Re: Differences between installs (was: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?])
On 2018-07-18, Stefan Monnier wrote: >>> I'm of the opinion we're all running different machines with >>> different sets of software, and this explains that (could be wrong, >>> though). >> I was just -so- sure we all had the exact same installs. > > All joking aside: I've been maintaining about 4-5 Debian machines, all > using Debian testing and basically all obtained by cloning and updating > between them, hence all deriving from my "root" install performed some > time around 2003 (onto a Thinkpad X30 which I still use, still using > that same Debian testing). > > While most "apt upgrade" are somewhat similar among those machines, I'm > surprised at how often I notice significant differences. > It's the butterfly effect. -- At first I started back, unable to believe that it was indeed I who was reflected in the mirror; and when I became fully convinced that I was in reality the monster that I am, I was filled with the bitterest sensations of despondence and mortification.--Mary Shelley, Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus
Differences between installs (was: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?])
>> I'm of the opinion we're all running different machines with >> different sets of software, and this explains that (could be wrong, >> though). > I was just -so- sure we all had the exact same installs. All joking aside: I've been maintaining about 4-5 Debian machines, all using Debian testing and basically all obtained by cloning and updating between them, hence all deriving from my "root" install performed some time around 2003 (onto a Thinkpad X30 which I still use, still using that same Debian testing). While most "apt upgrade" are somewhat similar among those machines, I'm surprised at how often I notice significant differences. Stefan
Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?]
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:00:15PM +0300, Reco wrote: LSB was more than that. It was a set of standards declaring what you can find in your typical GNU/Linux system. LSB was always somewhat controversial when one tried to apply it to any non-rpm distribution (LSB mandated rpm as package manager), personal tastes (LSB mandated both Qt and GTK+ installed) or a common sense (not every server needs CUPS contrary to what they think). What's true - one does not need LSB if one writes free software. LSB was designed for all those proprietary software vendors in mind. It also never worked, so it was never used, which meant it was really hard to convince people to spend effort to be compatible with something that had no real benefit. Mike Stone
Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?]
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 05:58:20PM +, Curt wrote: > I'm of the opinion we're all running different machines with different sets of > software, and this explains that (could be wrong, though). I was just -so- sure we all had the exact same installs. ;D
Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?]
On 2018-07-16, Richard Owlett wrote: >> >> In this particular case the result of 'aptitude why' is misleading, to >> say the least: >> >> $ aptitude why speech-dispatcher >> i grub2Depends grub-common (= 2.02~beta3-5) >> i A grub-common Suggests desktop-base (>= 4.0.6) >> i A desktop-base Suggests gnome | kde-standard | xfce4 | wmaker >> p gnomeDepends gnome-orca (>= 3.22) >> p gnome-orca Depends speech-dispatcher (>= 0.8) > > I get a list in a different format: I would say your format is the same, but your output is somewhat different. >> richard@debian-jan13:~$ aptitude why speech-dispatcher >> i task-mate-desktop Recommends gnome-orca >> i A gnome-orcaDependsspeech-dispatcher (>= 0.8) curty@einstein:~$ aptitude why speech-dispatcher i gdm3 Suggests gnome-orca i A gnome-orca Depends speech-dispatcher (>= 0.8) > Can you suggest why? > I'm running the i386 flavor of Debian 9. > I'm of the opinion we're all running different machines with different sets of software, and this explains that (could be wrong, though). > -- The superintendent and the gang bosses all turned out with revolvers in black holsters strapped around their waists and one of them made a speech in English and another one Sicilian saying that this was a squareshooting concern that had always treated laborers square and if they didn’t like it they could get the hell out. --John Dos Passos, 1919 (second book of U.S.A. trilogy)
Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?]
On 07/16/2018 08:12 AM, Reco wrote: Hi. On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 02:43:18PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 07:08:34AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: [...] But it sheds light on this thread's original subject line. It listed several packages [e.g. speech-dispatcher] for which I have no apparent need. It will be educational to search out why they were installed. [...] I like "aptitude why" for this. In this particular case the result of 'aptitude why' is misleading, to say the least: $ aptitude why speech-dispatcher i grub2Depends grub-common (= 2.02~beta3-5) i A grub-common Suggests desktop-base (>= 4.0.6) i A desktop-base Suggests gnome | kde-standard | xfce4 | wmaker p gnomeDepends gnome-orca (>= 3.22) p gnome-orca Depends speech-dispatcher (>= 0.8) I get a list in a different format: richard@debian-jan13:~$ aptitude why speech-dispatcher i task-mate-desktop Recommends gnome-orca i A gnome-orcaDependsspeech-dispatcher (>= 0.8) Can you suggest why? I'm running the i386 flavor of Debian 9.
Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?]
On Mon 16 Jul 2018 at 07:15:25 -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 07/16/2018 05:14 AM, Darac Marjal wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:57:32AM +0900, John Crawley wrote: > > > On 2018-07-16 04:33, Richard Owlett wrote: > > > > Can I a Debian user opt to not install "LSB" without ill effects? > > > > > > Some ...er, many Debian packages depend on lsb-base. > > > 'apt-cache rdepends lsb-base' for a long list. > > > > Yes, but in that case installing one of those packages will install > > lsb-base automatically. Personally, I don't see any reason for the > > average user to /manually/ install any part of LSB. > > That raises a general question of installer priorities - is it installed by > default. I need to go re-read installer documentation. Reading the output of apt show lsb-base is sufficient to answer your question. -- Brian.
Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?]
Hi. On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 02:43:18PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 07:08:34AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > > [...] > > > But it sheds light on this thread's original subject line. > > It listed several packages [e.g. speech-dispatcher] for which I have > > no apparent need. It will be educational to search out why they were > > installed. [...] > > I like "aptitude why" for this. In this particular case the result of 'aptitude why' is misleading, to say the least: $ aptitude why speech-dispatcher i grub2Depends grub-common (= 2.02~beta3-5) i A grub-common Suggests desktop-base (>= 4.0.6) i A desktop-base Suggests gnome | kde-standard | xfce4 | wmaker p gnomeDepends gnome-orca (>= 3.22) p gnome-orca Depends speech-dispatcher (>= 0.8) Reco
Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?]
On 07/16/2018 07:43 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 07:08:34AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: [...] But it sheds light on this thread's original subject line. It listed several packages [e.g. speech-dispatcher] for which I have no apparent need. It will be educational to search out why they were installed. [...] I like "aptitude why" for this. Educational <*GRIN*> It was, for me, an inappropriate "recommends" of a package I do use. The system I'm currently using is intentionally obese. However it is a useful data point for my for my "extremely minimalist Debian" project. Thank you.
Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 07:08:34AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: [...] > But it sheds light on this thread's original subject line. > It listed several packages [e.g. speech-dispatcher] for which I have > no apparent need. It will be educational to search out why they were > installed. [...] I like "aptitude why" for this. Cheers - -- tomás -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAltMkuYACgkQBcgs9XrR2kakIgCeNaIQXisR4yLa4RNkS7QrIzR6 umAAn3Z2v7sEoMaONVhp4mFIopj3gz58 =jd0o -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?]
On 07/16/2018 05:14 AM, Darac Marjal wrote: On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:57:32AM +0900, John Crawley wrote: On 2018-07-16 04:33, Richard Owlett wrote: Can I a Debian user opt to not install "LSB" without ill effects? Some ...er, many Debian packages depend on lsb-base. 'apt-cache rdepends lsb-base' for a long list. Yes, but in that case installing one of those packages will install lsb-base automatically. Personally, I don't see any reason for the average user to /manually/ install any part of LSB. That raises a general question of installer priorities - is it installed by default. I need to go re-read installer documentation. When I did 'apt-cache --installed rdepends lsb-base' it showed packages which I explicitly use on a daily basis.
Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?]
On 07/15/2018 08:57 PM, John Crawley wrote:
On 2018-07-16 04:33, Richard Owlett wrote:
Can I a Debian user opt to not install "LSB" without ill effects?
Some ...er, many Debian packages depend on lsb-base.
'apt-cache rdepends lsb-base' for a long list.
Interesting.
But it answers too broad a question - it refers to the universe of
Debian packages. [~840 hits on my machine]
A more informative {for my purposes} is:
'apt-cache --installed rdepends lsb-base'
It refers to my galaxy of Debian packages. [~40 hits on my machine]
But it sheds light on this thread's original subject line.
It listed several packages [e.g. speech-dispatcher] for which I have no
apparent need. It will be educational to search out why they were
installed. I have an ongoing educational project of creating an
extremely minimalist Debian subset which would my ADL requirements. {If
you are a physical therapist I mean that ADL ;}
Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?]
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:57:32AM +0900, John Crawley wrote: On 2018-07-16 04:33, Richard Owlett wrote: Can I a Debian user opt to not install "LSB" without ill effects? Some ...er, many Debian packages depend on lsb-base. 'apt-cache rdepends lsb-base' for a long list. Yes, but in that case installing one of those packages will install lsb-base automatically. Personally, I don't see any reason for the average user to /manually/ install any part of LSB. -- For more information, please reread. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?]
On 2018-07-16 04:33, Richard Owlett wrote: Can I a Debian user opt to not install "LSB" without ill effects? Some ...er, many Debian packages depend on lsb-base. 'apt-cache rdepends lsb-base' for a long list. -- John
Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 02:33:02PM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: [...] > Is it of any use to Debian _users_ who *ONLY* use official Debian > repositories? It is useful for someone who wants to write a program which shall run on an LSB-compliant system. The _users_ profit from that because writing programs for them becomes easier. So yes. Cheers - -- t -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAltLtLUACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYxxgCeN+HX+9fTmDCpeyfjqiCVPkuF bjkAn1rkzITSjwHT5JSCFAiK2N6ull1G =yWFL -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?]
Hi. On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 02:33:02PM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > > > What is your suggestion here? Apply the patch I provided (or maybe a > > > better one), or get rid of lsb-base completely? > > > > Aim to ditch lsb-base in the long run. > > For here and now I'd used something like 'pgrep -x --ns 1 > > $DAEMON_EXECUTABLE' instead of pidof. > > I didn't know what "lsb-base" was when I read original post. > Not sure I know now ;/ > Did web search. Found it's an acronym for "Linux Standard Base". In the context of the original discussion, LSB refers to /lib/lsb/init-functions provided by lsb-base package. > Searched. > Found its purpose was to provide outside programmers a "sane" &/or > "consistent" target. LSB was more than that. It was a set of standards declaring what you can find in your typical GNU/Linux system. LSB was always somewhat controversial when one tried to apply it to any non-rpm distribution (LSB mandated rpm as package manager), personal tastes (LSB mandated both Qt and GTK+ installed) or a common sense (not every server needs CUPS contrary to what they think). What's true - one does not need LSB if one writes free software. LSB was designed for all those proprietary software vendors in mind. But, they invented Docker, Flatpack and Appimage since then, so LSB is dead, and good riddance. > Is it of any use to Debian _users_ who *ONLY* use official Debian > repositories? Assuming that said users do not deviate from the Debian default init system - lsb-base is mostly useless if one's using systemd. Again, in the context of the original question. > I know that is a "loaded" question". > Answers should be "food for thought." > > IOW Can I a Debian user opt to not install "LSB" without ill effects? The package has 'Priority: required', so I suppose that one *could* build a bootable Debian installation without it given a sufficient determination or curiosity. I, for one, value rsync, smartmontools and rsyslod too much to purge lsb-base. And let's not forget cron. Any OS is imperfect unless it has cron. Reco
Naive newbie question [Re: Debian got too fat?]
On 07/15/2018 06:44 AM, Reco wrote: Hi. On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:16:20PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: Hi folks, would you mind to take a look at https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=888743 The fix is pretty easy. But does not address all the cornercases, IMO. Consider, for instance, an LXC container which shares root filesystem with the host. Whats really bugging me is that nobody dares to touch the complex code of lsb-base. IMHO this is a clear indication that Debian lost the blessed path other Unixes do follow. Agreed. Debian drifted away from LSB several years ago, so the lack of maintainers' interest is sad, but is to be expected. What is your suggestion here? Apply the patch I provided (or maybe a better one), or get rid of lsb-base completely? Aim to ditch lsb-base in the long run. For here and now I'd used something like 'pgrep -x --ns 1 $DAEMON_EXECUTABLE' instead of pidof. I didn't know what "lsb-base" was when I read original post. Not sure I know now ;/ Did web search. Found it's an acronym for "Linux Standard Base". Searched. Found its purpose was to provide outside programmers a "sane" &/or "consistent" target. Is it of any use to Debian _users_ who *ONLY* use official Debian repositories? I know that is a "loaded" question". Answers should be "food for thought." IOW Can I a Debian user opt to not install "LSB" without ill effects?
