On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 23:47:31 -0400, H.S. wrote:
>
>Hello,
>
>Today I reinstalled Etch on my machine. After upgrading and everything,
>I noticed that "dpkg -l" is not listing some of the packages which are
>not already installed. I was looking for vim for example, and "dpkg -l
>vim" did not list
Sebastian Kayser wrote:
Rakotomandimby Mihamina wrote:
I would like to save the names of all the installed packages.
# dpkg -l | awk '{print $2}'
Does the work, but some packages with long names are name truncated.
What's the option to provide to display the full name?
a) You may try
Rakotomandimby Mihamina wrote:
> I would like to save the names of all the installed packages.
>
> # dpkg -l | awk '{print $2}'
>
> Does the work, but some packages with long names are name truncated.
> What's the option to provide to display the full name?
a) You may try to call dpkg -l with CO
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 03:37:50PM +0200, Rakotomandimby Mihamina wrote:
> Hi,
> I would like to save the names of all the installed packages.
>
> # dpkg -l | awk '{print $2}'
>
> Does the work, but some packages with long names are name truncated.
> What's the option to provide to display the fu
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 09:20:55PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
> I see that when I run
> # dpkg -l
>
> I get a nice listing of installed packages, but if I pipe
> that command into less or more or even grep ,
> then the listing gets scrunched up, and it cuts off the end of packages
>
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello,
I see that when I run
# dpkg -l
I get a nice listing of installed packages, but if I pipe
that command into less or more or even grep ,
then the listing gets scrunched up, and it cuts off the end of
packages with longer names.
Is there a way to display it to
On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 08:36:38PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 02:56:10PM -0500, Rick Pasotto wrote:
> > When I do 'dpkg -l' now all I get back are installed packages. I used
> > to have to grep for an initial 'i' to get just those. How do I see *all*
> > available packages
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 20:36:38 +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 02:56:10PM -0500, Rick Pasotto wrote:
>> When I do 'dpkg -l' now all I get back are installed packages. I used
>> to have to grep for an initial 'i' to get just those. How do I see *all*
>> available packages?
>
>
On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 11:45:48PM +0100, GCS wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 08:36:38PM +, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > dpkg -l \*
> >
> > It's been like this ever since I started using Debian, IIRC.
>
> Uh-oh. I just have not know this. Good priest learn 'till death
> (hu
On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 08:36:38PM +, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> dpkg -l \*
>
> It's been like this ever since I started using Debian, IIRC.
Uh-oh. I just have not know this. Good priest learn 'till death
(hungarian sentence). I just bow in front of you Colin, you make an
exc
On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 02:56:10PM -0500, Rick Pasotto wrote:
> When I do 'dpkg -l' now all I get back are installed packages. I used
> to have to grep for an initial 'i' to get just those. How do I see *all*
> available packages?
dpkg -l \*
It's been like this ever since I started using Debian
On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 02:56:10PM -0500, Rick Pasotto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I do 'dpkg -l' now all I get back are installed packages. I used
> to have to grep for an initial 'i' to get just those. How do I see *all*
> available packages?
Hmmm. It's not that easy, but you can check the
On 21 Dec 2003 at 14:56, Rick Pasotto wrote:
> When I do 'dpkg -l' now all I get back are installed packages. I used
> to have to grep for an initial 'i' to get just those. How do I see
> *all* available packages?
Are you looking for something in particular? If so "apt-cache search
" is your fr
try
COLUMNS=132 dpkg -l
instead, that'll have more space to have each field in the table bigger.
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Oleg wrote:
> Hi
>
> A question about good old dpkg -l $args | grep ^ii :
>
> Is there any way to convince dpkg not to shorten the second field of the
> output, i.e. make sure
On approximately Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 02:31:25PM -0700, Gary Hennigan wrote:
> "Hanspeter Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > the command `dpkg -l ...' prints a name colunm which length is
> > limited. As a result long package names are cut and may be displayed
> > ambigiously.
> > Is there an op
"Hanspeter Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the command `dpkg -l ...' prints a name colunm which length is
> limited. As a result long package names are cut and may be displayed
> ambigiously.
> Is there an option to habe the name colunm wider?
Run it like:
COLUMNS=100 dpkg -l
Gary
dpkg-awk "Status: .* installed$" -- Package | cut -d: -f2.
-Ramesh
-Original Message-
From: Jim Woodruff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 1:27 PM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: "dpkg -l" redirection
Does anyone have a way of redirecting the standard out
On 10 Mar 2002, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-03-10 at 19:26, Jim Woodruff wrote:
> > Does anyone have a way of redirecting the standard output of "dpkg -l" to
> > a file without the truncation that takes place?
>
> $ COLUMNS=200 dpkg -l > file
>
Thank you,
Jim
--
Jim Woodruff < [EMAIL P
On Sun, 2002-03-10 at 19:26, Jim Woodruff wrote:
> Does anyone have a way of redirecting the standard output of "dpkg -l" to
> a file without the truncation that takes place?
$ COLUMNS=200 dpkg -l > file
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight
Colin Watson wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 07:47:51PM -0400, Rick Pasotto wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 03:53:35PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> > > Colin Watson wrote:
> > > > 'apt-get update' doesn't update dpkg's available file. Use 'dselect
> > > > update' instead, which does 'apt-get
On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 07:47:51PM -0400, Rick Pasotto wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 03:53:35PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> > Colin Watson wrote:
> > > 'apt-get update' doesn't update dpkg's available file. Use 'dselect
> > > update' instead, which does 'apt-get update' and then merges it with
>
On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 03:53:35PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:23:19AM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> > > dpkg and grep-available only report kernel-source packages up to 2.4.5
> > > (which is what I have installed), even though I just did apt-
Thus spake Erik Steffl:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:23:19AM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> > > dpkg and grep-available only report kernel-source packages up to 2.4.5
> > > (which is what I have installed), even though I just did apt-get update:
> >
> > 'apt-get update'
Colin Watson wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:23:19AM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> > dpkg and grep-available only report kernel-source packages up to 2.4.5
> > (which is what I have installed), even though I just did apt-get update:
>
> 'apt-get update' doesn't update dpkg's available file.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:23:19AM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> dpkg and grep-available only report kernel-source packages up to 2.4.5
> (which is what I have installed), even though I just did apt-get update:
'apt-get update' doesn't update dpkg's available file. Use 'dselect
update' instead, wh
rp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi. Does someone knows if it is possible to show disk space taken by
>some packages in a similar way to dpkg -l output?
>This would make life easier to users who do not have unlimited disk space ;)
It's in the status file, so, with the grep-dctrl package:
[EMAIL
26 matches
Mail list logo
