Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Michael Stone wrote: On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:39:56PM +0300, Reco wrote: No, I got you first time. Rather it's my response deviated elsewhere. I see nothing in those three packages that would qualify as "xyzzy". Alternatives? No. Mime types registration? No. About the only common thing about all three packages is that they are GUI archivers. I do not question a choice of these three archivers as "lxqt" dependency. What I do question is the kind of dependency itself. I don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a beneficial outcome. In this case, unless you're specifically trying to remove all of these specific dependencies (for no apparent reason) *it simply doesn't matter*. Saying, "there was a troll post which shows that this is an issue" just isn't compelling. Are there any real users with valid use cases for which this as an issue? If not, why encourage another dozen messages about it? not sure about encouraging a dozen messages as such but the discussion has been very instructive for me at least. fjd -- Felmon Davis
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
Hi. On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 02:38:48PM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote: > > > > I really don't see anything I'd call "dependency hell" any more. > > > > Perhaps it's because I experienced the real thing, or perhaps because I > > > > don't use a DE. > > > > > > Try unistalling a DE, either in part or whole, to replace it with > > > another and you'll end up with no xorg and all the stuff that goes with > > > it, and all the apps that run under it. Quite a surprise. > > > > My experience tells me otherwise, but I know how to use apt-mark. > > The last time I tried unistalling a DE was 8 years ago. Found no > solution that wouldn't break or wipe out the system. I don't even think > apt-mark existed then. Back then it was "apt-get install foo" for "apt-mark manual foo", and if they had an equivalent of "apt-mark auto bar" I've never used it. > Decided it was easier to do a clean install with > the DE I wanted. There wasn't enough room on the little 4GB SSD on an > Asus eeePC 900 to install two. > > > > Dependency/Recommends have gotten to the point now of > > > unnecessarily bloating a system with apps and utilities that > > > aren't needed, not wanted, and will never be used. > > > > Some examples would be nice here. > > OK. Install any DE and you'll likely get Firefox-ESR, Hm. Let's see (buster, the current stable). GNOME - 'nuf said. MATE - yes, if you're installing Recommends. KDE - no, but you get their version of kitchen sink. XFCE - no, even if you count Suggests. LXDE - yes, if you're installing Recommends. LXQT - yes, if you're installing Recommends. Seems sane. Have I forgot any DE? > Libreoffice, Actually, no. You could count LXDE here, but you have to install Suggests. > all kinds of multimedia apps and utilities, etc., etc. That's somewhat expected from a DE, but I get your point. > > > That's why I begin all my installs with a terminal-only system and > > > build it up piece by piece judiciously checking what gets installed. > > > The result is a small, > > > > uname -m && du -sxh /usr > > On this my primary system? Stretch amd64. /usr 4.0GB. Main desktop - 3.2G in / (/var is a separate filesystem), every package is hand-picked, installation is about 10 years old, multiple migrations, one architecture change. But - kid's desktop - 3.0G in / (/var is a separate filesystem), lxde metapackage, fresh installation. My point is - hand-picking packages has its fun, and a great way to pass the time (and I do it too, occasionally). But once you know the *right* metapackage, end result is nearly the same. > I've done installs using the method mentioned above where the whole > system was on a 4.0GB SSD and install only took 1.2GB including > customized LXDE desktop and applications. No swap. They had localepurge even then. You could easily shave off extra 200-300M even in such conditions. Reco
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 13:59:00 -0500 John Hasler wrote: > B writes: > > To make things easy, I figured to just uninstall GNOME. Wouldn't work > > no matter what method I tried. Uninstall always wanted to remove ALL X > > based stuff. Dependency hell. Researched a lot. No solutions found. > > > Install LXDE *first*. Remove Gnome *second*. Do it all from a text > console, of course. Thought of that, but not enough room for two DEs on the little 4GB SSD. Install quit saying not enough free space. B
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 21:40:08 +0300 Reco wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 11:21:26AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote: > > On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 12:44:32 -0500 > > John Hasler wrote: > > > > > Patrick Bartek writes: > > > > They are each their own Hell. Package management software solved, > > > > more or less, one type, but created another beast as the OP has > > > > discovered and that we each deal with in our own ways. Such is life > > > > . . . and software > > > > > > The OP is in a hell of his own making (which is fine with me). If he > > > wasn't such a dork he'd let Lxqt pull in Xarchiver, ignore it, and > > > install his choice of archiver. > > > ... > > Unfortunately, it's the way dependencies have been implemented. > > In this particular case, it's the way a metapackage have been > implemented. > Dependencies by themselves are fine, but their usage in this case > (Depends instead of Recommends) is controversial. > > In another words, do not blame the mechanism, blame the policy. That was what I was implying. That's why I used "implemented" instead of blaming dependencies directly. And, yes, metapackages can result in getting more installed than expected. I try to avoid using them. > > > One should be able to uninstall one thing without it trashing your whole > > system because of dependencies, Recommends, etc. > > It's possible already, although it contradicts the purpose of > metapackages. First, you remove lxqt. Next, you apt-mark to manual all > its Depends and Recommends. Finally, you remove what you do not want. > > And note, I did not imply that it's user-friendly in any way. And I > won't call it "simple" or "obvious". To say the least. And beyond the OP's capabilities. > > > There should be a special switch: "uninstall only this, leave > > everything else, don't automatically install a replacement -- I'll do > > that." :) > > There is no need for such switch as it's perfectly doable with stock apt > & dpkg. But since it falls into "creative Debian breakage" category, I > won't go into the details here. I'm familiar with the method and have used it in a limited way, but it's so easy to break the system without thorough research first. And, again, beyond the OP's skill set . . . and temperament. > > > > I really don't see anything I'd call "dependency hell" any more. > > > Perhaps it's because I experienced the real thing, or perhaps because I > > > don't use a DE. > > > > Try unistalling a DE, either in part or whole, to replace it with > > another and you'll end up with no xorg and all the stuff that goes with > > it, and all the apps that run under it. Quite a surprise. > > My experience tells me otherwise, but I know how to use apt-mark. The last time I tried unistalling a DE was 8 years ago. Found no solution that wouldn't break or wipe out the system. I don't even think apt-mark existed then. Decided it was easier to do a clean install with the DE I wanted. There wasn't enough room on the little 4GB SSD on an Asus eeePC 900 to install two. > > > Dependency/Recommends have gotten to the point now of > > unnecessarily bloating a system with apps and utilities that > > aren't needed, not wanted, and will never be used. > > Some examples would be nice here. OK. Install any DE and you'll likely get Firefox-ESR, Libreoffice, all kinds of multimedia apps and utilities, etc., etc. Even just installing the basic DE components instead of using the metapackage will still get apps that perhaps you don't want like audacious which I never use, but with almost anything sound related you install you get it unless you want to use dpkg and resolve the dependencies yourself which I have done: Used Slackware for years. ;-) And "marking" certain items individually not to be installed can be a lot of work, probably more than it's worth. I just ignore them. Plenty of hard drive space available. > > > That's why I begin all my installs with a terminal-only system and > > build it up piece by piece judiciously checking what gets installed. > > The result is a small, > > uname -m && du -sxh /usr On this my primary system? Stretch amd64. /usr 4.0GB. 20GB / (31% in use of which /usr is a part). /home and swap on separate partitions. However, I've been using it for almost 2 years and have apps like video editing software installed I'm testing. So, /usr has more on it than usual. I've done installs using the method mentioned above where the whole system was on a 4.0GB SSD and install only took 1.2GB including customized LXDE desktop and applications. No swap. > > > fast, efficient set up with only what I want -- for the most part. > > And that "part" that mars your perfect installation is? Little things that I don't use, but apps complain about if they aren't installed like xarchiver. B
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
B writes: > To make things easy, I figured to just uninstall GNOME. Wouldn't work > no matter what method I tried. Uninstall always wanted to remove ALL X > based stuff. Dependency hell. Researched a lot. No solutions found. Install LXDE *first*. Remove Gnome *second*. Do it all from a text console, of course. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 17:44:55 -0500 John Hasler wrote: > Patrick Bartek writes: > > Try unistalling a DE, either in part or whole, to replace it with > > another and you'll end up with no xorg and all the stuff that goes > > with it, and all the apps that run under it. Quite a surprise. > > My desktop machine has a highly-customized FVWM installation but I've > changed DEs on my laptop without running into that. Well, it WAS about 8 years ago and the last time I tried it. I had installed Wheezy (32-bit) with GNOME 2 on a friend's eeePC 900. It originally had some Linux system on it that mimiced Windows XP, but it was trashed and didn't work. GNOME proved to be just too heavy for its 4GB SSD, 512MB RAM and 1GHZ Atom CPU. Response was sluggish and it hit the swap a LOT. Even upgrading to 1GB RAM, the maximum, only helped a little. I decided to go with a lighter, customized install of LXDE. It being modular made this simple. And since I didn't use the metapackage, I didn't get all the crap that gets installed with it. Too make things easy, I figured to just uninstall GNOME. Wouldn't work no matter what method I tried. Uninstall always wanted to remove ALL X based stuff. Dependency hell. Researched a lot. No solutions found. Finally, gave up and just reinstalled the OS with LXDE and reconfigured. System still in use and works fine. This was also the same year, I abandoned DEs entirely when I upgraded from Fedora 12 GNOME 2 to Wheezy LTS Openbox WM and a single LXpanel with menus. Now with Stretch. Similar set up. I understand it is now easier to remove a DE, but haven't tried it. No need. Don't use DEs anymore. Just eye candy. Waste of CPU cycles. B
Re: et.al., (was: Dependencies et al, was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Tue 08 Oct 2019 at 00:25:44 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 18:42:38 (+0100), Brian wrote: > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 15:09:09 +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > But how do Debian list servers know ? > > > > A good question. How are my mails matched with my subscribed address > > so that I am awarded the accolade of LDOSUBSCRIBER? On the basis that > > my past statements about the SMTP protocol (whatever they were) have > > not been well received, I decline to offer any suggestion. > > Have we been told what your subscribed address is? I've assumed > that it's the one in the envelope-from of the post I'm replying to. > (I don't want to quote it.) Is that correct? Or maybe that …CII.eu one? A decent assumption but, unfortunately, not correct. I've come to the tentative conclusion that Debian can somehow link my envelope-from and the subscribed address via their A records (or something like that). Note that there isn't any LDOSUBSCRIBER in the headers of this mail. > > > Is it because Exim 4.89 said "MAIL FROM:<...subscribed.address...>" to > > > lists.debian.org ? > > > > "subscribed.address" is the HELO and can be what I want it to be. See > > the headers of my previous mail. > > Why would you use a "subscribed.address" (presumably an email address) > for your HELO (presumably actually a EHLO). I was under the impression > that it should be a domain, ie a FQDN. Sorry, I was probably less than precise. The 127.0.1.1 line in /etc/hosts is a FQDN and is used by exim for the HELO/EHLO. /etc/mailname determines the envelope-from. > > > Or is it because the first mail hop added "envelope-from" to its Received: > > > header ? > > > > > > Received: from ... by ... with local (Exim 4.89) > > > (envelope-from <...>) > > > id 1iHRiB-0006S7-Ks > > > for debian-user@lists.debian.org; Mon, 07 Oct 2019 13:01:59 > > > +0100 > > > > I can alter that too, and still be designated LDOSUBSCRIBER. > > Have we observed that? I only had LDOSUBSCRIBER bestowed on me when my > envelope-from became the same as my subscribed address, which followed as > a consequence of my adopting the .corp domain name last year after seeing > https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/12/icann_corp_home_mail_gtlds/ > Until then, exim4 didn't seem able to rewrite my headers because I > didn't have a dot in my FQDN, only an unadorned hostname. What I altered was the HELO/EHLO; it made no difference. Altering the envelope-from did, but it would be unwise to assume I am not subscribed to the list and receiving all mails. No Ccs needed. :) -- Brian.
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
Patrick Bartek writes: > Try unistalling a DE, either in part or whole, to replace it with > another and you'll end up with no xorg and all the stuff that goes > with it, and all the apps that run under it. Quite a surprise. My desktop machine has a highly-customized FVWM installation but I've changed DEs on my laptop without running into that. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 11:21:26AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote: > On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 12:44:32 -0500 > John Hasler wrote: > > > Patrick Bartek writes: > > > They are each their own Hell. Package management software solved, > > > more or less, one type, but created another beast as the OP has > > > discovered and that we each deal with in our own ways. Such is life > > > . . . and software > > > > The OP is in a hell of his own making (which is fine with me). If he > > wasn't such a dork he'd let Lxqt pull in Xarchiver, ignore it, and > > install his choice of archiver. > ... > Unfortunately, it's the way dependencies have been implemented. In this particular case, it's the way a metapackage have been implemented. Dependencies by themselves are fine, but their usage in this case (Depends instead of Recommends) is controversial. In another words, do not blame the mechanism, blame the policy. > One should be able to uninstall one thing without it trashing your whole > system because of dependencies, Recommends, etc. It's possible already, although it contradicts the purpose of metapackages. First, you remove lxqt. Next, you apt-mark to manual all its Depends and Recommends. Finally, you remove what you do not want. And note, I did not imply that it's user-friendly in any way. And I won't call it "simple" or "obvious". > There should be a special switch: "uninstall only this, leave > everything else, don't automatically install a replacement -- I'll do > that." :) There is no need for such switch as it's perfectly doable with stock apt & dpkg. But since it falls into "creative Debian breakage" category, I won't go into the details here. > > I really don't see anything I'd call "dependency hell" any more. > > Perhaps it's because I experienced the real thing, or perhaps because I > > don't use a DE. > > Try unistalling a DE, either in part or whole, to replace it with > another and you'll end up with no xorg and all the stuff that goes with > it, and all the apps that run under it. Quite a surprise. My experience tells me otherwise, but I know how to use apt-mark. > Dependency/Recommends have gotten to the point now of > unnecessarily bloating a system with apps and utilities that > aren't needed, not wanted, and will never be used. Some examples would be nice here. > That's why I begin all my installs with a terminal-only system and > build it up piece by piece judiciously checking what gets installed. > The result is a small, uname -m && du -sxh /usr > fast, efficient set up with only what I want -- for the most part. And that "part" that mars your perfect installation is? Reco
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 12:44:32 -0500 John Hasler wrote: > Patrick Bartek writes: > > They are each their own Hell. Package management software solved, > > more or less, one type, but created another beast as the OP has > > discovered and that we each deal with in our own ways. Such is life > > . . . and software > > The OP is in a hell of his own making (which is fine with me). If he > wasn't such a dork he'd let Lxqt pull in Xarchiver, ignore it, and > install his choice of archiver. I understand the OP's frustration. I'm dealing with it myself with Buster and systemd (but that's another post). It's just that his way of coping with his frustration is with animosity and rudeness. Unfortunately, it's the way dependencies have been implemented. One should be able to uninstall one thing without it trashing your whole system because of dependencies, Recommends, etc. There should be a special switch: "uninstall only this, leave everything else, don't automatically install a replacement -- I'll do that." :) > I really don't see anything I'd call "dependency hell" any more. > Perhaps it's because I experienced the real thing, or perhaps because I > don't use a DE. Try unistalling a DE, either in part or whole, to replace it with another and you'll end up with no xorg and all the stuff that goes with it, and all the apps that run under it. Quite a surprise. Dependency/Recommends have gotten to the point now of unnecessarily bloating a system with apps and utilities that aren't needed, not wanted, and will never be used. That's why I begin all my installs with a terminal-only system and build it up piece by piece judiciously checking what gets installed. The result is a small, fast, efficient set up with only what I want -- for the most part. My solution is not perfect. B
Re: et.al., (was: Dependencies et al, was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 08:52:11 -0400 Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 09:13:31AM +0100, Joe wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 00:25:44 -0500 > > David Wright wrote: > > > Why would you use a "subscribed.address" (presumably an email > > > address) for your HELO (presumably actually a EHLO). I was under > > > the impression that it should be a domain, ie a FQDN. > > > > It should actually be a hostname, it's the official public name of > > the mail server, though not of course its local network name. It > > must be resolvable in public DNS. In practice, not much of this is > > enforced, and you can get away with a domain name and, apparently, > > an email address. > > "Enforcement" is entirely up to the receiver's discretion. Yes, that's what I meant, there's nobody else to enforce anything. But I've never had an email rejected for a mismatched HELO. > Some > receivers use it as an anti-spam measure -- if your HELO string > doesn't resolve, they won't accept your connection. Yes, I do that, and I think it's the default for Exchange servers. A look through the Exim configuration file gives a lot of anti-spam hints in terms of the built-in options. > I've even heard > of receivers who attempt to make an STMP connection back to the MX of > your HELO domain, to make sure you have a running incoming SMTP > service. > I haven't seen that one, that I'm aware of. But that presumably is circumvented simply by using a HELO for a domain that is known to run a mail server. In the days when I used Telnet to talk to mail servers, I used a well-known six-character domain name for my HELO for brevity, with which I had no connection whatever. No server ever refused it. > Other receivers may simply log it, or ignore it altogether. > Indeed, but it's of value. A lot of people seem to think that using their IP address, or my own IP address or domain name as their HELO is clever. -- Joe
Re: et.al., (was: Dependencies et al, was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 09:13:31AM +0100, Joe wrote: > On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 00:25:44 -0500 > David Wright wrote: > > Why would you use a "subscribed.address" (presumably an email address) > > for your HELO (presumably actually a EHLO). I was under the impression > > that it should be a domain, ie a FQDN. > > It should actually be a hostname, it's the official public name of the > mail server, though not of course its local network name. It must be > resolvable in public DNS. In practice, not much of this is enforced, > and you can get away with a domain name and, apparently, an email > address. "Enforcement" is entirely up to the receiver's discretion. Some receivers use it as an anti-spam measure -- if your HELO string doesn't resolve, they won't accept your connection. I've even heard of receivers who attempt to make an STMP connection back to the MX of your HELO domain, to make sure you have a running incoming SMTP service. Other receivers may simply log it, or ignore it altogether.
Re: et.al., (was: Dependencies et al, was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 00:25:44 -0500 David Wright wrote: > > > > "subscribed.address" is the HELO and can be what I want it to be. > > See the headers of my previous mail. > > Why would you use a "subscribed.address" (presumably an email address) > for your HELO (presumably actually a EHLO). I was under the impression > that it should be a domain, ie a FQDN. It should actually be a hostname, it's the official public name of the mail server, though not of course its local network name. It must be resolvable in public DNS. In practice, not much of this is enforced, and you can get away with a domain name and, apparently, an email address. It's a while since I did any email diagnostics, but certainly the HELO pretty much only had to exist, it didn't seem to be checked very much. I have seen email from a Small Business Server refused because the default HELO was the invalid domain name x.local, as someone had forgotten to set it properly. I can't be bothered (i.e. I haven't had to do it yet) setting different HELOs for each domain that I use, and it has never been a problem. Neither does the MX record have to match any email address, nor the PTR record for the sending IP address. There are many complex setups where a business might send through one third-party SMTP server and receive through the SMTP server of a mail-cleaning service, for example. The only constraint (again, so far) on a sending address PTR is that it must have a complementary A record, which does not have to be the address that the MX points to or anything related to the email itself. Many ISPs cannot handle multiple PTRs for the same IP address, at least not in their user control panels, though they are permitted by RFC. -- Joe
Re: et.al., (was: Dependencies et al, was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 18:42:38 (+0100), Brian wrote: > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 15:09:09 +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > > [...] > > > But how do Debian list servers know ? > > A good question. How are my mails matched with my subscribed address > so that I am awarded the accolade of LDOSUBSCRIBER? On the basis that > my past statements about the SMTP protocol (whatever they were) have > not been well received, I decline to offer any suggestion. Have we been told what your subscribed address is? I've assumed that it's the one in the envelope-from of the post I'm replying to. (I don't want to quote it.) Is that correct? Or maybe that …CII.eu one? > > Is it because Exim 4.89 said "MAIL FROM:<...subscribed.address...>" to > > lists.debian.org ? > > "subscribed.address" is the HELO and can be what I want it to be. See > the headers of my previous mail. Why would you use a "subscribed.address" (presumably an email address) for your HELO (presumably actually a EHLO). I was under the impression that it should be a domain, ie a FQDN. > > Or is it because the first mail hop added "envelope-from" to its Received: > > header ? > > > > Received: from ... by ... with local (Exim 4.89) > > (envelope-from <...>) > > id 1iHRiB-0006S7-Ks > > for debian-user@lists.debian.org; Mon, 07 Oct 2019 13:01:59 +0100 > > I can alter that too, and still be designated LDOSUBSCRIBER. Have we observed that? I only had LDOSUBSCRIBER bestowed on me when my envelope-from became the same as my subscribed address, which followed as a consequence of my adopting the .corp domain name last year after seeing https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/12/icann_corp_home_mail_gtlds/ Until then, exim4 didn't seem able to rewrite my headers because I didn't have a dot in my FQDN, only an unadorned hostname. Cheers, David.
Re: et.al., (was: Dependencies et al, was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 15:09:09 (+0200), Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> i wrote:
> > > To my best knowledge, "X-Spam-Status: ... tests=...,LDOSUBSCRIBER,..."
> > > says that the "From:" address of the mail is subscribed.
>
> Brian wrote:
> > Are you sure it is the From: and not the envelope From? My From: is
> > not subscribed.
>
> Interesting observation.
> So the address by which you submit your mail to the remote server is
> subscribed and it is not the "From:" address which your mail client
> writes into the header part of the mail ?
>
> I wonder whether my mail provider would allow me to send via SMTP
> MAIL FROM:
> RCPT TO:debian-user@lists.debian.org
> and then by DATA
> From: "Somebody Else"
It's fairly easy to find out by trying it out, only obviously in an
email to yourself, not the list. Perhaps not as easy as it was,
because unencrypted telnet has all but gone. And I've also found that
my ISP is more "impatient" and times out fairly quickly, so nowadays
I assemble the whole email in an emacs buffer and paste it into the
session all in one go. Here's an example, suitably mangled:
$ openssl s_client -starttls smtp -crlf -connect
smtp.some.submission.host.tld:12345
That opens the session, and I only press Return when I've copied the
email itself into the paste buffer. Here's the email, and there's
a blank line after the header.
ehlo wren.corp
auth plain MyAuthenticationNameAndPasswordInBase64==
mail from:realusern...@realdomain.tld
rcpt to:
data
From: Whoever You Want To Be
to:
subject: hand written test 01
Hand written test 01
You could duplicate the headers here as a record
.
quit
I do it all in a script session so that I get a recording, from which
I snip the authentication lines before archiving it.
BTW the string in the authentication line above is generated with:
$ echo -e -n '\0username\0password' | base64
Obviously I'm assuming that your ISP has facilities comparable to
mine, which are (I use two):
250-PIPELINING
250-SIZE 2048
250-ETRN
250-AUTH DIGEST-MD5 CRAM-MD5 PLAIN LOGIN
250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
250-8BITMIME
250 DSN
250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN
250-SIZE 3000
250-8BITMIME
250 OK
However, I see lots of DKIM stuff in your emails, so it might not be
as simple as this for you. But in principle, it should work.
There is no inherent relationship between either "reverse" (from
MAIL, SAML, etc., commands) or "forward" (RCPT) addresses in the SMTP
transaction ("envelope") and the addresses in the header section.
(RFC 5321.)
> But how do Debian list servers know ?
> Is it because Exim 4.89 said "MAIL FROM:<...subscribed.address...>" to
> lists.debian.org ?
> Or is it because the first mail hop added "envelope-from" to its Received:
> header ?
I've always assumed the envelope from is generated from the 'mail
from' line, and that the envelope should reach the Debian list
processing system unchanged.
> Received: from ... by ... with local (Exim 4.89)
> (envelope-from <...>)
> id 1iHRiB-0006S7-Ks
> for debian-user@lists.debian.org; Mon, 07 Oct 2019 13:01:59 +0100
>
> (I wonder where "envelope-from" in "Received:" is specified. The word
> does neither appear in RFC5322 nor in RFC5321.)
I've always assumed that what is in parentheses is all "noise" as far
as SMTP is concerned, like that Exim version number, the envelope-from
and, in your email for example, (Client did not present a certificate).
> ---
>
> > > Nevertheless, if i have no other indication then i normally add a "Cc:"
> > > to the thread starter if i do not see LDOSUBSCRIBER among the spam tests.
>
> > On the basis, one supposes, that the situation is unclear and you wish
> > the poster to know there is a reply to her post.
>
> It is futile to send Cc: to people who are known to reply to list messages.
> But thread starters where i am in doubt get a Cc: from me if i have
> something to tell them.
Cheers,
David.
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 10:05:30PM +0300, Reco wrote: On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 02:45:29PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 09:17:21PM +0300, Reco wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > I don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a beneficial outcome. > > You're entitled to your option, of course. For context, the most recent message from that account started out with: And, for the context, I was referring to the child of the original e-mail, which stated: This is harassment because you force me to use either Xarchiver or Ark, you don't give me the choice to use none. ... All normal package managers would just remove everything that depends on Xarchiver, not force me to install alternative. Whenever it's a harassment it's for an appropriate Debian Team to decide, of course. No, reasonable people can evaluate it on their own without an appeal to authority. Trying to legitimize an inappropriate email is worse for the overall well-being of the list than just ignoring it, and hand-wringing over whether there was a good point hidden in the garbage simply dignifies it more than it deserves.
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:45:29 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 09:17:21PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > > I don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a beneficial > > > outcome. > > > > You're entitled to your option, of course. > > For context, the most recent message from that account started out with: > > "I posted to publicly state that Debian developers are assholes, but > now I see that Debian users are assholes too (just like religious cult > of Theo de Raadt which we know as OpenBSD)." > > I think most people would agree that's a troll account which isn't going to > lead to any meaningful engagement. It's probably reasonable to assume that > any issues raised by the troll account were selected to cause conflict, not > to request assistance for a real problem in need of a solution. If that had been in a submitted bug report, it would been closed within seconds. > > Still, there were some valid points in that e-mail. > > We can certainly agree to disagree. About the points? Yes. About the tone? No. It is unacceptable on this list and does not deserve to be championed. -- Brian.
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 02:45:29PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 09:17:21PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > > I don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a beneficial > > > outcome. > > > > You're entitled to your option, of course. > > For context, the most recent message from that account started out with: And, for the context, I was referring to the child of the original e-mail, which stated: This is harassment because you force me to use either Xarchiver or Ark, you don't give me the choice to use none. ... All normal package managers would just remove everything that depends on Xarchiver, not force me to install alternative. Whenever it's a harassment it's for an appropriate Debian Team to decide, of course. > I think most people would agree that's a troll account which isn't > going to lead to any meaningful engagement. Totally agreed. Yet even such e-mail can give a start to a meaningful and civilized discussion, as we're currently seeing in other part of this thread. > It's probably reasonable to assume that any issues raised by the troll > account were selected to cause conflict, not to request assistance for > a real problem in need of a solution. Hardly. OP needed to get it out their system, and choose an inappropriate way of doing so. Ban them, and be done with it. > > User tries to uninstall a program, for instance - "xarchiver" > > Why? What is the use-case for a naive user to remove that, I've asked to leave "gnome" metapackage as it is, as you may recall. It's perfect as it is. GNOME is the default Debian DE, installing something else takes skill and determination. In the process of gaining these user tends to lose that naivity (sp?). Reco
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 21:17:21 +0300, Reco wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:39:56PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > > No, I got you first time. Rather it's my response deviated elsewhere. > > > > > > I see nothing in those three packages that would qualify as "xyzzy". > > > Alternatives? No. Mime types registration? No. > > > About the only common thing about all three packages is that they are > > > GUI archivers. > > > I do not question a choice of these three archivers as "lxqt" > > > dependency. What I do question is the kind of dependency itself. > > > > I don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a beneficial outcome. > > You're entitled to your option, of course. It is magnanimous of you to entertain that idea. > Still, there were some valid points in that e-mail. The "staff" on this list are entitled to work without fear of having explicit insults and inappropriate language thrown at them, especially when they choose to participate. The expectation is to work in a decent, well-ordered, respectful, unviolent, and helpful environment. It doesn't matter how valid the points made are. If you are kicking the target in the teeth at the same time, they are not uppermost in your mind and deserve to be ignored. It is not just what you say - it is the way that you say it that matters. This isn't, or shouldn't be, an anything goes list. -- Brian.
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 09:17:21PM +0300, Reco wrote: On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: I don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a beneficial outcome. You're entitled to your option, of course. For context, the most recent message from that account started out with: "I posted to publicly state that Debian developers are assholes, but now I see that Debian users are assholes too (just like religious cult of Theo de Raadt which we know as OpenBSD)." I think most people would agree that's a troll account which isn't going to lead to any meaningful engagement. It's probably reasonable to assume that any issues raised by the troll account were selected to cause conflict, not to request assistance for a real problem in need of a solution. Still, there were some valid points in that e-mail. We can certainly agree to disagree. User tries to uninstall a program, for instance - "xarchiver" Why? What is the use-case for a naive user to remove that, apart from coming up with scenarios to troll debian-user? For an experienced user with esoteric requirements the solution is trivial: don't use task packages if you want an artisanal hand-crafted install.
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:39:56PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > No, I got you first time. Rather it's my response deviated elsewhere. > > > > I see nothing in those three packages that would qualify as "xyzzy". > > Alternatives? No. Mime types registration? No. > > About the only common thing about all three packages is that they are > > GUI archivers. > > I do not question a choice of these three archivers as "lxqt" > > dependency. What I do question is the kind of dependency itself. > > I don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a beneficial outcome. You're entitled to your option, of course. Still, there were some valid points in that e-mail. > In this case, unless you're specifically trying to remove all of these > specific dependencies (for no apparent reason) *it simply doesn't > matter*. And as I wrote in another part of this thread: User tries to uninstall a program, for instance - "xarchiver", and user has "lxqt" metapackage installed. User sees that apt tries to install another dependency of "lxqt" along with removing the xarchiver. Or, user has "lxde" metapackage installed. User tries to remove "xarchiver", which removes "lxde" by dependency, which removes all of LXDE as a result. Disregarding "gnome" metapackage, which of the cases seems sane to you? Or the end user? Reco
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 10:56:30 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 16:03:21 (+0300), Reco wrote: [...] > > Please show a e-mail from the list subscriber that does not have > > aforementioned attribute, then we'll have something to talk about. > > Dead easy. Just configure your email system so that the envelope-from > does not match your subscribed address. All my list postings lacked > LDOSUBSCRIBER until April last year for that reason. Judging by one > of the threads I contributed to at that time, I expect that this is > when I changed my domain's name from nothing to "corp", and stopped > exim from nagging me about my FQDN. That seems good to me (and Reco agrees). Problem: my envelope From does not match my subscribed address, and is not intended to. I am still wondering what use it is to "check for the existence of that LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before* replying to e-mail". How does it affect the actions one takes? Or is it just another facet of cargo cult? -- Brian.
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:39:56PM +0300, Reco wrote: No, I got you first time. Rather it's my response deviated elsewhere. I see nothing in those three packages that would qualify as "xyzzy". Alternatives? No. Mime types registration? No. About the only common thing about all three packages is that they are GUI archivers. I do not question a choice of these three archivers as "lxqt" dependency. What I do question is the kind of dependency itself. I don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a beneficial outcome. In this case, unless you're specifically trying to remove all of these specific dependencies (for no apparent reason) *it simply doesn't matter*. Saying, "there was a troll post which shows that this is an issue" just isn't compelling. Are there any real users with valid use cases for which this as an issue? If not, why encourage another dozen messages about it?
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
Patrick Bartek writes: > They are each their own Hell. Package management software solved, > more or less, one type, but created another beast as the OP has > discovered and that we each deal with in our own ways. Such is life > . . . and software The OP is in a hell of his own making (which is fine with me). If he wasn't such a dork he'd let Lxqt pull in Xarchiver, ignore it, and install his choice of archiver. I really don't see anything I'd call "dependency hell" any more. Perhaps it's because I experienced the real thing, or perhaps because I don't use a DE. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
Re: et.al., (was: Dependencies et al, was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 15:09:09 +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote: [...] > But how do Debian list servers know ? A good question. How are my mails matched with my subscribed address so that I am awarded the accolade of LDOSUBSCRIBER? On the basis that my past statements about the SMTP protocol (whatever they were) have not been well received, I decline to offer any suggestion. > Is it because Exim 4.89 said "MAIL FROM:<...subscribed.address...>" to > lists.debian.org ? "subscribed.address" is the HELO and can be what I want it to be. See the headers of my previous mail. > Or is it because the first mail hop added "envelope-from" to its Received: > header ? > > Received: from ... by ... with local (Exim 4.89) > (envelope-from <...>) > id 1iHRiB-0006S7-Ks > for debian-user@lists.debian.org; Mon, 07 Oct 2019 13:01:59 +0100 I can alter that too, and still be designated LDOSUBSCRIBER. -- Brian.
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 10:56:30AM -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 16:03:21 (+0300), Reco wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:32:59PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:59:31 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PS Just a friendly reminder. Please check for the existence of > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before* > > > > > > > > replying to > > > > > > > > e-mail. Unless, of course, you intention is *not* to reply to > > > > > > > > OP but > > > > > > > > have your reply visible to the list. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The non-existence of LDOSUBSCRIBER in a mails's headers says > > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > > definite about whether the poster is subscribed to the list or > > > > > > > reads > > > > > > > list mails. > > > > > > > > > > > > You'll excuse me if I take your suggestion with a grain of salt. > > > > > > Just on a basis of your past statements about SMTP protocol. > > > > > > > > > > What does the lack of LDOSUBSCRIBER tell us? > > > > > > > > Clearly there are several people that are using a...@cityscape.co.uk > > > > e-mail. > > > > Please share the answer to this question once all of you reach some > > > > conclusion. > > > > > > Your theorising is interesting and doesn't really answer the question. > > > > Because if you make a certain statement, the burden of proof lies on you. > > Now that you have answered own question, > > > > > > > That address is not subscribed to the list and plays no part in routeing > > > mails to or from the list. > > > > Yet e-mails with that address at From: do have X-Spam-Status: > > LDOSUBSCRIBER. > > Whenever list e-mail is delivered at another e-mail is hardly relevant. > > > > Please show a e-mail from the list subscriber that does not have > > aforementioned attribute, then we'll have something to talk about. > > Dead easy. Just configure your email system so that the envelope-from > does not match your subscribed address. All my list postings lacked > LDOSUBSCRIBER until April last year for that reason. Judging by one > of the threads I contributed to at that time, I expect that this is > when I changed my domain's name from nothing to "corp", and stopped > exim from nagging me about my FQDN. Ok, that can work, I appreciate the explanation. Now, the hard part. Show me a way *not* to have LDOSUBSCRIBER, and have both Return-Path and From to be the same *and* to be subscribed to the list. Bonus point is awarded for From to be from @gmail.com, another one if e-mail is sent by Google MTA, with the valid DKIM. Previous sentences refer to OP's e-mail, just in case. Reco
Re: et.al., (was: Dependencies et al, was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 15:09:09 +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > i wrote: > > > To my best knowledge, "X-Spam-Status: ... tests=...,LDOSUBSCRIBER,..." > > > says that the "From:" address of the mail is subscribed. > > Brian wrote: > > Are you sure it is the From: and not the envelope From? My From: is > > not subscribed. > > Interesting observation. > So the address by which you submit your mail to the remote server is > subscribed No. My subscribed address does not appear in the mail headers and is not used in the transaction between my mail server and bendel.debian.org. > and it is not the "From:" address which your mail client > writes into the header part of the mail ? Correct. > I wonder whether my mail provider would allow me to send via SMTP > MAIL FROM: > RCPT TO:debian-user@lists.debian.org > and then by DATA > From: "Somebody Else" I do not see why not; it is part of DATA. [...] > > > Nevertheless, if i have no other indication then i normally add a "Cc:" > > > to the thread starter if i do not see LDOSUBSCRIBER among the spam tests. > > > On the basis, one supposes, that the situation is unclear and you wish > > the poster to know there is a reply to her post. > > It is futile to send Cc: to people who are known to reply to list messages. > But thread starters where i am in doubt get a Cc: from me if i have > something to tell them. You are kinder than I am! I assume no LDOSUBSCRIBER means the user is reading replies. Unfortunarely, there are some users who never see any replies because they don't quite appreciate how mailing lists work and anticipate receiving personal mails. -- Brian.
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 4:41 PM Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:46:53AM +0300, goleo . wrote: > >Liar, you are the one being abusive. I am being rude for a right reason. > > Presumably you posted to debian-user@ in the hope of getting help. > With this attitude I can assure you help will be in short supply. > I posted to publicly state that Debian developers are assholes, but now I see that Debian users are assholes too (just like religious cult of Theo de Raadt which we know as OpenBSD). The problem I describe is not a concrete package issue, it is the concrete package manager issue, only frauds would make it work like this. I helped myself by installing Manjaro Linux, it offers: - full control out of the box; - unlike Arch Linux it has cgo, I can reuse C in Go; - user-friendly packages names; - no division of "free" and "non-free" (open source is crap anyway); - drivers are preconfigured perfectly; - unlike Debian and Ubuntu it doesn't lag; - doesn't force me to be system administrator, I concentrate on real problems, not the ones made up by retards developing distro. The only reason I prefer Linux over Windows is because I have less painful development environment, it doesn't discriminate C programmers, but after 4 years of tinkering Arch Linux, Void Linux, Parabola Linux, OpenBSD, DragonFly BSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD I can say this: open source sucks, but Debian fucks!!! > -- > Jonathan Dowland > ✎ j...@dow.land > https://jmtd.net
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 10:01:31 -0500 John Hasler wrote: > Patrick Bartek writes: > > Welcome to the Wonderful Hell of Dependencies. > > That's not dependency hell. Dependency hell is what we had before > package management systems. I assure you that occasionally permitting > the installation of a program you don't need is preferable by far. They are each their own Hell. Package management software solved, more or less, one type, but created another beast as the OP has discovered and that we each deal with in our own ways. Such is life . . . and software. ;-) B
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 16:03:21 (+0300), Reco wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:32:59PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:59:31 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > PS Just a friendly reminder. Please check for the existence of > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before* > > > > > > > replying to > > > > > > > e-mail. Unless, of course, you intention is *not* to reply to OP > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > have your reply visible to the list. > > > > > > > > > > > > The non-existence of LDOSUBSCRIBER in a mails's headers says nothing > > > > > > definite about whether the poster is subscribed to the list or reads > > > > > > list mails. > > > > > > > > > > You'll excuse me if I take your suggestion with a grain of salt. > > > > > Just on a basis of your past statements about SMTP protocol. > > > > > > > > What does the lack of LDOSUBSCRIBER tell us? > > > > > > Clearly there are several people that are using a...@cityscape.co.uk > > > e-mail. > > > Please share the answer to this question once all of you reach some > > > conclusion. > > > > Your theorising is interesting and doesn't really answer the question. > > Because if you make a certain statement, the burden of proof lies on you. > Now that you have answered own question, > > > > That address is not subscribed to the list and plays no part in routeing > > mails to or from the list. > > Yet e-mails with that address at From: do have X-Spam-Status: LDOSUBSCRIBER. > Whenever list e-mail is delivered at another e-mail is hardly relevant. > > Please show a e-mail from the list subscriber that does not have > aforementioned attribute, then we'll have something to talk about. Dead easy. Just configure your email system so that the envelope-from does not match your subscribed address. All my list postings lacked LDOSUBSCRIBER until April last year for that reason. Judging by one of the threads I contributed to at that time, I expect that this is when I changed my domain's name from nothing to "corp", and stopped exim from nagging me about my FQDN. AIUI .corp became a TLD pariah earlier that year, having been suggested for use, for example, in RFC 6762. I use it merely because you seem to get fewest "false hits" when you # grep -r corp /etc as compared with the alternatives, home and mail. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/12/icann_corp_home_mail_gtlds/ Cheers, David.
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 John Hasler wrote: > Patrick Bartek writes: >> Welcome to the Wonderful Hell of Dependencies. > > That's not dependency hell. Dependency hell is what we had before > package management systems. I assure you that occasionally permitting > the installation of a program you don't need is preferable by far. If you add the right (wrong?) repos, you can put yourself back into dependency hell. It's getting more difficult to do so, but people still manage :) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl2bW+QACgkQjhHd8xJ5 ooE1TQgApFO3HlmxbxYQVEvikEhwKzftmMgC4hsj6cv2Zgar8lkA03tbX3ppzxNe EGTrKgbl7hKxX0XH9lsgvdVmJ2S1A4HxUbVTZqH0/LpcPQJCVjTfQ2xdpArPOCL6 bZ9NeoDXW5bwG8L5g2MsRBSykLHYqgi0uTzX9VM6IahaytZdnUarS6Ea58G9B57p 80YPnUrFWxeqqf3JdkrmrMMEliLqBpzkE+R1buPWnScAGtyK8es/N54ahuBhKm0l aHN0+LA5gCkUHIU7LbtrR5em/FTl12sOc2cEX3p9++5fSkA2/mAkVti05mT6u/CC P8z4pb02I/hHhNiHlFbI4Qs+GgEldQ== =xDXc -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- |_|O|_| |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Reco wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:08:04PM -, Dan Purgert wrote: >> Reco wrote: I don't think anything needs to be done here -- the whole idea of (meta)packages is that you give up some choice for the benefits of not having to deal with dependency hell. >>> >>> I disagree. The parent thread shows that at least some of the users are >>> confused by metapackages. >> >> So then the education needs to be fixed, not the material. I mean, at >> one point in our lives, we were all confused by what we'd consider >> "simple mathematics" nowadays. > > And we both know it does not work this way, although it should. > One could write thousand words in the documentation, explaining > everything in the finest detail possible. But if no one is reading the > documentation - is there a meaning in all this work? > > Hence my suggestion. Users are confused already, and it won't get > better. I have no problem filling a wishlist bugreport, but I like to > estimate the possible users' reaction. The ultimate underlying problem is that in this case, the user didn't like that the package wanted to force a specific set of programs on the system. Now, yes, there are what sound like technical inconsistencies in the packages (i.e. they're not actually "required" by anything other than this metapackage itself); although it seems to be that the general user expectation would be that a DE supplies some form of archive handling capabilities. Whether or not that's extraneous to the user's preferred software is another question entirely -- I mean, I have cthulhu-knows how many different programs installed simply from core-utils. I probably touch but a fraction of them, and yet they're still here. Not to mention all the "extras" that come along with say groff, or LaTeX. >> [...] >> I think I worded the response here poorly. >> ... >> engrampa. Of those, I assume that all three provide the necessary >> "provides xyzzy" information (e.g. how installing postfix or exim >> "provides" /usr/sbin/sendmail) to allow generic graphical tools to hook >> ... > > No, I got you first time. Rather it's my response deviated elsewhere. > > I see nothing in those three packages that would qualify as "xyzzy". > Alternatives? No. Mime types registration? No. Certainly shows my limited understanding of how it all fits together, that's for sure :). > About the only common thing about all three packages is that they are > GUI archivers. > I do not question a choice of these three archivers as "lxqt" > dependency. What I do question is the kind of dependency itself. I might've deleted it in editing somewhere, I was operating under the assumption that "a gui archiver" is a required component of a "complete DE" (for some value of "complete", anyway). > > >> In either event, I think one of the mails mentioned wanting to use >> peaZip, which isn't even available in the repos, so it doesn't matter >> anyway; as APT would never be able to do dependency resolution. > > Why, apt certainly can do it. It's just requires the user to package > PeaZip first ☺ He's having a hard enough time with packages, that're already available in the repos. This is just mean :D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl2bW1kACgkQjhHd8xJ5 ooHVbQf+NYtIWL4LMpk3GPENOaNmajaI6sVZwZ9x7llydHfxh+cDdPL5myLwBojd mAAbEBRvvafTE8WxEG7cBeqzQ/mNvW7LSa586kJfChJx32mnnAqU1Dkigal5n/69 JV6yRlV0BR6TrgiEQXsGRIbCkadOnA6GQBa0xSTzCL2DWGgK2Odk7ab4ESWUHZKc 4IqvRChJr9hBhl9R+li+R2PcJI91jgqXXzqMuEeAAE1h0Y+73phHxMqkF4otmfru kPBTNWYieOEfybuMigXkfIj9j0vb4bJffL6LHrDmi2+14YpmzImTIre3g9C7fjEh jfKyiOaSh4cVQb27OYd6iorieHZbFQ== =wH7V -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- |_|O|_| |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
Patrick Bartek writes: > Welcome to the Wonderful Hell of Dependencies. That's not dependency hell. Dependency hell is what we had before package management systems. I assure you that occasionally permitting the installation of a program you don't need is preferable by far. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 16:03:21 +0300, Reco wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:32:59PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:59:31 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > PS Just a friendly reminder. Please check for the existence of > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before* > > > > > > > replying to > > > > > > > e-mail. Unless, of course, you intention is *not* to reply to OP > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > have your reply visible to the list. > > > > > > > > > > > > The non-existence of LDOSUBSCRIBER in a mails's headers says nothing > > > > > > definite about whether the poster is subscribed to the list or reads > > > > > > list mails. > > > > > > > > > > You'll excuse me if I take your suggestion with a grain of salt. > > > > > Just on a basis of your past statements about SMTP protocol. > > > > > > > > What does the lack of LDOSUBSCRIBER tell us? > > > > > > Clearly there are several people that are using a...@cityscape.co.uk > > > e-mail. > > > Please share the answer to this question once all of you reach some > > > conclusion. > > > > Your theorising is interesting and doesn't really answer the question. > > Because if you make a certain statement, the burden of proof lies on you. > Now that you have answered own question, The statement was about the lack of LDOSUBSCRIBER, not its presence. As Thomas says - a user could be subscribed with another address. -- Brian.
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:46:53AM +0300, goleo . wrote: Liar, you are the one being abusive. I am being rude for a right reason. Presumably you posted to debian-user@ in the hope of getting help. With this attitude I can assure you help will be in short supply. -- Jonathan Dowland ✎ j...@dow.land https://jmtd.net
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:08:04PM -, Dan Purgert wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > Reco wrote: > > Hi. > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:56:33AM -, Dan Purgert wrote: > >> > 3) Synaptic did not provide a user a meaningful choice. > >> > [...] > >> > I'm not saying that Synaptic should be transformed to aptitude (which is > >> > famous for its multi-choice resolver), we have one aptitude already, > >> > please leave it this way. But showing the *reason* of such replacement, > >> > i.e. "lxqt package demands that you will have some archiver installed" > >> > would be a definite step in right direction. > >> > >> I don't think anything needs to be done here -- the whole idea of > >> (meta)packages is that you give up some choice for the benefits of not > >> having to deal with dependency hell. > > > > I disagree. The parent thread shows that at least some of the users are > > confused by metapackages. > > So then the education needs to be fixed, not the material. I mean, at > one point in our lives, we were all confused by what we'd consider > "simple mathematics" nowadays. And we both know it does not work this way, although it should. One could write thousand words in the documentation, explaining everything in the finest detail possible. But if no one is reading the documentation - is there a meaning in all this work? Hence my suggestion. Users are confused already, and it won't get better. I have no problem filling a wishlist bugreport, but I like to estimate the possible users' reaction. > >> > 4) Metapackages tend to have restrictive dependencies. > >> > > > [...] > >> According to the "similar packages" lists of the three options in the > >> Bullseye package listings, it looks like there are a handful of other > >> alternatives that the package maintainer "might" have chosen as > >> alternates / in addition to the three that he did. But, then I don't > >> know enough about those packages (e.g. file-roller, or p7zip) to say > >> whether they'd actually work -- that is, whether they provide the > >> ability for the other "default" applications to hook into / be compiled > >> against. > > > > That's somewhat different problem. Certain applications (terminal > > emulators, browsers to name a few) provide a virtual packages such as > > x-terminal-emulator or x-www-browser to save the trouble of listing all > > the possible alternatives in a package dependencies. Reduces the amount > > of bugs if some package leaves the archive too. > > But I see no virtual package that means "I'm an archive utility with > > GUI". > > I think I worded the response here poorly. > ... > engrampa. Of those, I assume that all three provide the necessary > "provides xyzzy" information (e.g. how installing postfix or exim > "provides" /usr/sbin/sendmail) to allow generic graphical tools to hook > ... No, I got you first time. Rather it's my response deviated elsewhere. I see nothing in those three packages that would qualify as "xyzzy". Alternatives? No. Mime types registration? No. About the only common thing about all three packages is that they are GUI archivers. I do not question a choice of these three archivers as "lxqt" dependency. What I do question is the kind of dependency itself. > In either event, I think one of the mails mentioned wanting to use > peaZip, which isn't even available in the repos, so it doesn't matter > anyway; as APT would never be able to do dependency resolution. Why, apt certainly can do it. It's just requires the user to package PeaZip first ☺ Reco
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Reco wrote: > Hi. > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:56:33AM -, Dan Purgert wrote: >> > 3) Synaptic did not provide a user a meaningful choice. >> > [...] >> > I'm not saying that Synaptic should be transformed to aptitude (which is >> > famous for its multi-choice resolver), we have one aptitude already, >> > please leave it this way. But showing the *reason* of such replacement, >> > i.e. "lxqt package demands that you will have some archiver installed" >> > would be a definite step in right direction. >> >> I don't think anything needs to be done here -- the whole idea of >> (meta)packages is that you give up some choice for the benefits of not >> having to deal with dependency hell. > > I disagree. The parent thread shows that at least some of the users are > confused by metapackages. So then the education needs to be fixed, not the material. I mean, at one point in our lives, we were all confused by what we'd consider "simple mathematics" nowadays. > > >> I'm not sure what "lxqt" needs across the board, but I imagine that >> since it wants one or the other archive program, there are one or more >> other packages built against them. > > Does not seem to be the case. One of "lxqt"'s dependencies, "ark" is a > KDE archive utility. Or so is says in the description. > Another one, "enrgampa", comes from MATE. > "lxqt" is a typical metapackage, listing some totally unrelated programs > with dependencies that could fit a certain role, and said programs do > not come with LXQT. Fair enough. > > >> > 4) Metapackages tend to have restrictive dependencies. >> > > [...] >> According to the "similar packages" lists of the three options in the >> Bullseye package listings, it looks like there are a handful of other >> alternatives that the package maintainer "might" have chosen as >> alternates / in addition to the three that he did. But, then I don't >> know enough about those packages (e.g. file-roller, or p7zip) to say >> whether they'd actually work -- that is, whether they provide the >> ability for the other "default" applications to hook into / be compiled >> against. > > That's somewhat different problem. Certain applications (terminal > emulators, browsers to name a few) provide a virtual packages such as > x-terminal-emulator or x-www-browser to save the trouble of listing all > the possible alternatives in a package dependencies. Reduces the amount > of bugs if some package leaves the archive too. > But I see no virtual package that means "I'm an archive utility with > GUI". I think I worded the response here poorly. As I understand things - "lxqt" requires one of three options for an "X based compression tool" (presumably as a requirement of a "complete(tm) DE" or similar line of thought). The package maintainer has determined that there are three that fit the bill -> xarchiver(default), ark, or engrampa. Of those, I assume that all three provide the necessary "provides xyzzy" information (e.g. how installing postfix or exim "provides" /usr/sbin/sendmail) to allow generic graphical tools to hook against them without needing to have compile-time options set. Therefore, we end up with a few things we can take away: 1. Three options is all the package maintainer can keep track of (in addition to everything else). 2. Three options was deemed "enough" by the package maintainer. 3. The other options (e.g. pz7ip) do not provide the aforementioned "hooks" required by something else. 4. The other options (e.g. p7zip) are actually part of non-free and I missed that somewhere :) In either event, I think one of the mails mentioned wanting to use peaZip, which isn't even available in the repos, so it doesn't matter anyway; as APT would never be able to do dependency resolution. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl2bOLIACgkQjhHd8xJ5 ooHZpQf/TfzcasWcOtdYzOI4j+UQOF9qx5OhHXAu3aGVqq0ToczURaEx0p3XxgIv OjNGRLj3Sy6Fe/uJGzGcubCuHLAlezT0CpSFUM5HNhHxboiZo+CQfbwF0sBrcgxo I5CLOg60T9etOg/QstqpwFM3IXEJpQfjlFpT+h/2mF0oS+0cywo4Dj7VlMDNF4VD nV6WRiIaNFGezMtwQLuGkeERWsZt7AjLrZuK4UFwBe8JQw1aviuD7e20fr6zWND6 ePeN1ea1DEIa1l2ZoWXqJetMkHOtGpjG1bNMgn91BUIfrw3sxZCFe0MoxyKA6V/S 7ZjR/SYTURDHQ4xbb3Y/K+GYWnFRiQ== =EpKU -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- |_|O|_| |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
Re: et.al., (was: Dependencies et al, was: Default Debian install harassed me)
Hi, i wrote: > > To my best knowledge, "X-Spam-Status: ... tests=...,LDOSUBSCRIBER,..." > > says that the "From:" address of the mail is subscribed. Brian wrote: > Are you sure it is the From: and not the envelope From? My From: is > not subscribed. Interesting observation. So the address by which you submit your mail to the remote server is subscribed and it is not the "From:" address which your mail client writes into the header part of the mail ? I wonder whether my mail provider would allow me to send via SMTP MAIL FROM: RCPT TO:debian-user@lists.debian.org and then by DATA From: "Somebody Else" But how do Debian list servers know ? Is it because Exim 4.89 said "MAIL FROM:<...subscribed.address...>" to lists.debian.org ? Or is it because the first mail hop added "envelope-from" to its Received: header ? Received: from ... by ... with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <...>) id 1iHRiB-0006S7-Ks for debian-user@lists.debian.org; Mon, 07 Oct 2019 13:01:59 +0100 (I wonder where "envelope-from" in "Received:" is specified. The word does neither appear in RFC5322 nor in RFC5321.) --- > > Nevertheless, if i have no other indication then i normally add a "Cc:" > > to the thread starter if i do not see LDOSUBSCRIBER among the spam tests. > On the basis, one supposes, that the situation is unclear and you wish > the poster to know there is a reply to her post. It is futile to send Cc: to people who are known to reply to list messages. But thread starters where i am in doubt get a Cc: from me if i have something to tell them. Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:32:59PM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:59:31 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > PS Just a friendly reminder. Please check for the existence of that > > > > > > LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before* > > > > > > replying to > > > > > > e-mail. Unless, of course, you intention is *not* to reply to OP > > > > > > but > > > > > > have your reply visible to the list. > > > > > > > > > > The non-existence of LDOSUBSCRIBER in a mails's headers says nothing > > > > > definite about whether the poster is subscribed to the list or reads > > > > > list mails. > > > > > > > > You'll excuse me if I take your suggestion with a grain of salt. > > > > Just on a basis of your past statements about SMTP protocol. > > > > > > What does the lack of LDOSUBSCRIBER tell us? > > > > Clearly there are several people that are using a...@cityscape.co.uk e-mail. > > Please share the answer to this question once all of you reach some > > conclusion. > > Your theorising is interesting and doesn't really answer the question. Because if you make a certain statement, the burden of proof lies on you. Now that you have answered own question, > That address is not subscribed to the list and plays no part in routeing > mails to or from the list. Yet e-mails with that address at From: do have X-Spam-Status: LDOSUBSCRIBER. Whenever list e-mail is delivered at another e-mail is hardly relevant. Please show a e-mail from the list subscriber that does not have aforementioned attribute, then we'll have something to talk about. Reco
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On 2019-10-07, Reco wrote: > > 1) Call me old-fashioned, but posters' personalities should not matter > here, at this list. I don't see what is old-fashioned about your opinion here. I would think it were the gentilities of polite discourse that have become outmoded (as demonstrated finely by the OP), and your view that good breeding is somehow immaterial the new-fangled thing. > Whenever a OP is a teen, old person, dog or AI (there are unconfirmed > sightings of last two posting here ;) is hardly relevant to the problem. > The language OP is using could definitely use some improvement indeed, > but discussing OP's personality just because of that is as low as it > gets. A person's nature when confronting a problem is entirely relevant to its solution. A puerile nature blames the stone, and eventually the landscape architects, when stubbing his toe in the rock garden. If your objective wisdom is to assert that this specific stone has no legitimate place in this particular garden and should be removed, well, that may be true. File the appropriate wish-list bug report with the architects, who have strived to create an ensemble effect and might not wish to go without certain elements. But as the stone in question figures on the map handed out to everyone before entry, it seems to me it could've been avoided one way or another by any astute visitor. -- "There are no foreign lands. It is the traveler only who is foreign." -- Robert Louis Stevenson
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:59:31 +0300, Reco wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > PS Just a friendly reminder. Please check for the existence of that > > > > > LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before* replying > > > > > to > > > > > e-mail. Unless, of course, you intention is *not* to reply to OP but > > > > > have your reply visible to the list. > > > > > > > > The non-existence of LDOSUBSCRIBER in a mails's headers says nothing > > > > definite about whether the poster is subscribed to the list or reads > > > > list mails. > > > > > > You'll excuse me if I take your suggestion with a grain of salt. > > > Just on a basis of your past statements about SMTP protocol. > > > > What does the lack of LDOSUBSCRIBER tell us? > > Clearly there are several people that are using a...@cityscape.co.uk e-mail. > Please share the answer to this question once all of you reach some > conclusion. Your theorising is interesting and doesn't really answer the question. That address is not subscribed to the list and plays no part in routeing mails to or from the list. -- Brian.
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
Hi. On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:56:33AM -, Dan Purgert wrote: > > 3) Synaptic did not provide a user a meaningful choice. > > [...] > > I'm not saying that Synaptic should be transformed to aptitude (which is > > famous for its multi-choice resolver), we have one aptitude already, > > please leave it this way. But showing the *reason* of such replacement, > > i.e. "lxqt package demands that you will have some archiver installed" > > would be a definite step in right direction. > > I don't think anything needs to be done here -- the whole idea of > (meta)packages is that you give up some choice for the benefits of not > having to deal with dependency hell. I disagree. The parent thread shows that at least some of the users are confused by metapackages. > I'm not sure what "lxqt" needs across the board, but I imagine that > since it wants one or the other archive program, there are one or more > other packages built against them. Does not seem to be the case. One of "lxqt"'s dependencies, "ark" is a KDE archive utility. Or so is says in the description. Another one, "enrgampa", comes from MATE. "lxqt" is a typical metapackage, listing some totally unrelated programs with dependencies that could fit a certain role, and said programs do not come with LXQT. > > 4) Metapackages tend to have restrictive dependencies. > > > > The whole fuss is about the contents of the Depends field of "lxqt". > > Last, but not least - is there a meaningful reason to use Depends > > instead of Recommends in metapackages such as "lxqt"? Barring the > > "gnome" package, I know the answer for it. > > Does it really matter though? > I mean, there's a basic set of "X-core-utils" that I think can be > agreed on as required for a full-featured DE. One of those being > something that can handle archives. In the case of the original "problem" - yes it does. Installing a metapackage with Recommends only would still pull the same dependencies (by default, that is), but removing one of said dependencies would not force another one on a user. Of course it leaves the user without a program to handle archives (from user's POV), but it may be the desired outcome. This way flexibility is gained, nothing is lost, user is saved from the confusion. Am I missing something? > According to the "similar packages" lists of the three options in the > Bullseye package listings, it looks like there are a handful of other > alternatives that the package maintainer "might" have chosen as > alternates / in addition to the three that he did. But, then I don't > know enough about those packages (e.g. file-roller, or p7zip) to say > whether they'd actually work -- that is, whether they provide the > ability for the other "default" applications to hook into / be compiled > against. That's somewhat different problem. Certain applications (terminal emulators, browsers to name a few) provide a virtual packages such as x-terminal-emulator or x-www-browser to save the trouble of listing all the possible alternatives in a package dependencies. Reduces the amount of bugs if some package leaves the archive too. But I see no virtual package that means "I'm an archive utility with GUI". Reco
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 13:53:43 +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > Reco wrote: [...] > Brian wrote: > > The non-existence of LDOSUBSCRIBER in a mails's headers says nothing > > definite about whether the poster is subscribed to the list or reads > > list mails. > > To my best knowledge, "X-Spam-Status: ... tests=...,LDOSUBSCRIBER,..." > says that the "From:" address of the mail is subscribed. > If this sign is missing, the person-like entity which wrote the mail > could still be subscribed by another address or other means. Are you sure it is the From: and not the envelope From? My From: is not subscribed. > Nevertheless, if i have no other indication then i normally add a "Cc:" > to the thread starter if i do not see LDOSUBSCRIBER among the spam tests. On the basis, one supposes, that the situation is unclear and you wish the poster to know there is a reply to her post. -- Brian.
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Reco wrote: > Hello, list. > > It may seem a thread hijacking (and may be it is), but I feel that the > discussion of OP's problem has taken a wrong turn. Consider this a my > attempt to put in on a right track ☺. > > So I've been reading this thread, and it got me thinking. I know, it's a > somewhat strange confession to make (☺), but anyway: > [...] > 3) Synaptic did not provide a user a meaningful choice. > [...] > I'm not saying that Synaptic should be transformed to aptitude (which is > famous for its multi-choice resolver), we have one aptitude already, > please leave it this way. But showing the *reason* of such replacement, > i.e. "lxqt package demands that you will have some archiver installed" > would be a definite step in right direction. I don't think anything needs to be done here -- the whole idea of (meta)packages is that you give up some choice for the benefits of not having to deal with dependency hell. I'm not sure what "lxqt" needs across the board, but I imagine that since it wants one or the other archive program, there are one or more other packages built against them. The only way out of that then would be to compile the affected programs from source, so that they can call his preferred archive solution (assuming said solution can be hooked into by the affected programs). > > > 4) Metapackages tend to have restrictive dependencies. > > The whole fuss is about the contents of the Depends field of "lxqt". > Last, but not least - is there a meaningful reason to use Depends > instead of Recommends in metapackages such as "lxqt"? Barring the > "gnome" package, I know the answer for it. Does it really matter though? I mean, there's a basic set of "X-core-utils" that I think can be agreed on as required for a full-featured DE. One of those being something that can handle archives. According to the "similar packages" lists of the three options in the Bullseye package listings, it looks like there are a handful of other alternatives that the package maintainer "might" have chosen as alternates / in addition to the three that he did. But, then I don't know enough about those packages (e.g. file-roller, or p7zip) to say whether they'd actually work -- that is, whether they provide the ability for the other "default" applications to hook into / be compiled against. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAl2bJ+8ACgkQjhHd8xJ5 ooEMWAf/foOa4n+9swQggiZCePT8g5htTVxiXeX1wqVoBGEvU19K3py6ZzOB6zvI bbol5/AHj+Oi3ShALGtDUegY8FvNgOgjR1jnBD7ONHxu19lrjCC2cDIWdAyUltkp bCQGE4DnXwgu3Mk+SpeM522GtWD/NeX5cJCSTKpdNp4SjuuoJbkA36ntziI/LbSo Dc3SxgwkuySYTSxNSbW/g4Kx3dcgKfPVZ5Q1oA7weRLzg+s/F75ZoIfXMX7BWAUh nnQ48yJIi7MnuxUWwaUehiruDgG4kSgk4S7brmPkvqYDq03pmNM0XsuzN+kq4AYg UM/s8vn2pQA/Jjkf8pLMrtBLgmnuuQ== =Kw3I -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- |_|O|_| |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > PS Just a friendly reminder. Please check for the existence of that > > > > LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before* replying to > > > > e-mail. Unless, of course, you intention is *not* to reply to OP but > > > > have your reply visible to the list. > > > > > > The non-existence of LDOSUBSCRIBER in a mails's headers says nothing > > > definite about whether the poster is subscribed to the list or reads > > > list mails. > > > > You'll excuse me if I take your suggestion with a grain of salt. > > Just on a basis of your past statements about SMTP protocol. > > What does the lack of LDOSUBSCRIBER tell us? Clearly there are several people that are using a...@cityscape.co.uk e-mail. Please share the answer to this question once all of you reach some conclusion. Reco
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
Hi, Reco wrote: > > 1) Call me old-fashioned, but posters' personalities should not matter > > here, at this list. [...] > > The language OP is using could definitely use some improvement indeed, It would serve the general issue of constructive discussion. > > discussing OP's personality just because of that is as low as it gets. I made up my own theories but refrained from posting them, although i am now sad about the consequential waste of bad pun and fake commiseration. > > PS Just a friendly reminder. Please check for the existence of that > > LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before* replying to > > e-mail. Brian wrote: > The non-existence of LDOSUBSCRIBER in a mails's headers says nothing > definite about whether the poster is subscribed to the list or reads > list mails. To my best knowledge, "X-Spam-Status: ... tests=...,LDOSUBSCRIBER,..." says that the "From:" address of the mail is subscribed. If this sign is missing, the person-like entity which wrote the mail could still be subscribed by another address or other means. Nevertheless, if i have no other indication then i normally add a "Cc:" to the thread starter if i do not see LDOSUBSCRIBER among the spam tests. > > Unless, of course, you intention is *not* to reply to OP but > > have your reply visible to the list. ... which in this case is indeed my intention because i have nothing useful to say about the OP's original problem. Have a nice day :) Thomas
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote: > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > PS Just a friendly reminder. Please check for the existence of that > > > LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before* replying to > > > e-mail. Unless, of course, you intention is *not* to reply to OP but > > > have your reply visible to the list. > > > > The non-existence of LDOSUBSCRIBER in a mails's headers says nothing > > definite about whether the poster is subscribed to the list or reads > > list mails. > > You'll excuse me if I take your suggestion with a grain of salt. > Just on a basis of your past statements about SMTP protocol. What does the lack of LDOSUBSCRIBER tell us? -- Brian.
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote: > > [...] > > > PS Just a friendly reminder. Please check for the existence of that > > LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before* replying to > > e-mail. Unless, of course, you intention is *not* to reply to OP but > > have your reply visible to the list. > > The non-existence of LDOSUBSCRIBER in a mails's headers says nothing > definite about whether the poster is subscribed to the list or reads > list mails. You'll excuse me if I take your suggestion with a grain of salt. Just on a basis of your past statements about SMTP protocol. Reco
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote: [...] > PS Just a friendly reminder. Please check for the existence of that > LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before* replying to > e-mail. Unless, of course, you intention is *not* to reply to OP but > have your reply visible to the list. The non-existence of LDOSUBSCRIBER in a mails's headers says nothing definite about whether the poster is subscribed to the list or reads list mails. -- Brian.
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:28:03AM +0300, Reco wrote: > Hello, list. > > It may seem a thread hijacking (and may be it is) [...] I don't feel so. Thanks for this post. Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)
Hello, list. It may seem a thread hijacking (and may be it is), but I feel that the discussion of OP's problem has taken a wrong turn. Consider this a my attempt to put in on a right track ☺. So I've been reading this thread, and it got me thinking. I know, it's a somewhat strange confession to make (☺), but anyway: 1) Call me old-fashioned, but posters' personalities should not matter here, at this list. Whenever a OP is a teen, old person, dog or AI (there are unconfirmed sightings of last two posting here ;) is hardly relevant to the problem. The language OP is using could definitely use some improvement indeed, but discussing OP's personality just because of that is as low as it gets. 2) OP claims to use a "Default Debian install", yet LXQT was installed. Terminology aside, last time I've checked, Debian offered GNOME as a default Desktop Environment. Regardless of my personal opinion of this Finely Designed DE™, maybe (just maybe) GNOME should be made more visible to the end user of Debian? 3) Synaptic did not provide a user a meaningful choice. I know how the dependencies work, so are most of the list participants (seems that way, at least). What's more important here, I tend to believe that I know why they were invented, and (contrary to some options expressed in this thread) - why they are still relevant in 21st century. But what we are seeing here? User wants to uninstall a package, but another package wants to be installed instead for no good reason (from user's POV). Moreover, in this case that is one of the two possible replacements (check "lxqt" dependencies), but the user is not informed of that. I'm not saying that Synaptic should be transformed to aptitude (which is famous for its multi-choice resolver), we have one aptitude already, please leave it this way. But showing the *reason* of such replacement, i.e. "lxqt package demands that you will have some archiver installed" would be a definite step in right direction. 4) Metapackages tend to have restrictive dependencies. The whole fuss is about the contents of the Depends field of "lxqt". Last, but not least - is there a meaningful reason to use Depends instead of Recommends in metapackages such as "lxqt"? Barring the "gnome" package, I know the answer for it. Options, comments, criticism and even the OP's option are welcome. Reco PS Just a friendly reminder. Please check for the existence of that LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before* replying to e-mail. Unless, of course, you intention is *not* to reply to OP but have your reply visible to the list.
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 03:46:53 +0300 "goleo ." wrote: > > Liar, you are the one being abusive. I am being rude for a right > reason. > You are being rude through (being charitable) ignorance. 1. Boot the appropriate Debian netinstall medium. 2. Deselect *all* tasks when offered the choice, since you don't understand them. 3. When the installation finishes, use apt-get to install exactly the software you want and nothing else. 4. If something you want isn't packaged for Debian, compile it from source. 5. If the source does not exist, write it. Now, does any other operating system but Linux give you that flexibility? And if it's flexibility you want, use an adult email system. Run your own mail server if you wish. -- Joe
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:00:11AM +0300, goleo . wrote: [...] > This is harassment because you force me to use either > Xarchiver or Ark, you don't give me the choice to use none. Who is that "you" you keep talking about? You are aware that you are addressing the "Debian Users" mailing list? People like you? Except that yes, some of the folks around here are writing and packaging software for you and me *for free* -- something for which I say *THANK YOU* (not you, goleo: you're just an immature kid with bad manners). > You are a bunch of hypocrites and assholes [...] And slinging shit at those who work for us is so uncool I can't find a name for it. Go buy yourself a Windows or a Mac-OS. You seem to deserve it. Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
Carl Fink writes: > From his writing style, I get the feeling goleo is a young teen, perhaps > someone who learned social skills in a multiplayer game online. Or a hateful older person who is afraid of this new "video game" stuff and made up his mind that playing video games makes people abusive, just as TV, movies and earlier books did as was so correctly predicted by the older people at the time ;-) Ansgar
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On 10/6/19 9:16 PM, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: Your self-description of being rude is absolutely correct. Apart from that, you are self-righteous; there is a vast difference between that and being right (which, incidentally, you are not). Mind you, all you've managed to accomplish is to incite some folks to suggest ways to work around the behavior you encountered, ways you can make improvements to Debian yourself, and ways to better approach volunteers to get your problem addressed. In return, all you've done is continue your abusive behavior. I am not a fortune teller, but it seems that unless you make a drastic change in your approach nothing will improve for you. From his writing style, I get the feeling goleo is a young teen, perhaps someone who learned social skills in a multiplayer game online. -- Carl Fink nitpick...@nitpicking.com Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:46:53AM +0300, goleo . wrote: > On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:08 AM Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > Two points: > > > > 1. If you don't like the dependencies in the packaging system, there > > are multiple better ways to deal with this. File bugs, or work > > around this with tools like equivs. Ranting about imagined > > "harassment" here is not gaining you anything. > > > > Wow, that's a really retarded response. That's not a bug because > you intentionally harass ^^ You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. > everyone by forcing to install X when > someone removes Y. Asshole. > Incidentally, your response here is an example of the abusive behavior Steve was advising you to avoid. > > 2. Being instantly abusive is a great way to lose any sympathy people > > might have for you. - you're asking people to write off any valid > > points you might have and ignore you in future. > > > > Liar, you are the one being abusive. This too. > I am being rude for a right reason. > Your self-description of being rude is absolutely correct. Apart from that, you are self-righteous; there is a vast difference between that and being right (which, incidentally, you are not). Mind you, all you've managed to accomplish is to incite some folks to suggest ways to work around the behavior you encountered, ways you can make improvements to Debian yourself, and ways to better approach volunteers to get your problem addressed. In return, all you've done is continue your abusive behavior. I am not a fortune teller, but it seems that unless you make a drastic change in your approach nothing will improve for you. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:08 AM Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:00:11AM +0300, goleo . wrote: > >On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:49 PM Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org> wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 09:50:54PM +0300, goleo . wrote: > >> >Hi. > >> > > >> >After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT) > >> >I noticed that Xarchiver is preinstalled and it was inconvenient > >> >to me in the past, so I opened Synaptic to remove it. But when > >> >I click on "xarchiver" and choose "Mark for Removal" or > >> >"Mark for Complete Removal" it says it'll install Ark, > >> >KDE 5 Frameworks and GNUSTEP. > >> > > >> >Here is the video proof: > >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1IoGQP1omE > >> > >> I don't see any harassment here. Can you explain what you think might > > > >This is harassment because you force me to use either > >Xarchiver or Ark, you don't give me the choice to use none. > >(Actually I wanted to install PeaZip which you don't provide > >as a package, so why would I want to keep Xarchiver?) > > > >All normal package managers would just remove everything > >that depends on Xarchiver, not force me to install alternative. > > > >You are a bunch of hypocrites and assholes, you are not > >fighting for freedom, you just provide separate contrib and > >non-free repositories just to make up illusion of fighting fighting > >for freedom. > > > >If you really fought for freedom, I would have a freedom to > >just remove what I don't like (Xarchiver) and everything that > >depends on it (as long as it's not an optional dependency). > > Two points: > > 1. If you don't like the dependencies in the packaging system, there > are multiple better ways to deal with this. File bugs, or work > around this with tools like equivs. Ranting about imagined > "harassment" here is not gaining you anything. > Wow, that's a really retarded response. That's not a bug because you intentionally harass everyone by forcing to install X when someone removes Y. Asshole. > 2. Being instantly abusive is a great way to lose any sympathy people > might have for you. - you're asking people to write off any valid > points you might have and ignore you in future. > Liar, you are the one being abusive. I am being rude for a right reason. > This is the end of the discussion here for me. > > -- > Steve McIntyre 93...@debian.org > Debian Community Team commun...@debian.org >
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:00:11AM +0300, goleo . wrote: >On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:49 PM Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org> wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 09:50:54PM +0300, goleo . wrote: >> >Hi. >> > >> >After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT) >> >I noticed that Xarchiver is preinstalled and it was inconvenient >> >to me in the past, so I opened Synaptic to remove it. But when >> >I click on "xarchiver" and choose "Mark for Removal" or >> >"Mark for Complete Removal" it says it'll install Ark, >> >KDE 5 Frameworks and GNUSTEP. >> > >> >Here is the video proof: >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1IoGQP1omE >> >> I don't see any harassment here. Can you explain what you think might > >This is harassment because you force me to use either >Xarchiver or Ark, you don't give me the choice to use none. >(Actually I wanted to install PeaZip which you don't provide >as a package, so why would I want to keep Xarchiver?) > >All normal package managers would just remove everything >that depends on Xarchiver, not force me to install alternative. > >You are a bunch of hypocrites and assholes, you are not >fighting for freedom, you just provide separate contrib and >non-free repositories just to make up illusion of fighting fighting >for freedom. > >If you really fought for freedom, I would have a freedom to >just remove what I don't like (Xarchiver) and everything that >depends on it (as long as it's not an optional dependency). Two points: 1. If you don't like the dependencies in the packaging system, there are multiple better ways to deal with this. File bugs, or work around this with tools like equivs. Ranting about imagined "harassment" here is not gaining you anything. 2. Being instantly abusive is a great way to lose any sympathy people might have for you. - you're asking people to write off any valid points you might have and ignore you in future. This is the end of the discussion here for me. -- Steve McIntyre 93...@debian.org Debian Community Team commun...@debian.org
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
goleo . wrote: > You are a bunch of hypocrites and assholes, you are not > fighting for freedom, you just provide separate contrib and > non-free repositories just to make up illusion of fighting fighting > for freedom. by saying this you are describing your self at the same moment. Feel free to start your own linux distribution and make things better, also feel free to choose another better one. No one is forcing you to use Debian and honestly I do not understand how you can use this language in public. My advise to you: go back to school and visit your doctor
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On 2019-10-06 at 17:00, goleo . wrote: > On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:49 PM Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org> > wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 09:50:54PM +0300, goleo . wrote: >>> Hi. >>> >>> After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT) I >>> noticed that Xarchiver is preinstalled and it was inconvenient to >>> me in the past, so I opened Synaptic to remove it. But when I >>> click on "xarchiver" and choose "Mark for Removal" or "Mark for >>> Complete Removal" it says it'll install Ark, KDE 5 Frameworks and >>> GNUSTEP. >>> >>> Here is the video proof: >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1IoGQP1omE >> >> I don't see any harassment here. Can you explain what you think >> might be, please? > > This is harassment because you force me to use either Xarchiver or > Ark, you don't give me the choice to use none. Of course you have that choice. You just have to remove the metapackage which automatically pulls in everything the LXQT packagers thought should be part of a standard LXQT install, and install whichever depended-on packages you want by hand. Did you even look at the lxqt package to see what it involves? > All normal package managers would just remove everything that depends > on Xarchiver, not force me to install alternative. The lxqt metapackage does depend on xarchiver. The lxqt-core, lxqt-admin, lxqt-about, lxqt-powermanagement, lxqt-sudo, et cetera, packages - which, unlike lxqt, actually contain files - don't. If you want the convenience of getting all of lxqt through a single package, then you have to accept getting everything the maintainers thought that should pull in. If you don't want all of that "everything", then you can still get just pieces of it; you just don't get to have that convenience. > You are a bunch of hypocrites and assholes, you are not fighting for > freedom, you just provide separate contrib and non-free repositories > just to make up illusion of fighting fighting for freedom. > > If you really fought for freedom, I would have a freedom to just > remove what I don't like (Xarchiver) and everything that depends on > it (as long as it's not an optional dependency). You're quick to jump to conclusions and fly into a rage, aren't you? (Not to mention: every form of harassment I've ever run across involves being repeatedly contacted by someone else against your wishes. Whatever negative term you may want to choose for the type of poor dependency selection you thought was present in this case, "harassment" certainly shouldn't be it.) -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 10:49 PM Steve McIntyre <93...@debian.org> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 09:50:54PM +0300, goleo . wrote: > >Hi. > > > >After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT) > >I noticed that Xarchiver is preinstalled and it was inconvenient > >to me in the past, so I opened Synaptic to remove it. But when > >I click on "xarchiver" and choose "Mark for Removal" or > >"Mark for Complete Removal" it says it'll install Ark, > >KDE 5 Frameworks and GNUSTEP. > > > >Here is the video proof: > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1IoGQP1omE > > I don't see any harassment here. Can you explain what you think might > be, please? > > -- > Steve McIntyre 93...@debian.org > Debian Community Team commun...@debian.org > This is harassment because you force me to use either Xarchiver or Ark, you don't give me the choice to use none. (Actually I wanted to install PeaZip which you don't provide as a package, so why would I want to keep Xarchiver?) All normal package managers would just remove everything that depends on Xarchiver, not force me to install alternative. You are a bunch of hypocrites and assholes, you are not fighting for freedom, you just provide separate contrib and non-free repositories just to make up illusion of fighting fighting for freedom. If you really fought for freedom, I would have a freedom to just remove what I don't like (Xarchiver) and everything that depends on it (as long as it's not an optional dependency).
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 21:50:54 +0300 "goleo ." wrote: > Hi. > > After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT) > I noticed that Xarchiver is preinstalled and it was inconvenient > to me in the past, so I opened Synaptic to remove it. But when > I click on "xarchiver" and choose "Mark for Removal" or > "Mark for Complete Removal" it says it'll install Ark, > KDE 5 Frameworks and GNUSTEP. Welcone to the Wonderful Hell of Dependencies. I don't have a desktop environment on my systems at all, just xorg, Openbox window manager and lxpanel. xarchiver got installed as a "Recommends" of the xfe file manager suite along with a lot of other stuff xfe uses. Trying to uninstall it once it's installed is an exercise of futility. Personally, I don't use it. It just sits on the system ignored. > Here is the video proof: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1IoGQP1omE > B
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 09:50:54PM +0300, goleo . wrote: >Hi. > >After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT) >I noticed that Xarchiver is preinstalled and it was inconvenient >to me in the past, so I opened Synaptic to remove it. But when >I click on "xarchiver" and choose "Mark for Removal" or >"Mark for Complete Removal" it says it'll install Ark, >KDE 5 Frameworks and GNUSTEP. > >Here is the video proof: >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1IoGQP1omE I don't see any harassment here. Can you explain what you think might be, please? -- Steve McIntyre 93...@debian.org Debian Community Team commun...@debian.org
Re: Default Debian install harassed me
On Sun 06 Oct 2019 at 21:50:54 (+0300), goleo . wrote: > Hi. > > After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT) > I noticed that Xarchiver is preinstalled and it was inconvenient > to me in the past, so I opened Synaptic to remove it. But when > I click on "xarchiver" and choose "Mark for Removal" or > "Mark for Complete Removal" it says it'll install Ark, > KDE 5 Frameworks and GNUSTEP. Is that a problem? According to the following, you have a choice between three packages, xarchiver, ark and engrampa: Package: lxqt […] Depends: featherpad, lximage-qt, lxqt-about, lxqt-admin, lxqt-branding-debian | lxqt-branding, lxqt-core (= 29), lxqt-openssh-askpass, lxqt-powermanagement, lxqt-sudo, pavucontrol-qt | pavucontrol, qlipper | clipit | xfce4-clipman, qps, qterminal, qttranslations5-l10n, sddm-theme-debian-elarun | sddm-theme | lightdm | gdm3 | lxdm | slim | nodm, xarchiver | ark | engrampa, xfwm4 | x-window-manager > Here is the video proof: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1IoGQP1omE Cheers, David.
Default Debian install harassed me
Hi. After installing Debian 10 on my laptop (I choose desktop LXQT) I noticed that Xarchiver is preinstalled and it was inconvenient to me in the past, so I opened Synaptic to remove it. But when I click on "xarchiver" and choose "Mark for Removal" or "Mark for Complete Removal" it says it'll install Ark, KDE 5 Frameworks and GNUSTEP. Here is the video proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1IoGQP1omE
