tends more
> and more to annoy me
On 02/26/2009 03:20 PM, Urs Thuermann wrote:
I use Debian testing on 2 desktop machines and a notebook, the oldest
of them is 4-5 years old. While in the begining I found apt-get and
dpkg quite usable (but didn't like dselect), now aptitude tends more
and more to annoy me, for several reasons.
There are, I understand, problems that come up when you mix apt-get
with aptitude. Does switching to aptitude preclude using those
graphical tools? ... but update-notifier and synaptic are examples of
fantastic GUI programs that I would not want to give up.
Can anyone clear this up?
I'm n
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 10:50:32AM -0500, Matthew Krauss wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've followed every thread on this list about these programs, and not
> seen these issues really addressed. I was wondering if anyone would
> care to clarify (from an objective, non-cheerleader stance) the
> dif
David Wright wrote:
> 1) Is there any way to force dpkg to remove as much of a package as it
> can and then liquidate the entry from its database, regardless of
> whatever error codes any scripts return, thus allowing you to start over
> from a pristine pre-install state? Something like
> dpkg
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 05:28:49AM -0700, David Wright wrote:
>
>
> 2) Is there any way to tell dpkg to mark a specific package with a hold
> flag without going through the dselect menus? I always end up getting
> lost and doing things I don't want to in dselect, and I really want to
> be able
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 08:52:00AM -0400, Bob Koss wrote:
> On 4/13/02 8:28 AM, "David Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1) Is there any way to force dpkg to remove as much of a package as it
> > can and then liquidate the entry from its database, regardless of
> > whatever error codes any scr
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 05:28:49AM -0700, David Wright wrote:
> Okay, I have calmed down a bit since I sent my "kill, kill, kill" mail,
> and now have some more rationally formulated questions about package
> management.
>
> 1) Is there any way to force dpkg to remove as much of a package as it
On 4/13/02 8:28 AM, "David Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 1) Is there any way to force dpkg to remove as much of a package as it
> can and then liquidate the entry from its database, regardless of
> whatever error codes any scripts return, thus allowing you to start over
> from a pristine
will trillich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>i crafted one concerning mostly apt-get, tho it touches on some
>of the dpkg features -- it's at
>
>http://www.eGroups.com/files/newbieDoc/apt-get-intro.html
A few comments on that, some on the content, some typographical. From
reading through it, it's an
Ameurlain Antoine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The documentation people may know more about a howto, but ...
>Preparing to replace libc6 2.1.3-10 (using .../libc6_2.2.1-1_i386.deb) ...
>Unpacking replacement libc6 ...
>Replacing files in old package ldso ...
That's fine. ldso isn't needed these da
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 06:20:02PM +0100, Ameurlain Antoine wrote:
> Hi,
> I would like to know if there's a simple start document about
> debian package management (e.g. an howto). dpkg, apt-get, dselect
> are mighty but quite hard to really understand.
> I would also like to have a descriptio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, ethan mindlace fremen wrote:
> debians,
> I have slink running on a production server. Some of the packages are
> inferior to those I need, but the packages in potato are ok. Can I
> download those debs and install them without a problem?
75 matches
Mail list logo
