Re: Attempting a VERY minimal install (using --no-install-recommends ;)
Quoting Richard Owlett (2019-04-26 14:10:02) > On 04/26/2019 04:24 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Quoting Richard Owlett (2019-04-24 19:36:29) > >> My base setup was installed by doing > >> apt-get --no-install-recommends install task-mate-desktop > >> apt-get install pluma gparted synaptic > > > > I share your interest in installing minimal systems without the > > deroute of first installing too much and then removing unwanted > > parts. > > > > I understand from your subject that you deliberately chose to > > explore first creating a broken system and then attempt to unbreak > > it. > > It's not so much that I intentionally "broke" the system but I > eliminated the "noise" of a set of sub-optimal permutation of > recommends. *plonk* > > Personally I use aptitude in fullscreen mode (i.e. run "aptitude" > > with no non-option arguments) to explore package relations > > (dependencies, recommendations, suggests, and enancements) > > interactively. > > "aptitude --show-XXX" may be what I've been looking for. Can you > recommend article/tutorial/examples I should read. Official documentation is good: https://wiki.debian.org/Aptitude#Aptitude_User_Manual > > When I then have a set of explicit package selections possibly with > > explicit recommendation suppressions, I save those as classes for > > the tool "boxer" for reuse across many different larger system > > compositions. > > I found https://wiki.debian.org/Boxer . Is there more extensive > documentation/examples? Formal documentation is sorely lacking, unfortunately. Best example is... the Tinker project: > > If anyone is interested in collaborating on that approach, I welcome > > you to join the Debian Tinker project: > > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianTinker ...more specifically the boxer nodes most actively developed: https://salsa.debian.org/tinker-team/box/tree/master/nodes ...which corresponds to the images at https://box.redpill.dk/ - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Attempting a VERY minimal install (using --no-install-recommends ;)
On 04/26/2019 04:24 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Richard Owlett (2019-04-24 19:36:29)
I'm attempting a very minimal install because:
1. small size in and of itself is a good goal
2. fending for oneself is a valuable educational experience compared
to having everything handed to you on a "golden platter" {Debian's
default installer}
My current experiments revolve around defining my personal take on a
minimal MATE desktop. Part of the motivation is that some recommended
packages clash with ones I wish to use. Just removing offending packages
after the fact is unaesthetic.
My test machine has both a default install from DVD 1 and my minimalist
install. I had done a standard install without specifying any GUI or
extra packages.
My base setup was installed by doing
apt-get --no-install-recommends install task-mate-desktop
apt-get install pluma gparted synaptic
I share your interest in installing minimal systems without the deroute
of first installing too much and then removing unwanted parts.
I understand from your subject that you deliberately chose to explore
first creating a broken system and then attempt to unbreak it.
It's not so much that I intentionally "broke" the system but I
eliminated the "noise" of a set of sub-optimal permutation of recommends.
[One thing I've not sufficiently explored is the formal procedure/logic
of recommending a particular package.]
The experiment met a preliminary goal. Using only *depends* does yield a
"working", if not "productive", system. Rather than being a "broken"
system, I think of what I have as a "skeleton" that needs "flesh".
For the record, there's another (at least to me) more sensible approach
of explicitly skipping packages you don't want - e.g. like this:
apt-get install task-mate-desktop libreoffice- libreoffice-gtk3-
I just re-read the apt-get man page. I assume that is applying:
If a hyphen is appended to the package name (with no intervening
space), the identified package will be removed if it is installed.
I'd read that before but never seen an example of it before. I'll have
to think on its implications for some vague ideas I've had.
Personally I use aptitude in fullscreen mode (i.e. run "aptitude" with
no non-option arguments) to explore package relations (dependencies,
recommendations, suggests, and enancements) interactively.
"aptitude --show-XXX" may be what I've been looking for. Can you
recommend article/tutorial/examples I should read.
When I then have a set of explicit package selections possibly with
explicit recommendation suppressions, I save those as classes for the
tool "boxer" for reuse across many different larger system compositions.
I found https://wiki.debian.org/Boxer . Is there more extensive
documentation/examples?
If anyone is interested in collaborating on that approach, I welcome you
to join the Debian Tinker project: https://wiki.debian.org/DebianTinker
All it lacks is internet connectivity.
Unless you examined _every_ ignored recommendation and confirmed that
indeed you did not need it, you must mean "...known so far"!
That meant only that the lack of internet connectivity
was preventing me from my planned activities. That lack was due to an error.
Re: Attempting a VERY minimal install (using --no-install-recommends ;)
Quoting Richard Owlett (2019-04-24 19:36:29)
> I'm attempting a very minimal install because:
> 1. small size in and of itself is a good goal
> 2. fending for oneself is a valuable educational experience compared
> to having everything handed to you on a "golden platter" {Debian's
> default installer}
>
> My current experiments revolve around defining my personal take on a
> minimal MATE desktop. Part of the motivation is that some recommended
> packages clash with ones I wish to use. Just removing offending packages
> after the fact is unaesthetic.
>
> My test machine has both a default install from DVD 1 and my minimalist
> install. I had done a standard install without specifying any GUI or
> extra packages.
>
> My base setup was installed by doing
>apt-get --no-install-recommends install task-mate-desktop
>apt-get install pluma gparted synaptic
I share your interest in installing minimal systems without the deroute
of first installing too much and then removing unwanted parts.
I understand from your subject that you deliberately chose to explore
first creating a broken system and then attempt to unbreak it.
For the record, there's another (at least to me) more sensible approach
of explicitly skipping packages you don't want - e.g. like this:
apt-get install task-mate-desktop libreoffice- libreoffice-gtk3-
Personally I use aptitude in fullscreen mode (i.e. run "aptitude" with
no non-option arguments) to explore package relations (dependencies,
recommendations, suggests, and enancements) interactively.
When I then have a set of explicit package selections possibly with
explicit recommendation suppressions, I save those as classes for the
tool "boxer" for reuse across many different larger system compositions.
If anyone is interested in collaborating on that approach, I welcome you
to join the Debian Tinker project: https://wiki.debian.org/DebianTinker
> All it lacks is internet connectivity.
Unless you examined _every_ ignored recommendation and confirmed that
indeed you did not need it, you must mean "...known so far"!
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
Re: iwd and DNS (was: Re: Attempting a VERY minimal install (using --no-install-recommends ;))
On Thu 25 Apr 2019 at 11:30:56 (+0200), Erik Josefsson wrote: > Den 2019-04-25 kl. 07:21, skrev David Wright: > > The only thing guaranteed by installing the "Depends" is that > > all the function calls will point at some runnable code rather than > > just pointing into thin air. > > Thin air and deep waters is where I'm at. (But not in the sense I meant.) > I'm trying to set up the "tui" [text-based user interface] for the > [Teres debian laptop]. About which, I know nothing (the hardware or the TUI). > I think the tui is designed to be quite minimal (hence I post in this > thread). Bad choice. Because of the frequency of the OP's subject line, I think a lot of people will have ignored and delete the entire thread. I would start a new thread with a subject line that includes teres and DNS resolution. > I am surprised that I got iwd to connect to MY_OWN_WIFI: > > iwctl station wlan0 get-networks > iwctl station wlan0 connect MY_OWN_WIFI > > by copying psk file MY_OWN_WIFI.psk from another machine and then by putting > it into /var/lib/iwd/ on the Teres debian laptop. I don't recognise the iwctl command. That's really low-level stuff. > But it seems I have no DNS resolution (I can use the links-browser to go to > web pages by IP numbers, but not by domain names). > > I cannot do apt update. I get a "temporary failure resolving > 'deb.debian.org'". > > I'm not sure what exactly I'm asking for here. I guess I need the IP number > of a DNS-server that some program can ask where deb.debian.org is located. What's in /etc/resolv.conf, and what has worked for you in the past/another machine? For many home users, it's likely just nameserver 192.168.1.1 where that's the address of their router (assuming *it's* been configured.) Cheers, David.
Re: iwd and DNS (was: Re: Attempting a VERY minimal install (using --no-install-recommends ;))
Quoting Erik Josefsson (2019-04-25 11:30:56) > [Teres debian laptop] https://box.redpill.dk/cli_with_quirks/ Obsolete: Teres-I no longer need custom-built boot-loader for Buster! More stable to link to the top directory: https://box.redpill.dk/ - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Re: iwd and DNS (was: Re: Attempting a VERY minimal install (using --no-install-recommends ;))
On 2019-04-25 10:30, Erik Josefsson wrote: Den 2019-04-25 kl. 07:21, skrev David Wright: The only thing guaranteed by installing the "Depends" is that all the function calls will point at some runnable code rather than just pointing into thin air. Thin air and deep waters is where I'm at. I'm trying to set up the "tui" [text-based user interface] for the [Teres debian laptop]. I think the tui is designed to be quite minimal (hence I post in this thread). I am surprised that I got iwd to connect to MY_OWN_WIFI: iwctl station wlan0 get-networks iwctl station wlan0 connect MY_OWN_WIFI by copying psk file MY_OWN_WIFI.psk from another machine and then by putting it into /var/lib/iwd/ on the Teres debian laptop. But it seems I have no DNS resolution (I can use the links-browser to go to web pages by IP numbers, but not by domain names). I cannot do apt update. I get a "temporary failure resolving 'deb.debian.org'". I'm not sure what exactly I'm asking for here. I guess I need the IP number of a DNS-server that some program can ask where deb.debian.org is located. Grateful for hints. Best regards. //Erik bearing in mind I don't know what I'm doing I'd put nameserver 1.1.1.1 nameserver 1.0.0.1 in /etc/resolv.conf and see if that works. mick [text-based user interface] https://box.redpill.dk/ (scroll down to ##Addons) [Teres debian laptop] https://box.redpill.dk/cli_with_quirks/ -- Key ID4BFEBB31
iwd and DNS (was: Re: Attempting a VERY minimal install (using --no-install-recommends ;))
Den 2019-04-25 kl. 07:21, skrev David Wright: The only thing guaranteed by installing the "Depends" is that all the function calls will point at some runnable code rather than just pointing into thin air. Thin air and deep waters is where I'm at. I'm trying to set up the "tui" [text-based user interface] for the [Teres debian laptop]. I think the tui is designed to be quite minimal (hence I post in this thread). I am surprised that I got iwd to connect to MY_OWN_WIFI: iwctl station wlan0 get-networks iwctl station wlan0 connect MY_OWN_WIFI by copying psk file MY_OWN_WIFI.psk from another machine and then by putting it into /var/lib/iwd/ on the Teres debian laptop. But it seems I have no DNS resolution (I can use the links-browser to go to web pages by IP numbers, but not by domain names). I cannot do apt update. I get a "temporary failure resolving 'deb.debian.org'". I'm not sure what exactly I'm asking for here. I guess I need the IP number of a DNS-server that some program can ask where deb.debian.org is located. Grateful for hints. Best regards. //Erik [text-based user interface] https://box.redpill.dk/ (scroll down to ##Addons) [Teres debian laptop] https://box.redpill.dk/cli_with_quirks/
Re: Attempting a VERY minimal install (using --no-install-recommends ;)
On Wed 24 Apr 2019 at 22:07:33 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 04/24/2019 08:11 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 12:36:29 -0500
> > Richard Owlett wrote:
> >
> > > I'm attempting a very minimal install because:
> > > 1. small size in and of itself is a good goal
> > > 2. fending for oneself is a valuable educational experience compared
> > > to having everything handed to you on a "golden platter" {Debian's
> > > default installer}
> > >
> > > My current experiments revolve around defining my personal take on a
> > > minimal MATE desktop. Part of the motivation is that some recommended
> > > packages clash with ones I wish to use. Just removing offending packages
> > > after the fact is unaesthetic.
> >
> > If you intend on using MATE or for that matter, any desktop
> > environment, you're not going to get a VERY minimal install. Or even a
> > small install. I suggest you go with just a window manager. That's
> > what I did first with Wheezy, then Stretch.
> >
> > Start with a clean terminal only system, then add X or enough of it to
> > make things work, the window manager, etc. until you've got what you
> > want. Add the applications and utilities that you need. More work, but
> > you do get a small, efficient system without all the crap an
> > apt-get install MATE would get.
> >
>
> No thanks. I wish "...my personal take on a minimal MATE desktop".
Of course you do.
> MATE has features I do not wish to reinvent. There currently exists a
> potential audience for this of EXACTLY one. There are personal goals
> that I won't go into ;}
If you won't reveal your goal, then the help you get here will consist
of handing you information on silver platters so that you don't have
to "fend for yourself".
BTW I agree with Georgios: if you don't install the "Recommends",
you may find that you don't get the functionality you expect.
The only thing guaranteed by installing the "Depends" is that
all the function calls will point at some runnable code rather than
just pointing into thin air.
Cheers,
David.
Re: Attempting a VERY minimal install (using --no-install-recommends ;)
On 04/24/2019 08:11 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 12:36:29 -0500
Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm attempting a very minimal install because:
1. small size in and of itself is a good goal
2. fending for oneself is a valuable educational experience compared
to having everything handed to you on a "golden platter" {Debian's
default installer}
My current experiments revolve around defining my personal take on a
minimal MATE desktop. Part of the motivation is that some recommended
packages clash with ones I wish to use. Just removing offending packages
after the fact is unaesthetic.
If you intend on using MATE or for that matter, any desktop
environment, you're not going to get a VERY minimal install. Or even a
small install. I suggest you go with just a window manager. That's
what I did first with Wheezy, then Stretch.
Start with a clean terminal only system, then add X or enough of it to
make things work, the window manager, etc. until you've got what you
want. Add the applications and utilities that you need. More work, but
you do get a small, efficient system without all the crap an
apt-get install MATE would get.
No thanks. I wish "...my personal take on a minimal MATE desktop".
MATE has features I do not wish to reinvent. There currently exists a
potential audience for this of EXACTLY one. There are personal goals
that I won't go into ;}
Re: Attempting a VERY minimal install (using --no-install-recommends ;)
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 12:36:29 -0500
Richard Owlett wrote:
> I'm attempting a very minimal install because:
> 1. small size in and of itself is a good goal
> 2. fending for oneself is a valuable educational experience compared
> to having everything handed to you on a "golden platter" {Debian's
> default installer}
>
> My current experiments revolve around defining my personal take on a
> minimal MATE desktop. Part of the motivation is that some recommended
> packages clash with ones I wish to use. Just removing offending packages
> after the fact is unaesthetic.
If you intend on using MATE or for that matter, any desktop
environment, you're not going to get a VERY minimal install. Or even a
small install. I suggest you go with just a window manager. That's
what I did first with Wheezy, then Stretch.
Start with a clean terminal only system, then add X or enough of it to
make things work, the window manager, etc. until you've got what you
want. Add the applications and utilities that you need. More work, but
you do get a small, efficient system without all the crap an
apt-get install MATE would get.
> [snip]
B
Progress - was [Re: Attempting a VERY minimal install (using --no-install-recommends ;)]
On 04/24/2019 02:31 PM, Richard Owlett wrote: On 04/24/2019 01:10 PM, Joe wrote: On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 12:36:29 -0500 Richard Owlett wrote: [snip] My base setup was installed by doing apt-get --no-install-recommends install task-mate-desktop apt-get install pluma gparted synaptic All it lacks is internet connectivity. I have a WiFi hotspot from T-mobile which I effectively use as a modem (WiFi is intentionally disabled). On the standard install it appears eth2 on Network Manager Applet. I used Synaptic to install network-manager-gnome The apparent problem is that connecting the hotspot does dot trigger the "connecting" icon. It works now ;/ I suspect the problem was not having logged-out/logged-in after installing network-manager-gnome. How do I determine what else I need to install? [Recall point #2 in my first paragraph ;] TIA Difficult to say without knowing what you don't have. Agreed Can you specify an 'automatic' connection with Network Manager? I don't know yet. I've just brought up 4 URLs that the wiki says I should read. I had expected the icon for Network Manager Applet to appear on MATE's Panel. It does not. If not, you probably need dhcpcd. That's not my problem. It is not present on install DVD 1. Also on the full install I have on the same machine none of the dhcpcd modules listed by Synaptic are installed. NM gains abilities according to what helper programs are available. I have some reading to do. The reading clued me in ;} Thank you.
Re: Attempting a VERY minimal install (using --no-install-recommends ;)
On 04/24/2019 02:41 PM, mick crane wrote:
On 2019-04-24 18:36, Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm attempting a very minimal install because:
1. small size in and of itself is a good goal
2. fending for oneself is a valuable educational experience compared
to having everything handed to you on a "golden platter" {Debian's
default installer}
Not sure if you want small Debian is the place to start. Debian is I
think when you want reliability.
Think how it works is you want to build your own kernel with just the
bits you need for your hardware and then install the software that you
want from source.
You can get tiny distributions, Slitax is 32 Mb or something and the
System Rescue CDs have the useful software.
All depends what the end result you want is.
mick
I could have phrased it differently.
I'm looking for what I consider to be a minimal *Debian* install.
When I first got interested in Linux, I had looked at projects such as
"Linux From Scratch". I chose to go with Debian instead in the interest
of productivity. But I do have the mindset appropriate to LFS.
BTW I'm of the CPM-80 era when 64k RAM and 10MB disk was ~= infinity.
Also had an 8k Personal Electronic Transactor with mass storage on audio
cassette.
Re: Attempting a VERY minimal install (using --no-install-recommends ;)
On 2019-04-24 18:36, Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm attempting a very minimal install because:
1. small size in and of itself is a good goal
2. fending for oneself is a valuable educational experience compared
to having everything handed to you on a "golden platter" {Debian's
default installer}
Not sure if you want small Debian is the place to start. Debian is I
think when you want reliability.
Think how it works is you want to build your own kernel with just the
bits you need for your hardware and then install the software that you
want from source.
You can get tiny distributions, Slitax is 32 Mb or something and the
System Rescue CDs have the useful software.
All depends what the end result you want is.
mick
--
Key ID4BFEBB31
Re: Attempting a VERY minimal install (using --no-install-recommends ;)
On Wed 24 Apr 2019 at 12:36:29 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> I'm attempting a very minimal install because:
> 1. small size in and of itself is a good goal
Not at all. There has to be an objective, a goal. For example, a thin
client with only 1Gb of space which is intended to perform a particular
set of tasks. A small installation is, of itself, of little importance.
> 2. fending for oneself is a valuable educational experience compared
>to having everything handed to you on a "golden platter" {Debian's
>default installer}
You can only fend for yourself within the constaints imposed by the
installer packaging system. You seem to think the standard system
utilities are part of your "minimal". They are not part of mine. There
is something to educate yourself on. They are not needed.
> My current experiments revolve around defining my personal take on a minimal
> MATE desktop. Part of the motivation is that some recommended packages clash
> with ones I wish to use. Just removing offending packages after the fact is
> unaesthetic.
>
> My test machine has both a default install from DVD 1 and my minimalist
> install. I had done a standard install without specifying any GUI or extra
> packages.
>
> My base setup was installed by doing
> apt-get --no-install-recommends install task-mate-desktop
That's a base *minimal* setup? Any task-* package is intended to provide
the fullest installation possible, even with --no-install-recommends.
> apt-get install pluma gparted synaptic
>
> All it lacks is internet connectivity.
> I have a WiFi hotspot from T-mobile which I effectively use as a modem (WiFi
> is intentionally disabled). On the standard install it appears eth2 on
> Network Manager Applet.
>
> I used Synaptic to install network-manager-gnome
This is really what your post is about. I switched off when a decidedly
non-minimal package was mentioned. That's all apart from crippling the
use of a wireless connection.
> The apparent problem is that connecting the hotspot does dot trigger the
> "connecting" icon.
That's not the problem.
--
Brian.
Re: Attempting a VERY minimal install (using --no-install-recommends ;)
On 04/24/2019 01:10 PM, Joe wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 12:36:29 -0500
Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm attempting a very minimal install because:
1. small size in and of itself is a good goal
2. fending for oneself is a valuable educational experience compared
to having everything handed to you on a "golden platter" {Debian's
default installer}
My current experiments revolve around defining my personal take on a
minimal MATE desktop. Part of the motivation is that some recommended
packages clash with ones I wish to use. Just removing offending
packages after the fact is unaesthetic.
My test machine has both a default install from DVD 1 and my
minimalist install. I had done a standard install without specifying
any GUI or extra packages.
My base setup was installed by doing
apt-get --no-install-recommends install task-mate-desktop
apt-get install pluma gparted synaptic
All it lacks is internet connectivity.
I have a WiFi hotspot from T-mobile which I effectively use as a
modem (WiFi is intentionally disabled). On the standard install it
appears eth2 on Network Manager Applet.
I used Synaptic to install network-manager-gnome
The apparent problem is that connecting the hotspot does dot trigger
the "connecting" icon.
How do I determine what else I need to install?
[Recall point #2 in my first paragraph ;]
TIA
Difficult to say without knowing what you don't have.
Agreed
Can you specify an 'automatic' connection with Network Manager?
I don't know yet. I've just brought up 4 URLs that the wiki says I
should read. I had expected the icon for Network Manager Applet to
appear on MATE's Panel. It does not.
If not, you probably need dhcpcd.
That's not my problem. It is not present on install DVD 1.
Also on the full install I have on the same machine none of the dhcpcd
modules listed by Synaptic are installed.
NM gains abilities according to what helper programs are
available.
I have some reading to do.
Thank you.
Re: Attempting a VERY minimal install (using --no-install-recommends ;)
On 04/24/2019 12:54 PM, Georgios wrote:
My minimal install include just installing standard system utilities.
I believe I accomplished that.
I build my system after that without the use of --no-install-recommends.
Its better to install recommended packages for full functionality of the
installed packages.(Just my opinion)
No major disagreement there. However, quoting myself:
fending for oneself is a valuable educational experience compared
to having everything handed to you on a "golden platter" {Debian's
default installer}
My typical install is to accept everything. But this particular install
is explicitly for investigating the other end of the spectrum. In the
past I have done as many as a dozen full installs to investigate
parameters of current interest.
I am retired, one of my hobbies might be said to be installing Debian ;}
ps. Im using xfce and i usually pick the packages i need.
I'm intentionally being a little more extreme.
ps2.Find your network hardware and see if it needs firmware installed.
I know it does not require a proprietary driver.
It is a USB device compatible with both Windows and Debian. My
experience is that Debian initially sees it as a "disk" and then the
software handling general USB devices downloads "something" from the
device. After that it "just works" ;/
Check you
On 4/24/19 8:36 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
I'm attempting a very minimal install because:
1. small size in and of itself is a good goal
2. fending for oneself is a valuable educational experience compared
to having everything handed to you on a "golden platter" {Debian's
default installer}
My current experiments revolve around defining my personal take on a
minimal MATE desktop. Part of the motivation is that some recommended
packages clash with ones I wish to use. Just removing offending packages
after the fact is unaesthetic.
My test machine has both a default install from DVD 1 and my minimalist
install. I had done a standard install without specifying any GUI or
extra packages.
My base setup was installed by doing
apt-get --no-install-recommends install task-mate-desktop
apt-get install pluma gparted synaptic
All it lacks is internet connectivity.
I have a WiFi hotspot from T-mobile which I effectively use as a modem
(WiFi is intentionally disabled). On the standard install it appears
eth2 on Network Manager Applet.
I used Synaptic to install network-manager-gnome
The apparent problem is that connecting the hotspot does dot trigger the
"connecting" icon.
How do I determine what else I need to install?
[Recall point #2 in my first paragraph ;]
TIA
Re: Attempting a VERY minimal install (using --no-install-recommends ;)
My minimal install include just installing standard system utilities.
I build my system after that without the use of --no-install-recommends.
Its better to install recommended packages for full functionality of the
installed packages.(Just my opinion)
ps. Im using xfce and i usually pick the packages i need.
ps2.Find your network hardware and see if it needs firmware installed.
Check you
On 4/24/19 8:36 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
> I'm attempting a very minimal install because:
> 1. small size in and of itself is a good goal
> 2. fending for oneself is a valuable educational experience compared
> to having everything handed to you on a "golden platter" {Debian's
> default installer}
>
> My current experiments revolve around defining my personal take on a
> minimal MATE desktop. Part of the motivation is that some recommended
> packages clash with ones I wish to use. Just removing offending packages
> after the fact is unaesthetic.
>
> My test machine has both a default install from DVD 1 and my minimalist
> install. I had done a standard install without specifying any GUI or
> extra packages.
>
> My base setup was installed by doing
> apt-get --no-install-recommends install task-mate-desktop
> apt-get install pluma gparted synaptic
>
> All it lacks is internet connectivity.
> I have a WiFi hotspot from T-mobile which I effectively use as a modem
> (WiFi is intentionally disabled). On the standard install it appears
> eth2 on Network Manager Applet.
>
> I used Synaptic to install network-manager-gnome
> The apparent problem is that connecting the hotspot does dot trigger the
> "connecting" icon.
>
> How do I determine what else I need to install?
> [Recall point #2 in my first paragraph ;]
> TIA
>
>
Re: Attempting a VERY minimal install (using --no-install-recommends ;)
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 12:36:29 -0500
Richard Owlett wrote:
> I'm attempting a very minimal install because:
> 1. small size in and of itself is a good goal
> 2. fending for oneself is a valuable educational experience compared
> to having everything handed to you on a "golden platter" {Debian's
> default installer}
>
> My current experiments revolve around defining my personal take on a
> minimal MATE desktop. Part of the motivation is that some recommended
> packages clash with ones I wish to use. Just removing offending
> packages after the fact is unaesthetic.
>
> My test machine has both a default install from DVD 1 and my
> minimalist install. I had done a standard install without specifying
> any GUI or extra packages.
>
> My base setup was installed by doing
>apt-get --no-install-recommends install task-mate-desktop
>apt-get install pluma gparted synaptic
>
> All it lacks is internet connectivity.
> I have a WiFi hotspot from T-mobile which I effectively use as a
> modem (WiFi is intentionally disabled). On the standard install it
> appears eth2 on Network Manager Applet.
>
> I used Synaptic to install network-manager-gnome
> The apparent problem is that connecting the hotspot does dot trigger
> the "connecting" icon.
>
> How do I determine what else I need to install?
> [Recall point #2 in my first paragraph ;]
> TIA
>
>
Difficult to say without knowing what you don't have. Can you specify
an 'automatic' connection with Network Manager? If not, you probably
need dhcpcd. NM gains abilities according to what helper programs are
available.
--
Joe
Attempting a VERY minimal install (using --no-install-recommends ;)
I'm attempting a very minimal install because:
1. small size in and of itself is a good goal
2. fending for oneself is a valuable educational experience compared
to having everything handed to you on a "golden platter" {Debian's
default installer}
My current experiments revolve around defining my personal take on a
minimal MATE desktop. Part of the motivation is that some recommended
packages clash with ones I wish to use. Just removing offending packages
after the fact is unaesthetic.
My test machine has both a default install from DVD 1 and my minimalist
install. I had done a standard install without specifying any GUI or
extra packages.
My base setup was installed by doing
apt-get --no-install-recommends install task-mate-desktop
apt-get install pluma gparted synaptic
All it lacks is internet connectivity.
I have a WiFi hotspot from T-mobile which I effectively use as a modem
(WiFi is intentionally disabled). On the standard install it appears
eth2 on Network Manager Applet.
I used Synaptic to install network-manager-gnome
The apparent problem is that connecting the hotspot does dot trigger the
"connecting" icon.
How do I determine what else I need to install?
[Recall point #2 in my first paragraph ;]
TIA
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015, David Wright wrote:
Quoting Patrick Bartek (nemomm...@gmail.com):
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015, David Wright wrote:
Quoting Patrick Bartek (nemomm...@gmail.com):
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015, bri...@aracnet.com wrote:
i'll second the use of openbox. i use it with fbpanel.
i too believe that gnome just pulls in way too much stuff.
the most inconvenient thing about not using gnome is not
having a way to handle USS mass storage devices.
I wrote a generic udev rule for that. Of course, there are also
mounting utilities that do the same thing. But I opted for the
light-on-resources rule instead.
The rule mounts and unmounts flash drives -- just plug and unplug
-- and cards (any type using an external card or multi-card
reader. The caveat is: you must plug the card in first, then plug
the reader in. Unmount by unplugging reader with the card still in
it, then remove the card. Doesn't work with internal multi-card
readers. Probably not with single internal readers either. For
that you need a daemon like udisks-daemon set to poll each card
slot of the reader.
Thanks for posting that. I've got some homework to do!
I can understand the plugging in, and I think I understand the bit
about card readers: if I plug an SD card into my laptop slot, it
appears in a completely different manner from how it appears if the
SD card is in a USB converter (the card reader).
So in goes the USB plug, udev applies the rule and the device gets
mounted.
But I don't understand how unplugging works. My experience is that
with FAT-ish devices, if sync has been executed and time elapsed,
the only problem with pulling the plug (not having umounted) is that
the user may not be able to umount the mount point, but need to do it
as root. With extX filesystems, that wouldn't work at all because the
filesystem would still be marked as dirty.
Are you using some sort of safe-to-remove-hardware button like
windows?
# remove the symbolic link to ~/{usb_folder}
ACTION==remove, RUN+=/bin/rm -f
'/home/aardvark/Desktop/%E{dir_name}'
# clean up after device removal
ACTION==remove, ENV{dir_name}!=, RUN+=/bin/umount -l
'/media/%E{dir_name}', RUN+=/bin/rmdir '/media/%E{dir_name}'
The above code fragment is for systems that have a desktop GUI. As I
only use a window manager, I don't have a desktop, and commented these
ACTIONs out.
I need to figure out precisely what terms like detach, clean up
and busy mean in man umount -l.
The rule I posted applied only to mounting and unmounting USB
flash/thumb drives. I also wanted to mount memory cards. I discovered
by trial and error that if I put a memory card in a reader and then
plugged in the reader, the rule thought it was a flash drive, and
mounted it. Unplugging the combination would unmount it. Removing just
the card while the reader was still plugged it didn't work properly.
To get readers (external or internal) to work correctly requires
polling each card slot in the reader and a rule to recognize when a
card is inserted much as one would detect a CD insert in a CD drive. I
began by writing a rule for my CD drive since it require polling,
too, and got it to mount the CD, but never got the unmounting part to
work. I got sidetracked by other things during the rule's
troubleshooting and never got back to it.
B
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150416182430.00c44...@debian7.boseck208.net
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015, August Karlstrom wrote: On 2015-04-14 17:10, Patrick Bartek wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2015, August Karlstrom wrote: What advantages do you see with adding your own udev rule compared to simply starting a ConsoleKit session? exec ck-launch-session dbus-launch your-wm instead of exec your-wm None really, except to keep system overhead as small as possible. [...] I wanted the smallest, lightest install of Wheezy 64-bit I could get. I started with a basic terminal system and added the rest piece by piece. That's what I do too. I have a script that installs a few packages and configurations on top of a basic Debian server installation. So, I just don't run (or have installed) a lot of support stuff that normal desktop systems do. I even boot to a terminal where I login, then manually start X and Openbox with startx. I agree, for me a display manager is one of those unnecessary features. Since I almost always want to use a GUI, however, my ~/.profile ends with #start an X session when logging in on the first virtual console if [ $(tty) = /dev/tty1 ] [ -z $DISPLAY ]; then exec startx ~/.xsession-errors 21 fi I didn't get that fancy. I just type in startx. As I leave my system running 24/7, it's not that inconvenient. Writing my own udev rules was in keeping with that minimalism. I tried to do that myselft but I never got it working. That's why I had to resort to ck-launch-session. It took me a while to get the hang of rule writing, and I still am not that good at it. Lots of research and trial and error. I still haven't gotten the cd/dvd rule working 100%. Can't get the unmounting to work when the disc is ejected. B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150415083043.4163d...@debian7.boseck208.net
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
Quoting Patrick Bartek (nemomm...@gmail.com):
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015, David Wright wrote:
Quoting Patrick Bartek (nemomm...@gmail.com):
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015, bri...@aracnet.com wrote:
i'll second the use of openbox. i use it with fbpanel.
i too believe that gnome just pulls in way too much stuff.
the most inconvenient thing about not using gnome is not having a way
to handle USS mass storage devices.
I wrote a generic udev rule for that. Of course, there are also
mounting utilities that do the same thing. But I opted for the
light-on-resources rule instead.
The rule mounts and unmounts flash drives -- just plug and unplug -- and
cards (any type using an external card or multi-card reader. The
caveat is: you must plug the card in first, then plug the reader in.
Unmount by unplugging reader with the card still in it, then remove the
card. Doesn't work with internal multi-card readers. Probably not with
single internal readers either. For that you need a daemon like
udisks-daemon set to poll each card slot of the reader.
Thanks for posting that. I've got some homework to do!
I can understand the plugging in, and I think I understand the bit
about card readers: if I plug an SD card into my laptop slot, it
appears in a completely different manner from how it appears if the
SD card is in a USB converter (the card reader).
So in goes the USB plug, udev applies the rule and the device gets
mounted.
But I don't understand how unplugging works. My experience is that
with FAT-ish devices, if sync has been executed and time elapsed,
the only problem with pulling the plug (not having umounted) is that
the user may not be able to umount the mount point, but need to do it
as root. With extX filesystems, that wouldn't work at all because the
filesystem would still be marked as dirty.
Are you using some sort of safe-to-remove-hardware button like windows?
# remove the symbolic link to ~/{usb_folder}
ACTION==remove, RUN+=/bin/rm -f '/home/aardvark/Desktop/%E{dir_name}'
# clean up after device removal
ACTION==remove, ENV{dir_name}!=, RUN+=/bin/umount -l
'/media/%E{dir_name}', RUN+=/bin/rmdir '/media/%E{dir_name}'
I need to figure out precisely what terms like detach, clean up
and busy mean in man umount -l.
Cheers,
David.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150416024920.ga4...@alum.home
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
Quoting August Karlstrom (fusionf...@gmail.com): On 2015-04-14 17:10, Patrick Bartek wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2015, August Karlstrom wrote: What advantages do you see with adding your own udev rule compared to simply starting a ConsoleKit session? exec ck-launch-session dbus-launch your-wm instead of exec your-wm None really, except to keep system overhead as small as possible. [...] I wanted the smallest, lightest install of Wheezy 64-bit I could get. I started with a basic terminal system and added the rest piece by piece. That's what I do too. I have a script that installs a few packages and configurations on top of a basic Debian server installation. So, I just don't run (or have installed) a lot of support stuff that normal desktop systems do. I even boot to a terminal where I login, then manually start X and Openbox with startx. I agree, for me a display manager is one of those unnecessary features. Since I almost always want to use a GUI, however, my ~/.profile ends with #start an X session when logging in on the first virtual console if [ $(tty) = /dev/tty1 ] [ -z $DISPLAY ]; then exec startx ~/.xsession-errors 21 fi Writing my own udev rules was in keeping with that minimalism. I tried to do that myselft but I never got it working. That's why I had to resort to ck-launch-session. I, too, boot to a VC and run startx whereupon .xsession runs fvwm and opens a bunch of xterms (using xtoolwait from squeeze to serialise them). But I don't understand what starting a ConsoleKit session does. Will I see something different on the screen? I looked at http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/5220/what-are-consolekit-and-policykit-how-do-they-work but don't understand it. If several users are logged in, does each user run on the same Xserver? Do their sessions keep running while one user is actively using their own session? What are the resource implications? This little laptop is already running much more slowly with jessie/systemd. That page has a link to http://www.freedesktop.org/software/ConsoleKit/doc/ConsoleKit.html which is one of those pages that looks as if it's written for a computer science course. The first page also says that ConsoleKit has been largely replaced by systemd-logind. Well, I have that and it appears to be running: $ dpkg -S systemd-logind systemd: /usr/share/man/man8/systemd-logind.8.gz systemd: /lib/systemd/system/multi-user.target.wants/systemd-logind.service systemd: /lib/systemd/systemd-logind systemd: /lib/systemd/system/systemd-logind.service systemd: /lib/systemd/systemd-logind-launch systemd: /usr/share/man/man8/systemd-logind.service.8.gz $ loginctl list-seats | tee SEAT seat0 1 seats listed. $ man systemd-logind points me to http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/multiseat/ which makes me none the wiser. The Uses section assumes I am writing system software, and the very last sentence on the page implies I'm running a DM. Neither of these is true. So when you say you resorted to simply starting a ck-launch-session, how did that make up for not being able to get udev rules to work? Cheers, David. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150416043704.gb4...@alum.home
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:53:55 -0700 Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2015, Rodolfo Medina wrote: Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com writes: Of course, if you really want TOTAL control of your GUI, a window manager is the way to go. That's what I did. Installed Openbox. The same WM that LXDE uses. A little more work, but worth it. Thanks. I'm trying it. In the web browser, I open a new tab with C-t, but don't know how to do that in the terminal emulator. The usual `C-shift-t' does not work. Depends on which terminal emulator you're using. I use xterm, and it doesn't support tabbed windows -- as far as I can tell. Never bothered to check. But that's okay. I prefer multiple terminals instead of a single one with multiple tabs. Or, to get something in between, use screen :) Petter -- I'm ionized Are you sure? I'm positive. pgpio24ZABzUv.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
On 2015-04-14 17:10, Patrick Bartek wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2015, August Karlstrom wrote: What advantages do you see with adding your own udev rule compared to simply starting a ConsoleKit session? exec ck-launch-session dbus-launch your-wm instead of exec your-wm None really, except to keep system overhead as small as possible. [...] I wanted the smallest, lightest install of Wheezy 64-bit I could get. I started with a basic terminal system and added the rest piece by piece. That's what I do too. I have a script that installs a few packages and configurations on top of a basic Debian server installation. So, I just don't run (or have installed) a lot of support stuff that normal desktop systems do. I even boot to a terminal where I login, then manually start X and Openbox with startx. I agree, for me a display manager is one of those unnecessary features. Since I almost always want to use a GUI, however, my ~/.profile ends with #start an X session when logging in on the first virtual console if [ $(tty) = /dev/tty1 ] [ -z $DISPLAY ]; then exec startx ~/.xsession-errors 21 fi Writing my own udev rules was in keeping with that minimalism. I tried to do that myselft but I never got it working. That's why I had to resort to ck-launch-session. -- August -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mgl7j1$utj$1...@speranza.aioe.org
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
On 2015-04-14 03:20, Patrick Bartek wrote: The rule mounts and unmounts flash drives -- just plug and unplug -- and cards (any type using an external card or multi-card reader. The caveat is: you must plug the card in first, then plug the reader in. Unmount by unplugging reader with the card still in it, then remove the card. Doesn't work with internal multi-card readers. Probably not with single internal readers either. For that you need a daemon like udisks-daemon set to poll each card slot of the reader. [...] What advantages do you see with adding your own udev rule compared to simply starting a ConsoleKit session? exec ck-launch-session dbus-launch your-wm instead of exec your-wm -- August -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mgijhm$ie4$1...@speranza.aioe.org
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015, August Karlstrom wrote: On 2015-04-14 03:20, Patrick Bartek wrote: The rule mounts and unmounts flash drives -- just plug and unplug -- and cards (any type using an external card or multi-card reader. The caveat is: you must plug the card in first, then plug the reader in. Unmount by unplugging reader with the card still in it, then remove the card. Doesn't work with internal multi-card readers. Probably not with single internal readers either. For that you need a daemon like udisks-daemon set to poll each card slot of the reader. [...] What advantages do you see with adding your own udev rule compared to simply starting a ConsoleKit session? exec ck-launch-session dbus-launch your-wm instead of exec your-wm None really, except to keep system overhead as small as possible. This system is 4 to 9 years old depending on which part, and has been upgraded numerous times, but even so was still showing its age as far as performance. I wanted the smallest, lightest install of Wheezy 64-bit I could get. I started with a basic terminal system and added the rest piece by piece. So, I just don't run (or have installed) a lot of support stuff that normal desktop systems do. I even boot to a terminal where I login, then manually start X and Openbox with startx. I'm the only user. Writing my own udev rules was in keeping with that minimalism. Guess I could experiment with your way. Just for fun. B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150414080504.762a4...@debian7.boseck208.net
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 01:09:46PM -0500, David Wright wrote: Quoting Brian (a...@cityscape.co.uk): On Mon 13 Apr 2015 at 12:00:52 -0500, David Wright wrote: … So the most I could do is set up an account just to write This list entry may mislead you on the page. … You could do better than that :). It took half a minute to discover that the GNOME accessibility entry needs removing or the entry adjusted to reflect what version of Debian it applies to. Following the link is sufficient to see why. I've fixed the gnome-core definition on that page in less time than it took to read any of the last three messages in this sub-thread, and therefore certainly less time than it took to write them, using only information gleaned from posts in this thread. In other words, any one of you could have done it just as well. -- Jonathan Dowland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150414143247.ga2...@chew.redmars.org
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015, Rodolfo Medina wrote: Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com writes: Of course, if you really want TOTAL control of your GUI, a window manager is the way to go. That's what I did. Installed Openbox. The same WM that LXDE uses. A little more work, but worth it. Thanks. I'm trying it. In the web browser, I open a new tab with C-t, but don't know how to do that in the terminal emulator. The usual `C-shift-t' does not work. Depends on which terminal emulator you're using. I use xterm, and it doesn't support tabbed windows -- as far as I can tell. Never bothered to check. But that's okay. I prefer multiple terminals instead of a single one with multiple tabs. B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150414175355.704bf...@debian7.boseck208.net
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
Quoting Jonathan Dowland (j...@debian.org): On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 01:09:46PM -0500, David Wright wrote: Quoting Brian (a...@cityscape.co.uk): On Mon 13 Apr 2015 at 12:00:52 -0500, David Wright wrote: … So the most I could do is set up an account just to write This list entry may mislead you on the page. … You could do better than that :). It took half a minute to discover that the GNOME accessibility entry needs removing or the entry adjusted to reflect what version of Debian it applies to. Following the link is sufficient to see why. I've fixed the gnome-core definition on that page in less time than it took to read any of the last three messages in this sub-thread, and therefore certainly less time than it took to write them, using only information gleaned from posts in this thread. In other words, any one of you could have done it just as well. Thanks for making the change. I'm still not sure I understand, for example, how the core (item4) differs from the desktop task (item1), because the latter pulls in the former and not much mo... Look, I think I'll bow out of this conversation. The OP seems to have got something useful out of the thread. I think I'll ask questions about the wiki page for Bluetooth instead. Cheers, David. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150414215208.ga14...@alum.home
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
On Tue 14 Apr 2015 at 15:32:47 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 01:09:46PM -0500, David Wright wrote: Quoting Brian (a...@cityscape.co.uk): On Mon 13 Apr 2015 at 12:00:52 -0500, David Wright wrote: … So the most I could do is set up an account just to write This list entry may mislead you on the page. … You could do better than that :). It took half a minute to discover that the GNOME accessibility entry needs removing or the entry adjusted to reflect what version of Debian it applies to. Following the link is sufficient to see why. I've fixed the gnome-core definition on that page in less time than it took to read any of the last three messages in this sub-thread, and therefore certainly less time than it took to write them, using only information gleaned from posts in this thread. In other words, any one of you could have done it just as well. There is no arguing with that; we are pleased you found the information useful. This is an excellent example illustrating how the interaction between Debian users leads to a change and an improvement. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/14042015195638.cf199210d...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
David Wright deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk writes: The OP seems to have got something useful out of the thread. I think I'll ask questions about the wiki page for Bluetooth instead. I read carefully all the messages of the thread and appreciated and am grateful to anyone who wrote. I'm still thinking all it over. Thanks, Rodolfo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/878uduz6br@gmail.com
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com writes: Of course, if you really want TOTAL control of your GUI, a window manager is the way to go. That's what I did. Installed Openbox. The same WM that LXDE uses. A little more work, but worth it. Thanks. I'm trying it. In the web browser, I open a new tab with C-t, but don't know how to do that in the terminal emulator. The usual `C-shift-t' does not work. Rodolfo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/877fte3024@gmail.com
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
On Tuesday 14 April 2015 20:11:30 Brian wrote: On Tue 14 Apr 2015 at 15:32:47 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 01:09:46PM -0500, David Wright wrote: Quoting Brian (a...@cityscape.co.uk): On Mon 13 Apr 2015 at 12:00:52 -0500, David Wright wrote: … So the most I could do is set up an account just to write This list entry may mislead you on the page. … You could do better than that :). It took half a minute to discover that the GNOME accessibility entry needs removing or the entry adjusted to reflect what version of Debian it applies to. Following the link is sufficient to see why. I've fixed the gnome-core definition on that page in less time than it took to read any of the last three messages in this sub-thread, and therefore certainly less time than it took to write them, using only information gleaned from posts in this thread. In other words, any one of you could have done it just as well. There is no arguing with that; we are pleased you found the information useful. This is an excellent example illustrating how the interaction between Debian users leads to a change and an improvement. Yes, but it now needs something about accessibility. Accessibility is one of Gnome's strengths, and as this site was before it only took a click on the provided link to get all the information. I think that the change is detrimental. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201504142205.41541.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
Quoting Brian (a...@cityscape.co.uk): On Mon 13 Apr 2015 at 12:00:52 -0500, David Wright wrote: Floris kindly found a possible reference which also seemed to me to be a likely candidate (the OP hasn't confirmed or otherwise). I looked at it with a critical eye and found some errors and ambiguities. However, I'm not a Gnome user, so I have no idea whether There are four options to install GNOME in Debian: is true, or whether there's, say, another option that most Gnome users now use, but no one has bothered to document. So the most I could do is set up an account just to write This list entry may mislead you on the page. You could do better than that :). It took half a minute to discover that the GNOME accessibility entry needs removing or the entry adjusted to reflect what version of Debian it applies to. Following the link is sufficient to see why. I downloaded both the squeeze package (with the matching name) and the wheezy package (~-themes suggested by the Packages page), but on noticing that the new one is 100 times the size of the old, I realised I'm out of my depth again. If things like accessibility have undergone a major repackaging experience, then there's even more reason to think that the options to install GNOME in Debian have quite possibly changed drastically. (And I can't see the point in documenting squeeze's choices for installing Gnome any longer.) My earlier posts (not this thread) have included questions about what exactly do DEs bring to the table over and above WMs. I'm ignorant. Cheers, David. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150413180946.gi7...@alum.home
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015, David Wright wrote:
[I'm hoping this isn't a duplicate post, but my first
attempt was rejected by bendel.debian.org as forged.]
Quoting Patrick Bartek (nemomm...@gmail.com):
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015, bri...@aracnet.com wrote:
i'll second the use of openbox. i use it with fbpanel.
i too believe that gnome just pulls in way too much stuff.
the most inconvenient thing about not using gnome is not having a
way
to handle USS mass storage devices.
I wrote a generic udev rule for that. Of course, there are also
mounting utilities that do the same thing. But I opted for the
light-on-resources rule instead.
Care to share it?
Well, sort of . . . The rule I'm running now is too specific to my
system to be of general use, but below is what I started with. Found it
while researching how to write rules. Don't have the author's name.
Sorry.
The rule mounts and unmounts flash drives -- just plug and unplug -- and
cards (any type using an external card or multi-card reader. The
caveat is: you must plug the card in first, then plug the reader in.
Unmount by unplugging reader with the card still in it, then remove the
card. Doesn't work with internal multi-card readers. Probably not with
single internal readers either. For that you need a daemon like
udisks-daemon set to poll each card slot of the reader.
Good luck.
B
8
# /etc/udev/rules.d/10-my-media-automount.rules
# start at sdb to ignore the system hard drive
KERNEL!=sd[b-z]*, GOTO=my_media_automount_end
ACTION==add, PROGRAM!=/sbin/blkid %N, GOTO=my_media_automount_end
# import some useful filesystem info as variables
IMPORT{program}=/sbin/blkid -o udev -p %N
# get the label if present, otherwise assign one based on device/partition
ENV{ID_FS_LABEL}!=, ENV{dir_name}=%E{ID_FS_LABEL}
ENV{ID_FS_LABEL}==, ENV{dir_name}=usbhd-%k
# create the dir in /media and symlink it to /mnt
ACTION==add, RUN+=/bin/mkdir -p '/media/%E{dir_name}'
# create a symbolic link to /media/{usb_folder} on desktop
ACTION==add, RUN+=/bin/ln -s '/media/%E{dir_name}'
'/home/aardvark/Desktop/%E{dir_name}'
# global mount options
ACTION==add, ENV{mount_options}=relatime
# filesystem-specific mount options (777/666 dir/file perms for ntfs/vfat)
ACTION==add, ENV{ID_FS_TYPE}==vfat|ntfs,
ENV{mount_options}=$env{mount_options},gid=100,dmask=000,fmask=111,utf8
# automount ntfs filesystems using ntfs-3g driver
ACTION==add, ENV{ID_FS_TYPE}==ntfs, RUN+=/bin/mount -t ntfs-3g -o
%E{mount_options} /dev/%k '/media/%E{dir_name}'
# automount all other filesystems
ACTION==add, ENV{ID_FS_TYPE}!=ntfs, RUN+=/bin/mount -t auto -o
%E{mount_options} /dev/%k '/media/%E{dir_name}'
# remove the symbolic link to ~/{usb_folder}
ACTION==remove, RUN+=/bin/rm -f '/home/aardvark/Desktop/%E{dir_name}'
# clean up after device removal
ACTION==remove, ENV{dir_name}!=, RUN+=/bin/umount -l
'/media/%E{dir_name}', RUN+=/bin/rmdir '/media/%E{dir_name}'
# exit
LABEL=my_media_automount_end
#Note: Edit line 17 and 30 to reflect your Desktop path. In other words,
# change /home/aardvark/Desktop to/home/{your_user_name}/Desktop. The reason
# that I didn’t use a relative path is because there is a myth that such
configs do not go well with relative paths.
== 8 =
Here's a work-in-progress showing how polling works that fell by the
wayside. It will mount a CD or DVD, but not unmount it. Hadn't gotten
to the unmounting part yet.
== 8
# /etc/udev/rules.d/12-trial-dvd-automount.rules
# udisks-daemon must be running and polling /dev/sr0 for this to work
# Consider only internal DVD sr0
KERNEL!=sr0, GOTO=end
#ACTION==add, PROGRAM!=/sbin/blkid %N, GOTO=end
# import some useful filesystem info as variables
IMPORT{program}=/sbin/blkid -o udev -p %N
# Check FS type, get the label if present, otherwise assign one
ENV{ID_FS_TYPE}!=iso9660, GOTO=end
ENV{ID_FS_LABEL}!=, ENV{dir_name}=%E{ID_FS_LABEL}
ENV{ID_FS_LABEL}==, ENV{dir_name}=optical-%k
# create the dir in /media
#ACTION==add
RUN+=/bin/mkdir -p '/media/%E{dir_name}'
# Mount CD/DVD
RUN+=/bin/mount -t iso9660 /dev/%k '/media/%E{dir_name}'
# Exit Rule
LABEL=end
== 8 ===
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150413181004.4200c...@debian7.boseck208.net
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
On 4/13/2015 4:59 AM, Floris wrote: and I agree that the sentence You have to install all end-user applications later is incorrect. Even Iceweasel is a dependency of gnome-core. I didn't know that Mozilla is a part of gnome. Floris Epiphany is the Gnome web browser, apparently the Gnome devs just want you to call it 'web' now.:-\ https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Web Maybe the Debian devs didn't think people were drinking enough kool-aid for that, so opted for Fire Iceweasel instead. :-) Later, Seeker
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
On Mon 13 Apr 2015 at 12:00:52 -0500, David Wright wrote: Floris kindly found a possible reference which also seemed to me to be a likely candidate (the OP hasn't confirmed or otherwise). I looked at it with a critical eye and found some errors and ambiguities. However, I'm not a Gnome user, so I have no idea whether There are four options to install GNOME in Debian: is true, or whether there's, say, another option that most Gnome users now use, but no one has bothered to document. So the most I could do is set up an account just to write This list entry may mislead you on the page. You could do better than that :). It took half a minute to discover that the GNOME accessibility entry needs removing or the entry adjusted to reflect what version of Debian it applies to. Following the link is sufficient to see why. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/13042015182906.e0d58c2bc...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
On 2015-04-13 07:20, bri...@aracnet.com wrote: On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 18:55:54 -0700 Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 12 Apr 2015, Rodolfo Medina wrote: Of course, if you really want TOTAL control of your GUI, a window manager is the way to go. That's what I did. Installed Openbox. The same WM that LXDE uses. A little more work, but worth it. i'll second the use of openbox. i use it with fbpanel. i too believe that gnome just pulls in way too much stuff. the most inconvenient thing about not using gnome is not having a way to handle USS mass storage devices. Assuming you mean USB mass storage devices it can be solved by starting the window manager in a ConsoleKit session. I run Blackbox and my ~/.xinitrc ends with exec ck-launch-session dbus-launch blackbox In the file manager PCManFM mounting and unmounting USB devices works just fine. I run Debian Wheezy. -- August -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mgg001$48m$1...@speranza.aioe.org
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
Op Sun, 12 Apr 2015 21:14:47 +0200 schreef David Wright deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk: [I'm hoping this isn't a duplicate post, but my first attempt was rejected by bendel.debian.org as forged.] Quoting Rodolfo Medina (rodolfo.med...@gmail.com): According to documentations, gnome-core package is considered to be the very minimal gnome installation in Debian. But in my personal experience it is not so. Which documentation? Without seeing it, we can't tell whether the doc is well-worded or not. I think Rodolfo had read: https://wiki.debian.org/Gnome GNOME (core only) gnome-core package This is a minimalist GNOME installation (You have to install all end-user applications later). Above packages depend on this one. and I agree that the sentence You have to install all end-user applications later is incorrect. Even Iceweasel is a dependency of gnome-core. I didn't know that Mozilla is a part of gnome. Floris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/op.xw04x8kd5k9...@jessica.jkfloris.demon.nl
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015, bri...@aracnet.com wrote: On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 18:55:54 -0700 Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 12 Apr 2015, Rodolfo Medina wrote: Of course, if you really want TOTAL control of your GUI, a window manager is the way to go. That's what I did. Installed Openbox. The same WM that LXDE uses. A little more work, but worth it. i'll second the use of openbox. i use it with fbpanel. i too believe that gnome just pulls in way too much stuff. the most inconvenient thing about not using gnome is not having a way to handle USS mass storage devices. I wrote a generic udev rule for that. Of course, there are also mounting utilities that do the same thing. But I opted for the light-on-resources rule instead. B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150413073018.215ca...@debian7.boseck208.net
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
Op Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:33:20 +0200 schreef Steve McIntyre 93...@debian.org: On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 06:04:47PM +0200, Floris wrote: So the conclusion is that the information on wiki.debian.org/Gnome is unclear and sometimes incorrect. I've added debian-...@lists.debian.org. I understood they are the wiki maintainers. Not in terms of content, no. That's up to the whole community of developers and users to maintain. If you believe there are real bugs in the content of pages on wiki.d.o, feel free to create an account and fix them. I would like to create an account and edit the wiki, but unfortunately English isn't my native language and I know my grammar is very bad. Floris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/op.xw1h1lki5k9...@jessica.jkfloris.demon.nl
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
Quoting Steve McIntyre (93...@debian.org): On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 06:04:47PM +0200, Floris wrote: So the conclusion is that the information on wiki.debian.org/Gnome is unclear and sometimes incorrect. I've added debian-...@lists.debian.org. I understood they are the wiki maintainers. Not in terms of content, no. That's up to the whole community of developers and users to maintain. If you believe there are real bugs in the content of pages on wiki.d.o, feel free to create an account and fix them. True. But I'll just explain why I'll not be doing that myself. I made my original comment to ask for a reference to the documentation the OP had read (and point out why removing a package had no immediate consequences). (Frequently, OPs don't seem to think of posting error messages, specific symptoms, courses of action taken etc etc and these things have to be solicited from them before problems become tractable. On occasions it's like pulling teeth.) Floris kindly found a possible reference which also seemed to me to be a likely candidate (the OP hasn't confirmed or otherwise). I looked at it with a critical eye and found some errors and ambiguities. However, I'm not a Gnome user, so I have no idea whether There are four options to install GNOME in Debian: is true, or whether there's, say, another option that most Gnome users now use, but no one has bothered to document. So the most I could do is set up an account just to write This list entry may mislead you on the page. Sorry not to be more obliging. Cheers, David. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150413170052.gf7...@alum.home
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 06:04:47PM +0200, Floris wrote: So the conclusion is that the information on wiki.debian.org/Gnome is unclear and sometimes incorrect. I've added debian-...@lists.debian.org. I understood they are the wiki maintainers. Not in terms of content, no. That's up to the whole community of developers and users to maintain. If you believe there are real bugs in the content of pages on wiki.d.o, feel free to create an account and fix them. -- Steve McIntyre93...@debian.org Debian wiki admin - wiki.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150413163320.gb11...@einval.com
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
Op Mon, 13 Apr 2015 17:28:29 +0200 schreef David Wright deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk: Quoting Floris (jkflo...@dds.nl): Op Sun, 12 Apr 2015 21:14:47 +0200 schreef David Wright deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk: Quoting Rodolfo Medina (rodolfo.med...@gmail.com): According to documentations, gnome-core package is considered to be the very minimal gnome installation in Debian. But in my personal experience it is not so. Which documentation? Without seeing it, we can't tell whether the doc is well-worded or not. I think Rodolfo had read: https://wiki.debian.org/Gnome GNOME (core only) gnome-core package This is a minimalist GNOME installation (You have to install all end-user applications later). Above packages depend on this one. [note: your quoting method for this wikitext makes it appear that I wrote it.] [sorry] and I agree that the sentence You have to install all end-user applications later is incorrect. I think it's a case of Caveat Lector because this is a wiki page. There are four options to install GNOME in Debian: I'm counting five in the following list. GNOME (core only) gnome-core package This is a minimalist GNOME installation People are minimalists, installations can be minimal. This one obviously isn't the latter, and doesn't itself claim to be. (You have to install all end-user applications later). Even Iceweasel is a dependency of gnome-core. I didn't know that Mozilla is a part of gnome. ... so there's *one* end-user application already installed for a start. Above packages depend on this one. What does above mean? gnome-core appears not to depend on gnome-accessibility, the item immediately above it in the list. (Notwithstanding that gnome-accessibility is actually a package in squeeze, not wheezy.) Cheers, David. So the conclusion is that the information on wiki.debian.org/Gnome is unclear and sometimes incorrect. I've added debian-...@lists.debian.org. I understood they are the wiki maintainers. Floris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/op.xw1f99k45k9...@jessica.jkfloris.demon.nl
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
[I'm hoping this isn't a duplicate post, but my first attempt was rejected by bendel.debian.org as forged.] Quoting Patrick Bartek (nemomm...@gmail.com): On Sun, 12 Apr 2015, bri...@aracnet.com wrote: i'll second the use of openbox. i use it with fbpanel. i too believe that gnome just pulls in way too much stuff. the most inconvenient thing about not using gnome is not having a way to handle USS mass storage devices. I wrote a generic udev rule for that. Of course, there are also mounting utilities that do the same thing. But I opted for the light-on-resources rule instead. Care to share it? Cheers, David. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150413160858.gd7...@alum.home
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
Quoting Floris (jkflo...@dds.nl): Op Sun, 12 Apr 2015 21:14:47 +0200 schreef David Wright deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk: Quoting Rodolfo Medina (rodolfo.med...@gmail.com): According to documentations, gnome-core package is considered to be the very minimal gnome installation in Debian. But in my personal experience it is not so. Which documentation? Without seeing it, we can't tell whether the doc is well-worded or not. I think Rodolfo had read: https://wiki.debian.org/Gnome GNOME (core only) gnome-core package This is a minimalist GNOME installation (You have to install all end-user applications later). Above packages depend on this one. [note: your quoting method for this wikitext makes it appear that I wrote it.] and I agree that the sentence You have to install all end-user applications later is incorrect. I think it's a case of Caveat Lector because this is a wiki page. There are four options to install GNOME in Debian: I'm counting five in the following list. GNOME (core only) gnome-core package This is a minimalist GNOME installation People are minimalists, installations can be minimal. This one obviously isn't the latter, and doesn't itself claim to be. (You have to install all end-user applications later). Even Iceweasel is a dependency of gnome-core. I didn't know that Mozilla is a part of gnome. ... so there's *one* end-user application already installed for a start. Above packages depend on this one. What does above mean? gnome-core appears not to depend on gnome-accessibility, the item immediately above it in the list. (Notwithstanding that gnome-accessibility is actually a package in squeeze, not wheezy.) Cheers, David. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150413152829.gb7...@alum.home
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
bri...@aracnet.com writes: the most inconvenient thing about not using gnome is not having a way to handle USS mass storage devices. Perhaps pmount or autofs might be of use ? Alexis. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87sic461jd@gmail.com
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015, Rodolfo Medina wrote: Hi all. According to documentations, gnome-core package is considered to be the very minimal gnome installation in Debian. But in my personal experience it is not so. Just after installing Debian, I installed gnome-core just to have the minimal gnome installation. Then I noticed that totem, the video player, was also installed even though I hadn't. Since I use mplayer, I did `aptitude purge totem' and was surprised to see that gnome-core depended on totem, so that removing totem would also remove gnome-core. I did so, and now gnome desktop environment, even without gnome-core package, seems to work well. So I ask to myself what gnome minimal install should really be. I have Sid. Thanks for any help, Obviously, you've realized (or soon will) that GNOME's idea of a minimal install and your's (or mine) are diametrically different. You'll never get what you want. I know. I've tried. GNOME's parts are too integrated, too dependent on each other. That's one of the reasons I've abandoned it entirely. I like compact, light, fast systems. GNOME, once a reasonably lightweight desktop, has now become a leviathan. I suggest you look at LXDE. It's lightweight and very modular, and designed to easily choose what you do and don't want installed. lxde-common is what you install first. It only has one dependency lxsession. It's NOT a metapackage. LXDE does have one, if you just want a working desktop with little effort. It's called -- what else? -- lxde-core. Of course, if you really want TOTAL control of your GUI, a window manager is the way to go. That's what I did. Installed Openbox. The same WM that LXDE uses. A little more work, but worth it. B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150412185554.47222...@debian7.boseck208.net
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 18:55:54 -0700 Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 12 Apr 2015, Rodolfo Medina wrote: Of course, if you really want TOTAL control of your GUI, a window manager is the way to go. That's what I did. Installed Openbox. The same WM that LXDE uses. A little more work, but worth it. i'll second the use of openbox. i use it with fbpanel. i too believe that gnome just pulls in way too much stuff. the most inconvenient thing about not using gnome is not having a way to handle USS mass storage devices. Brian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150412220953.7c135...@cedar.deldotd.com
Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
Hi all. According to documentations, gnome-core package is considered to be the very minimal gnome installation in Debian. But in my personal experience it is not so. Just after installing Debian, I installed gnome-core just to have the minimal gnome installation. Then I noticed that totem, the video player, was also installed even though I hadn't. Since I use mplayer, I did `aptitude purge totem' and was surprised to see that gnome-core depended on totem, so that removing totem would also remove gnome-core. I did so, and now gnome desktop environment, even without gnome-core package, seems to work well. So I ask to myself what gnome minimal install should really be. I have Sid. Thanks for any help, Rodolfo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87lhhxp5u0@gmail.com
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 18:19:35 + Rodolfo Medina rodolfo.med...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all. According to documentations, gnome-core package is considered to be the very minimal gnome installation in Debian. But in my personal experience it is not so. Just after installing Debian, I installed gnome-core just to have the minimal gnome installation. Then I noticed that totem, the video player, was also installed even though I hadn't. Since I use mplayer, I did `aptitude purge totem' and was surprised to see that gnome-core depended on totem, so that removing totem would also remove gnome-core. I did so, and now gnome desktop environment, even without gnome-core package, seems to work well. So I ask to myself what gnome minimal install should really be. I have Sid. I think the answer to that depends on how long your piece of string is. What do you mean by 'gnome'? The bit you see is gnome-shell, which depends on themes and backgrounds and a large number of libraries. But gnome, the desktop environment, also contains a recommended file manager, image viewer, sound and vision player, and so on. All of these are integrated better than the non-gnome equivalents. Are they part of a minimal gnome? Your call. The gnome-core which you have removed is a metapackage i.e. it contains no code but exists to bring in the set of components which the gnome developers consider to be a minimal gnome. Once installed, along with the dependencies, it is redundant and can be removed without affecting anything current. But an auto-remove will now see the dependencies of gnome-core as not having been manually installed nor being needed, so you had better not use that facility in future. Also, if the gnome architecture changes in future, without gnome-core being present to be upgraded, your system will not bring in any new dependent components. But you have already differed from the gnome developers in the matter of totem, and there may be other dependencies of gnome-core which you wish to remove. I left gnome behind when it went to version 3, but there are still a few gnome components I use, and I have just installed them individually. Therefore I don't have gnome-core or many other components. You can take this approach: don't install gnome at all, just the components you want, and they will bring only their required dependencies. I suspect gnome-shell will bring in a very large number, but not including totem and perhaps others you don't need. The disadvantage of this approach is that for maybe a year you will look for something and not find it, and need to install it individually. Taking the core metapackage means that most of what you're likely to need will already be present. Hard drives are sized for Windows (at least a 50GB installation these days), and any drive you have bought in the last few years will be large enough that a couple of gigabytes of rarely-used stuff will not be an inconvenience. There is also the philosophy that you can't have too many image viewers or sound and video players or web browsers. Two days ago I found an audio file which vlc (my default player) wouldn't play, nor would mplayer, but kaffeine would. I don't actually have totem installed, I recall a significant disagreement with it a year or two ago, which is probably no longer relevant, but I haven't reinstalled it. I might when I find a file that neither vlc, mplayer nor kaffeine will play... -- Joe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150412202057.036ab...@jresid.jretrading.com
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
On 4/12/2015 11:19 AM, Rodolfo Medina wrote: Hi all. According to documentations, gnome-core package is considered to be the very minimal gnome installation in Debian. But in my personal experience it is not so. Just after installing Debian, I installed gnome-core just to have the minimal gnome installation. Then I noticed that totem, the video player, was also installed even though I hadn't. Since I use mplayer, I did `aptitude purge totem' and was surprised to see that gnome-core depended on totem, so that removing totem would also remove gnome-core. I did so, and now gnome desktop environment, even without gnome-core package, seems to work well. So I ask to myself what gnome minimal install should really be. I have Sid. Thanks for any help, Rodolfo That wording doesn't really compute in my brain, but I guess you could take it that if it is the only package that provides 'a' minimal install in Debian that would make it 'the' minimal install of Gnome in Debian. The package description doesn't say minimal or minimum it says... It contains the official “core” modules of the GNOME desktop. In the context of being a metapackage to install the gnome desktop I would expect many people would consider applications to view/play images, documents, and media to be likely candidates of a minimal install. A messaging application seems like a less likely application, but that goes back to what the Gnome developers consider core. Later, Seeker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/552ac621.8020...@comcast.net
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
[I'm hoping this isn't a duplicate post, but my first attempt was rejected by bendel.debian.org as forged.] Quoting Rodolfo Medina (rodolfo.med...@gmail.com): According to documentations, gnome-core package is considered to be the very minimal gnome installation in Debian. But in my personal experience it is not so. Which documentation? Without seeing it, we can't tell whether the doc is well-worded or not. Just after installing Debian, I installed gnome-core just to have the minimal gnome installation. Then I noticed that totem, the video player, was also installed even though I hadn't. Since I use mplayer, I did `aptitude purge totem' and was surprised to see that gnome-core depended on totem, so that removing totem would also remove gnome-core. I did so, and now gnome desktop environment, even without gnome-core package, seems to work well. So I ask to myself what gnome minimal install should really be. I have Sid. gnome-core is a metapackage, so all it does is pull in all the packages that depend on it. Looking at that list, that seems to give you a selection of software that covers what one might expect to see in a desktop environment. Removing it should cause no problems at all. It contains three files: /usr/share/bug/gnome-core/presubj /usr/share/doc/gnome-core/changelog.gz /usr/share/doc/gnome-core/copyright The first documents how to file a bug against gnome when you don't know which component is the cause. Of relevance here is the last paragraph: If you don’t like one of the packages that are depended upon and prefer that we drop the dependency or depend on another one that is not related to GNOME, please don’t bother filing the bug. Metapackages are not a supermarket. We try to make a selection that is suitable for most people; if you don’t like it, you are welcome to make your own. Cheers, David. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150412191447.gb12...@alum.home
Re: Is gnome-core *really* the gnome minimal install?
On 04/12/2015 02:19 PM, Rodolfo Medina wrote: Hi all. According to documentations, gnome-core package is considered to be the very minimal gnome installation in Debian. But in my personal experience it is not so. Just after installing Debian, I installed gnome-core just to have the minimal gnome installation. Then I noticed that totem, the video player, was also installed even though I hadn't. Since I use mplayer, I did `aptitude purge totem' and was surprised to see that gnome-core depended on totem, so that removing totem would also remove gnome-core. I did so, and now gnome desktop environment, even without gnome-core package, seems to work well. So I ask to myself what gnome minimal install should really be. I have Sid. Gnome loves to pull in Evolution as well. I would think that a choice of email client would be left to the user. Since I can't have one without the other, I pushed the red button and now have neither. :) Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome. R.I.P. Dad. http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/552aceb0.2090...@gmail.com
Re: How do I configure debootstrap from within the businesscard cd? (Ultra minimal install)
Andrew Sackville-West wrote: On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 07:05:25PM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote: something like: boot computer with live cd go to a terminal partition the hdd format the hdd mount the root hdd partition as /mnt use 'debootstrap .' to download the packages you want chroot to /mnt add kernel and grub use grub-update exit reboot to grub (untested outline) I can confirm that this procedure works, though there may be some details missing. you may have to mount proc inside the chroot before the actual chroot. I've done it a couple times but kept no notes (bad Andrew). Thanks Andrew, my question was how to trim the base installation. I think I have a track on how to do this with debootstrap. I only wonder if there is a way to do that with the businesscard cd. I'll forward my post to debian-boot, but I don't expect much as that list is mainly for announcements but I have nothing to lose. -- Ottavio Caruso I will not purchase any computing equipment from manufacturers that recommend Windows Vista or any other Microsoft® products. http://www.pledgebank.com/boycottvista Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How do I configure debootstrap from within the businesscard cd? (Ultra minimal install)
--- Ottavio Caruso wrote: [Initially posted on alt.os.linux.debian, no replies.} I believe that one can trim down a standard debootstrap installation (currently 180MB for sarge and over 230 MB for etch) hacking one of the related scripts (eg: usr/lib/debootstrap/scripts/sarge) and modifying the 'base' variable, e.g.: base=adduser apt apt-utils libdb4.2 at [... snip ...] As the debian-installer uses debootstrap, I have booted the business card install cd and started a shell but couldn't find debootstrap or any related scripts. But debootstrap-udeb has definitely such scripts. Where are they, and how can I access them? I know I could trim the installation later with deborphan or aptitude, but it wouldn't be fun. Any help appreciated. At least could anybody tell me where to ask this question? Debian-devel, debian-boot? Debian-administration? -- Ottavio Caruso I will not purchase any computing equipment from manufacturers that recommend Windows Vista or any other Microsoft® products. http://www.pledgebank.com/boycottvista Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How do I configure debootstrap from within the businesscard cd? (Ultra minimal install)
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 06:22:01AM -0800, Ottavio Caruso wrote: At least could anybody tell me where to ask this question? Debian-devel, debian-boot? Debian-administration? maybe the debian installer list, if such a thing exists (and it probably does). A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How do I configure debootstrap from within the businesscard cd? (Ultra minimal install)
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 06:22:01AM -0800, Ottavio Caruso wrote: --- Ottavio Caruso wrote: [Initially posted on alt.os.linux.debian, no replies.} I believe that one can trim down a standard debootstrap installation (currently 180MB for sarge and over 230 MB for etch) hacking one of the related scripts (eg: usr/lib/debootstrap/scripts/sarge) and modifying the 'base' variable, e.g.: base=adduser apt apt-utils libdb4.2 at [... snip ...] As the debian-installer uses debootstrap, I have booted the business card install cd and started a shell but couldn't find debootstrap or any related scripts. But debootstrap-udeb has definitely such scripts. Where are they, and how can I access them? I know I could trim the installation later with deborphan or aptitude, but it wouldn't be fun. Any help appreciated. At least could anybody tell me where to ask this question? Debian-devel, debian-boot? Debian-administration? Hi Ottavio, from my understanding, there exists a live cd with debootstrap (maybe knoppix?) that can be used to boot a computer. Once it is booted, you can then use debootstrap anyway you want. something like: boot computer with live cd go to a terminal partition the hdd format the hdd mount the root hdd partition as /mnt use 'debootstrap .' to download the packages you want chroot to /mnt add kernel and grub use grub-update exit reboot to grub (untested outline) -Kev -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: | | : :' : The Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com | | `. `' Operating System| go to counter.li.org and | | `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656 | | my keysever: pgp.mit.edu | my NPO: cfsg.org | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: How do I configure debootstrap from within the businesscard cd? (Ultra minimal install)
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 07:05:25PM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote: something like: boot computer with live cd go to a terminal partition the hdd format the hdd mount the root hdd partition as /mnt use 'debootstrap .' to download the packages you want chroot to /mnt add kernel and grub use grub-update exit reboot to grub (untested outline) I can confirm that this procedure works, though there may be some details missing. you may have to mount proc inside the chroot before the actual chroot. I've done it a couple times but kept no notes (bad Andrew). A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
How do I configure debootstrap from within the businesscard cd? (Ultra minimal install)
[Initially posted on alt.os.linux.debian, no replies.} I believe that one can trim down a standard debootstrap installation (currently 180MB for sarge and over 230 MB for etch) hacking one of the related scripts (eg: usr/lib/debootstrap/scripts/sarge) and modifying the 'base' variable, e.g.: base=adduser apt apt-utils libdb4.2 at [... snip ...] As the debian-installer uses debootstrap, I have booted the business card install cd and started a shell but couldn't find debootstrap or any related scripts. But debootstrap-udeb has definitely such scripts. Where are they, and how can I access them? I know I could trim the installation later with deborphan or aptitude, but it wouldn't be fun. Any help appreciated. Ottavio Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
minimal install / debootstrap
Bonjour, j'aimerais savoir ce que s'installe comme packages avec debootstrap. Il me faut le stricte minimum, doit servir de template pour vserver. Quelqu'un a de l'info la-dessus ? mess-mate -- Troubled day for virgins over 16 who are beautiful and wealthy and live in eucalyptus trees. -- Pensez à lire la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.net/?DebianFrench Pensez à rajouter le mot ``spam'' dans vos champs From et Reply-To: To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: minimal install / debootstrap
On 17:54, Tue 23 Aug 05, mess-mate wrote: Bonjour, j'aimerais savoir ce que s'installe comme packages avec debootstrap. Il me faut le stricte minimum, doit servir de template pour vserver. Quelqu'un a de l'info la-dessus ? debootstrap est un script shell, tu pourras regarder et comprendre assez facilement comment il fonctionne. Prenons par exemple le cas où tu veuilles installer sarge sur ton vserver, alors regarde le fichier sarge dans les scripts, on trouve : base=adduser apt apt-utils libdb4.2 at base-config aptitude libsigc++-1.2-5c102 bsdmainutils console-common console-tools libconsole console-data cpio cron dhcp-client ed exim4 exim4-base exim4-config exim4-daemon-light libgcrypt11 libgnutls11 libgpg-error0 libopencdk8 libtasn1-2 fdutils gettext-base groff-base ifupdown info klogd libssl0.9.7 liblzo1 zlib1g liblockfile1 libpcre3 libwrap0 logrotate mailx man-db libgdbm3 manpages nano net-tools netbase netkit-inetd iputils-ping nvi ppp pppconfig pppoe pppoeconf libpcap0.7 sysklogd tasksel libtextwrap1 tcpd telnet libtext-iconv-perl wget $additional Il y a aussi les required, ceux dont tu ne pourras pas normalement te passer. Comme tu le vois à la fin de base il y a $additional, variable dans laquelle tu pourras mettre les packages dont tu as besoin spécifiquement pour ton template. Hope this helps. -- Pensez à lire la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.net/?DebianFrench Pensez à rajouter le mot ``spam'' dans vos champs From et Reply-To: To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minimal Install
I'm trying to do a minimal install of Debian 2.1. I'd like to squeeze it into 30 MB of disk space or so for use on a 40 MB disk. This system would need to have only very basic functionality and would be used as a basic router, so would need the IP stack, PPP and a couple of Ethernet drivers, etc. I'm aware of the Linux Router Project, but the docs for that are pretty lacking. To use it I would have to modify some things to have it run off a hard disk, etc. Before I dived into the contents of the LRP distribution I thought I'd experiment with standard Debian (as it is much more familiar to me). So far I've gotten things down to just under 50 MB of disk used and there doesn't seem to be anything else to remove. I was thinking that I could do much better with dselect, but that assumption may be wrong. I was going to start removing required packages, but dselect really discourages one from doing that. So, I wondered if anyone on the list had any experiences doing this. Thanks...
Re: Minimal Install
On Thu, 6 Mar 1997, Mike Patterson wrote: The problem is that I'm trying to do a debian install in less than 100 megs. Of course this means forgoing things like X, etc... But every time I go through dselect and choose packages to remove, it refuses to comply! Instead, it complains about failed dependancies, etc, that are listed as ok. Does anyone know the magical combinations of packages to start out with a simple system that I can add onto as I need to? As a side note, here's what I wante this machine to eventually do (in order): * Be mountable by my other Linux boxes * Act as an IPX router (needed for next requirement?) * Have some directories mountable (shared) by my Win95 boxes * Act as a print server (using a local printer) * Allow dial-in PPP/IPX (Win95) I have just finishing installing Debian on a 386 with 4 megs of ram and an 80 meg hard drive which is partitioned as 60 for Linux and 20 for swap space. My installation took up about 40 megs and it is very close to what you require. All you need to do is get rid of dselect. Just get the installation floppies and install those. Then download the packages you need. There is one caveat: I don't think the default Debian kernel comes with NFS enabled so you'll have to recompile to kernel. (I don't know about IPX.) At any rate, you should recompile to get the exact kernel you need. The long and short of it is that your probably not going to have enough space to compile a new kernel on the 100 meg hard drive. I didn't. So, what I did was just use a different computer to compile a kernel then put the kernel on the small computer via sneaker-net. Paul Serice
Minimal Install
I came up with an interesting challenge for myself the other day... Unfortunately, I can't even seem to get past square 1. I have a spare system sitting aroud doing nothing, so I thought it might be a good idea to put this guy to work as a fileserver/printserver. So far, so good, right? The problem is that I'm trying to do a debian install in less than 100 megs. Of course this means forgoing things like X, etc... But every time I go through dselect and choose packages to remove, it refuses to comply! Instead, it complains about failed dependancies, etc, that are listed as ok. Does anyone know the magical combinations of packages to start out with a simple system that I can add onto as I need to? As a side note, here's what I wante this machine to eventually do (in order): * Be mountable by my other Linux boxes * Act as an IPX router (needed for next requirement?) * Have some directories mountable (shared) by my Win95 boxes * Act as a print server (using a local printer) * Allow dial-in PPP/IPX (Win95) As you can see, this means that I don't need many of the packages, and that I need to get rid of some if I'm going to be sucessful in getting this in under 100megs. Any ideas? Thanks for any responses. --=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-- Michael K Patterson, HP Software Engineer My opinions do not represent those of HP. If they do, it's coincidence. -
Re: Minimal Install
Mike == Mike Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mike The problem is that I'm trying to do a debian install in Mike less than 100 megs. Of course this means forgoing things Mike like X, etc... But every time I go through dselect and Mike choose packages to remove, it refuses to comply! As I recall dselect will, by default, select all important and standard packages for installation. You should start off by deselecting all these packages by pressing - at the lines - New Important packages - and - New Standard packages -- That ought to be possible, as the simple base system is, itself, complete. The carefully build up what you really do need. I've done a debain install onto a 120MB disk, with 30MB swap, so I only had 90MB of space (70MB / and 20MB /var) (/usr, /home were to be mounted NFS). First time I selected too many files, ran out of disk space and dselect broke down badly. I had to restart from scratch, but the second time I selected even less files and everything worked fine. It certainly should be possible to do. 100MB is a respectable amount of space! Hope that helps, Graeme -- | Graeme A Stewart, pgp public key finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | Key fingerprint = AF C7 BF A4 52 D5 3C 3B 17 A5 62 43 DA 15 E8 97 | | Keep a good head, and always carry a lightbulb. Dylan | Received: (qmail 26108 invoked by uid 888); 6 Mar 1997 17:59:43 - Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 26098 invoked from network); 6 Mar 1997 17:59:40 - Received: from speech.braille.uwo.ca (HELO braille) (129.100.109.30) by master.debian.org with SMTP; 6 Mar 1997 17:59:39 - Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 12:51:11 -0500 (EST) From: Paul McDermott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: unsubscribe Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII unsubsribe
Re: Minimal Install
On Thu, 6 Mar 1997, Mike Patterson wrote: I came up with an interesting challenge for myself the other day... Unfortunately, I can't even seem to get past square 1. I have a spare system sitting aroud doing nothing, so I thought it might be a good idea to put this guy to work as a fileserver/printserver. So far, so good, right? The problem is that I'm trying to do a debian install in less than 100 megs. Of course this means forgoing things like X, etc... But every time I go through dselect and choose packages to remove, it refuses to comply! Instead, it complains about failed dependancies, etc, that are listed as ok. Does anyone know the magical combinations of packages to start out with a simple system that I can add onto as I need to? As a side note, here's what I wante this machine to eventually do (in order): * Be mountable by my other Linux boxes * Act as an IPX router (needed for next requirement?) * Have some directories mountable (shared) by my Win95 boxes * Act as a print server (using a local printer) * Allow dial-in PPP/IPX (Win95) As you can see, this means that I don't need many of the packages, and that I need to get rid of some if I'm going to be sucessful in getting this in under 100megs. Any ideas? Start with the Base System and install the packages you need by hand using dpkg instead of dselect. You can do the job with dselect, but I'm not the expert to lead you through it. In general the tact is to us 'H' to put all packages on hold and then go unhold the ones you want. You will still need to wade through dependency screens unless you have checked everthing out before hand and selected the dependent packages first. I typically decide I need a package, use 'dpkg -i' to install it and look at the error messages to see what packages I need to install before this one will. Follow the dependency trail, installing needed packages and eventually you get the install of the package you want to work. At this point, if the maintainers have done their job correctly, the package you want will, not only install, but perform in a reasonable manner after installation. Always read the description and look at the recommends and suggests, as they may impact your particular use of the package. As to the packages you want; I can only speak to the win95 problem, which I believe is resolved by using samba, the netstd and netbase and ppp packages should also be installed in their fullness (pieces of these packages are provide on the base disks) to give you the network access you need. There is the possibility that you may need to create a custom kernel to satisfy some of your needs.(ipx) I build a custom system who's sole task was providing for the compilation of a special kernel. Without the kernel source (approx 26 meg) this system came in at around 40 meg. The standard packages, when installed, take up just short of 100 meg (around 97 meg), so, if you are careful about what frills you install, you should be able to build what you want in your available space. Luck, Dwarf -- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 If you don't see what you want, just ask --
Re: Minimal Install
On Thu, 6 Mar 1997, Mike Patterson wrote: The problem is that I'm trying to do a debian install in less than 100 megs. Of course this means forgoing things like X, etc... But every time I go through dselect and choose packages to remove, it refuses to comply! Instead, it complains about failed dependancies, etc, that are listed as ok. Does anyone know the magical combinations of packages to start out with a simple system that I can add onto as I need to? I've installed debian on a 54 Meg hard drive with 10 megs of swap, all you have to do is make sure that the first time you run dselect you unselect everything it wants to add to your system then add only what you need. Also if you're lucky (like I was) you can get away with not installing perl, but leaving perl-base which will work for many things, that saved me 3 megs and made the entire thing possible ; In 54 megs I got diald, ppp and a good portion of the documentation/man pages. You will likely not want to use IPX, use samba and TCP/IP instead. Jason
RE: X11 and LaTeX minimal install
SNAP ON -- From: salwen[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 1996 1:23 AM To: billy.chow Cc: debian-user Subject: Re: X11 and LaTeX minimal install A minimal X (and LaTeX) installation requires several debian packages, but most people either do not want X or want at least a minimal installation, right? So what are the justifications of splitting a minimal X and LaTeX the way it is? The developers may have their own reasons for breaking up the packages but I can suggest a couple. If people are pulling the packages over a phone line there is an advantage to limitting the size of individual packages. That way they can hang up the phone periodically. Also, if a bug shows up that needs to be fixed they only have to download the package that is broken. Nathan SNAP OFF And what about Floppy Installation like myself ! I can install most of the debian package with single floppy (1.44M although :) and only have to split few ones... It can be a good thing if you can set a more pratical multiple floppy installation scheme for those who needs space to install... But I think you already discuss about it! :)
X11 and LaTeX minimal install
Dear debianers, A minimal X (and LaTeX) installation requires several debian packages, but most people either do not want X or want at least a minimal installation, right? So what are the justifications of splitting a minimal X and LaTeX the way it is? Thanks. -- Billy C.-M. Chow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian Linux
Re: X11 and LaTeX minimal install
A minimal X (and LaTeX) installation requires several debian packages, but most people either do not want X or want at least a minimal installation, right? So what are the justifications of splitting a minimal X and LaTeX the way it is? The developers may have their own reasons for breaking up the packages but I can suggest a couple. If people are pulling the packages over a phone line there is an advantage to limitting the size of individual packages. That way they can hang up the phone periodically. Also, if a bug shows up that needs to be fixed they only have to download the package that is broken. Nathan
Re: X11 and LaTeX minimal install
If people are pulling the packages over a phone line there is an advantage to limitting the size of individual packages. That way they can hang up the phone periodically. Also, if a bug shows up that needs to be fixed they only have to download the package that is broken. There is a plan to split all packages in parts of 460k if they are 460k or bigger. However the installation tools aren't supporting this yet. Erick
re: X11 and LaTeX minimal install
Different people maintain different packages. One of the main strengths of debian is that there is an expert who is in control of a package. A minimal X installation is quite large. It would be very unfair to expect someone(who donates their time) to be able to maintain such complex programs as xdm, fvwm, and and several xservers all at once. -Josh Stockwell A minimal X (and LaTeX) installation requires several debian packages, but most people either do not want X or want at least a minimal installation, right? So what are the justifications of splitting a minimal X and LaTeX the way it is? Thanks. Billy C.-M. Chow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian Linux
