a long time ago, in a thread far, far away...
Michelle Konzack wrote:
What about
dpkg-scanpackages . /dev/null Packages
in the same directory and entering the informations
in /etc/apt/sources.lists ?
After an apt-get update you can use apt-get install
to get your package running
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:30:10AM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
including insulting you when you type stupid commands. But you don't
have the right to insult people because you are pissed for not being
clever enough of looking for
Andres Salomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:15:53 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:58:56PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
Apparently the dickhead maintainer of ndiswrapper-source has just gone
into his shell and refuses to discuss this problem.
* William Ballard
| On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 08:33:02PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| dpkg -I on the resulting package and looking at the depends?
|
| But you don't expect to do that for other packages.
If you use dpkg -i, sure you do. dpkg is a low-level tool; treating
it as anything else
[William Ballard]
I like my transactions to have ACID consistency and dpkg does not
have this by design - apt does.
You keep using that word. I do no think it means what you think it
means. Let's see how ACID-compliant apt install runs are
Atomicity - no. Your install does not, for
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 01:20:02AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
So, you're about 1/4 right. Or, being charitable, if you really meant
*only* the Consistency part of ACID when you said ACID consistency,
then you were right but quite misleading.
I know what it means, you're being pedagogical.
#include hallo.h
* Greg Folkert [Thu, Jan 06 2005, 07:13:02PM]:
The temporary apt-repository is the only reliable
solution. m-a is solving a problem I don't have.
Fine then, don't use it. It'll pull the deps before it install the
modules and unloads them and re-loads them.
No, it
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 17:29:27 -0500, William Ballard wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:22:47PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Sorry, but a package can't install a brain.
It builds a new package, so you look at that one before you do
anything. Where is the problem?
Why even bother having the
[Please don't mail -qa with ill-formed rants. They are not appropriate
there. They are also not appropriate in the bug tracking system, so I've
removed the off-topic #287949 from the cc list.]
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:58:56PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
Given that -source packages do not
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 11:22:43AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:58:56PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
Given that -source packages do not adequately specify the dependencies
to be able to use the output, one must NEVER run dpkg -i a given deb
without first running
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 11:08:40AM +0100, Michal Politowski wrote:
Could you possibly explain clearly what is the difference
between using dpkg -i to install a package build from some *-source
and using it to install _any_ _other_ _package_?
If you want the convenience of automatic
Scripsit Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As a workaround, the generated modules package could pre-depend on the
utils package. That would stop dpkg from unpacking it and leaving a
useless installation.
Is the installation really more useless with the modules
unpackaged-but-not-configured
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 02:55:55PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As a workaround, the generated modules package could pre-depend on the
utils package. That would stop dpkg from unpacking it and leaving a
useless installation.
Is the
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 12:29:20PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I don't know. That was the impression I got from the OP's rantings.
It seemed that the old package worked without the -utils, but the
new package didn't. So when the new package was unpacked (but
couldn't be configured), it broke
Apparently the dickhead maintainer of ndiswrapper-source has just gone
into his shell and refuses to discuss this problem.
Since his package (and theoretically any package which generates
packages) may be uninstallable because there is no way to say give me
the source and everything I need to
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, William Ballard wrote:
Apparently the dickhead maintainer of ndiswrapper-source has just gone
into his shell and refuses to discuss this problem.
Since his package (and theoretically any package which generates
packages) may be uninstallable because there is no way to say
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:58:56PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
Apparently the dickhead maintainer of ndiswrapper-source has just gone
into his shell and refuses to discuss this problem.
Eh, if you start a mail like this, I don't even read further on this
mail... sorry.
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Adam Heath wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, William Ballard wrote:
Apparently the dickhead maintainer of ndiswrapper-source has just gone
into his shell and refuses to discuss this problem.
Since his package (and theoretically any package which generates
packages) may be
Am 2005-01-06 16:58:56, schrieb William Ballard:
Given that -source packages do not adequately specify the dependencies
to be able to use the output, one must NEVER run dpkg -i a given deb
without first running dpkg --dry-run -i on the same debs and verifying
that it returns a zero exit
Am 2005-01-06 23:02:40, schrieb Jeroen van Wolffelaar:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:58:56PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
Apparently the dickhead maintainer of ndiswrapper-source has just gone
into his shell and refuses to discuss this problem.
Eh, if you start a mail like this, I don't
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:02:40PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:58:56PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
Apparently the dickhead maintainer of ndiswrapper-source has just gone
into his shell and refuses to discuss this problem.
Eh, if you start a mail like
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:05:24PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
I've now taken time to read the bug report. You're wrong, and the maintainer
is right.
Well that's why you simply cannot trust that source packages
will not completely fuck up your system.
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:02:17PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, William Ballard wrote:
Er, huh? I don't see what problem you are describing.
What *exactly* is the issue you have?
Packages that generate packages as output that have
dependencies the original package does not
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:58:56PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
Apparently the dickhead maintainer of ndiswrapper-source has just gone
into his shell and refuses to discuss this problem.
Btw, could anyone explain why ndiswrapper is in main? It's only use
is to run propritary windows drivers
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, William Ballard wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:02:40PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:58:56PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
Apparently the dickhead maintainer of ndiswrapper-source has just gone
into his shell and refuses to discuss
* William Ballard wrote:
[...crap...]
Do you need the -utils apckage to build the -source package? No. So no Depends
and no Recommends for you. Period. Depends and Recommends have a certain
well-defined meaning and I am greatful that we are not arbitarily misusing
them.
The resulting
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:10:16PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2005-01-06 16:58:56, schrieb William Ballard:
Given that -source packages do not adequately specify the dependencies
to be able to use the output, one must NEVER run dpkg -i a given deb
without first running dpkg
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Sebastian Ley wrote:
* William Ballard wrote:
[...crap...]
Do you need the -utils apckage to build the -source package? No. So no Depends
and no Recommends for you. Period. Depends and Recommends have a certain
well-defined meaning and I am greatful that we are not
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:18:36PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
Again, reading the report, I see you getting more and more frustrated,
and then resorting to name calling, and dirt throwing(publically, on
this list). Both are signs of poor ettiquette.
I offered the asshole and alternative and he
On 10161 March 1977, William Ballard wrote:
Er, huh? I don't see what problem you are describing.
What *exactly* is the issue you have?
Packages that generate packages as output that have
dependencies the original package does not have.
The resulting output may be uninstallable.
The
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:19:35PM +0100, Sebastian Ley wrote:
* William Ballard wrote:
[...crap...]
Do you need the -utils apckage to build the -source package? No. So no
Depends
and no Recommends for you. Period. Depends and Recommends have a certain
Well you can't use the damn
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:18:36PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
Again, reading the report, I see you getting more and more frustrated,
and then resorting to name calling, and dirt throwing(publically, on
this list). Both are signs of poor ettiquette.
I offered the asshole and alternative and he
* Adam Heath wrote:
It *may* require a versioned depends on a newer version, but that's just a
normal bug.
...and no reason to introduce this dependency in the -source package.
Btw: Leaving old packages build from -source packages around would quite well
do the trick. But I suppose W.B.
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:22:47PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Sorry, but a package can't install a brain.
It builds a new package, so you look at that one before you do
anything. Where is the problem?
Why even bother having the concept of dependencies in the first
place? Why not just look at
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:28:55PM +0100, Sebastian Ley wrote:
Btw: Leaving old packages build from -source packages around would quite well
do the trick. But I suppose W.B. wants to call more people assholes before
invoking brain functions...
Right: I have to do all this special stuff to
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given that -source packages do not adequately specify the dependencies
to be able to use the output, one must NEVER run dpkg -i a given deb
without first running dpkg --dry-run -i on the same debs and verifying
that it returns a zero exit code.
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:37:52PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
William Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given that -source packages do not adequately specify the dependencies
to be able to use the output, one must NEVER run dpkg -i a given deb
without first running dpkg
#include hallo.h
* William Ballard [Thu, Jan 06 2005, 05:14:32PM]:
What *exactly* is the issue you have?
Packages that generate packages as output that have
dependencies the original package does not have.
The resulting output may be uninstallable.
Though luck.
The rationale is some
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:27:59PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
From my point of view, those source packages are most often installed by
a dependency of some other *utilities* package. Once they are installed,
So, what you're saying is, if I need some module foo source, I should
look to be
#include hallo.h
* William Ballard [Thu, Jan 06 2005, 05:50:46PM]:
So, what you're saying is, if I need some module foo source, I should
look to be installing foo-utils and expect foo-source to tag along.
If I don't find foo-utils, just look for foo-source.
Can I count on foo-utils
El jue, 06-01-2005 a las 17:21 -0500, William Ballard escribi:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:18:36PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
Again, reading the report, I see you getting more and more frustrated,
and then resorting to name calling, and dirt throwing(publically, on
this list). Both are signs
El jue, 06-01-2005 a las 17:50 -0500, William Ballard escribi:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:27:59PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
From my point of view, those source packages are most often installed by
a dependency of some other *utilities* package. Once they are installed,
So, what you're
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:30:10AM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
including insulting you when you type stupid commands. But you don't
have the right to insult people because you are pissed for not being
clever enough of looking for dependencies before installing a package by
hand using
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:32:50AM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
No, you should use module-assistant tool, which is a high level tool
If I have installed module-assistant and ndiswrapper-source and have
not installed ndiswrapper-utils and install ndiswrapper-modules
the
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:15:53 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:58:56PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
Apparently the dickhead maintainer of ndiswrapper-source has just gone
into his shell and refuses to discuss this problem.
Btw, could anyone explain why ndiswrapper
On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 17:30 -0500, William Ballard wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:28:55PM +0100, Sebastian Ley wrote:
Btw: Leaving old packages build from -source packages around would quite
well
do the trick. But I suppose W.B. wants to call more people assholes before
invoking
On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 18:46 -0500, William Ballard wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:32:50AM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
No, you should use module-assistant tool, which is a high level tool
If I have installed module-assistant and ndiswrapper-source and have
not installed
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:55:47PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
(c) Download and install it for you.
You're right, but there's still one problem:
It breaks first and *then* fixes it.
By the time it's broken, your old network card no longer
works and you can't connect to an apt repository to fix
On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 19:09 -0500, William Ballard wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:55:47PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
(c) Download and install it for you.
You're right, but there's still one problem:
It breaks first and *then* fixes it.
By the time it's broken, your old network card no
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 07:13:02PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
Fine then, don't use it. It'll pull the deps before it install the
modules and unloads them and re-loads them.
I just didn't realize this crap was so brittle.
So many ways to fix brokenness when I just don't know why dpkg even
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 06:50:59PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:15:53 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:58:56PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
Apparently the dickhead maintainer of ndiswrapper-source has just gone
into his shell and refuses
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 04:31:14PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
It's completely irrelevant whether any free drivers exist.
ndiswrapper's purpose is to provide an NDIS interface to the Linux
kernel, and it accomplishes that purpose without the use of any non-free
software. Thus, it is perfectly
On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 19:25 -0500, William Ballard wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 07:13:02PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote:
Fine then, don't use it. It'll pull the deps before it install the
modules and unloads them and re-loads them.
I just didn't realize this crap was so brittle.
So many
53 matches
Mail list logo
