On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 19:41:47 +
Joe wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:49:59 +
> Brian wrote:
>
> > On Sat 31 Oct 2015 at 10:01:36 -0600, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> >
> > > Will Debian 9 no longer install Aptitude by default?.
> >
> > Que Sera, Sera. . Let's stay in the pres
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 23:58:24 -0700
Glenn English wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 08:45:27AM +, Joe wrote:
> >> Not in the base system, no, but I'd expect it to be included in any
> >> system which might be used by newcomers to Linux.
>
> One reason is that the Aptitude semi-GUI hauls i
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 08:45:27AM +, Joe wrote:
>> Not in the base system, no, but I'd expect it to be included in any
>> system which might be used by newcomers to Linux.
One reason is that the Aptitude semi-GUI hauls in a lot of libraries and
dependencies and stuff. That fills up the 5M
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 23:58:32 +
Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > I can wiggle both my ears at the same time. :)
> I didn't notice that. Now that _is_ an accomplishment. :-)
I can wiggle one at a time...
Cheers,
Ron.
--
Pain is life,
[Please don't top post on the debian-user mailing list.]
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 12:34:49PM -0700, John L. Ries wrote:
> And if you're installing X, then it's reasonable for Synaptic and other GUI
> admin tools to be part of the default setup.
I use fvwm, I definitely don't want Synaptic and o
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 08:45:27AM +, Joe wrote:
> Not in the base system, no, but I'd expect it to be included in any
> system which might be used by newcomers to Linux.
If a newcomer can't figure out apt-get install, then they'd probably be
better off with Ubuntu or Linux Mint.
Intelligent
On Monday 02 November 2015 23:33:19 Brian wrote:
> I can wiggle both my ears at the same time. :)
I didn't notice that. Now that _is_ an accomplishment. :-)
Lisi
On Monday 02 November 2015 23:33:19 Brian wrote:
> The form of words doesn't matter. It is out of place and unhelpful to
> comment on the physical capabilities of a participant on a list of this
> nature, especially as a way of countering a argument. To repeat: you
> have no knowledge of how easy o
On Mon 02 Nov 2015 at 22:15:10 +, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Monday 02 November 2015 19:58:51 Brian wrote:
> > Your argument appears to be based on the state of a person's eyesight.
> > It also makes assertions about the state of mine. This is out of line;
> > you have no knowledge about the state
On Monday 02 November 2015 19:58:51 Brian wrote:
> Your argument appears to be based on the state of a person's eyesight.
> It also makes assertions about the state of mine. This is out of line;
> you have no knowledge about the state of my sight (and never will).
I said "would appear". I was ver
El 31/10/15 a las 16:55, Lisi Reisz escribió:
You said "All anyone has to do to avoid them is not install a DE. You
are given the option.". That is right; I never claimed otherwise
(furthermore, I alluded to this fact when I mentioned installing a
text-only environment and then add additional pac
El 02/11/15 a las 10:38, moxalt escribió:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 01:02:19 +1300, Chris Bannister
wrote:
Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you install
with the minimum number of packages necessary, and then download any
extra packages you want *after* the install?
Yes. In f
On Mon 02 Nov 2015 at 15:01:16 +, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Monday 02 November 2015 12:15:51 Brian wrote:
> > And not all of us are fully
> >
> > > able-bodied. You would appear to be able to read well and fast. Not all
> > > of us are that fortunate.
> >
> > I do not see the relevance of this
And if you're installing X, then it's reasonable for Synaptic and other
GUI admin tools to be part of the default setup. Those who prefer lower
level tools and who know enough for that to be a good decision will know
how to uninstall what they don't want or need and should have the
privilege o
On Monday 02 November 2015 16:38:29 moxalt wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 01:02:19 +1300, Chris Bannister
>
>
> wrote:
> > Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you install
> > with the minimum number of packages necessary, and then download any
> > extra packages you want *after*
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 01:02:19 +1300, Chris Bannister
wrote:
> Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you install
> with the minimum number of packages necessary, and then download any
> extra packages you want *after* the install?
Yes. In fact, even when I am installing desktop e
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:11:48 +, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Saturday 31 October 2015 16:37:41 Richard Owlett wrote:
> > Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > On Saturday 31 October 2015 16:18:15 Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> > >> El 31/10/15 a las 10:05, Richard Owlett escribió:
> > >>> Martin Read wrote
On Monday 02 November 2015 12:15:51 Brian wrote:
> And not all of us are fully
>
> > able-bodied. You would appear to be able to read well and fast. Not all
> > of us are that fortunate.
>
> I do not see the relevance of this to reading the Debian documentation
> accompanying a release. Unless i
On Monday 02 November 2015 04:33:01 Rick Thomas wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2015, at 12:45 AM, Joe wrote:
> >> To be honest, I see no reason at all why two package managers
> >> needed to be included in standard install. If you aren't happy with
> >> apt-get, just apt-get install aptitude. It seems beyond
On Mon 02 Nov 2015 at 11:37:48 +, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Monday 02 November 2015 11:16:11 Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 02 Nov 2015 at 01:33:01 -0800, Rick Thomas wrote:
> > >
> > > Requiring a newcomer to install aptitude before she can follow the
> > > simple step-by-step instructions she download
On Monday 02 November 2015 11:16:11 Brian wrote:
> On Mon 02 Nov 2015 at 01:33:01 -0800, Rick Thomas wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 2015, at 12:45 AM, Joe wrote:
> > >> To be honest, I see no reason at all why two package managers needed
> > >> to be included in standard install. If you aren't happy with ap
On Mon 02 Nov 2015 at 01:33:01 -0800, Rick Thomas wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2015, at 12:45 AM, Joe wrote:
>
> >> To be honest, I see no reason at all why two package managers needed
> >> to be included in standard install. If you aren't happy with apt-get,
> >> just apt-get install aptitude. It seems b
On Nov 2, 2015, at 12:45 AM, Joe wrote:
>> To be honest, I see no reason at all why two package managers needed
>> to be included in standard install. If you aren't happy with apt-get,
>> just apt-get install aptitude. It seems beyond question to me that
>> having bare minimum to start with and
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:27:42 +0200
Alex Moonshine wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 16:52:37 -0700
> Rick Thomas wrote:
>
> > As shown below, aptitude has been progressively downgraded from
> > “important” in oldstable (Wheezy) to “standard” in stable (Jessie),
> > “standard” in testing (Stretch) and
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 16:52:37 -0700
Rick Thomas wrote:
> As shown below, aptitude has been progressively downgraded from
> “important” in oldstable (Wheezy) to “standard” in stable (Jessie),
> “standard” in testing (Stretch) and finally to “optional” in unstable
> (Sid)
> And exim4 has gone from
On Sun 01 Nov 2015 at 01:02:54 +, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 01 Nov 2015 at 00:16:09 +0100, Javi Barroso wrote:
>
> > El 31 de octubre de 2015 21:34:51 CET, Brian
> > escribió:
> > >On Sat 31 Oct 2015 at 21:12:42 +0100, Javi Barroso wrote:
> > >> You can see when priority was overruled
> > >> ht
On Sun 01 Nov 2015 at 00:16:09 +0100, Javi Barroso wrote:
> El 31 de octubre de 2015 21:34:51 CET, Brian escribió:
> >On Sat 31 Oct 2015 at 21:12:42 +0100, Javi Barroso wrote:
> >> You can see when priority was overruled
> >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=758561#12
> >
> >This
As shown below, aptitude has been progressively downgraded from “important” in
oldstable (Wheezy) to “standard” in stable (Jessie), “standard” in testing
(Stretch) and finally to “optional” in unstable (Sid)
rbthomas@cube:~$ aptitude -vv show aptitude | egrep
'^(Priority|Version|Archive): ' | s
Hi,
El 31 de octubre de 2015 21:34:51 CET, Brian escribió:
>On Sat 31 Oct 2015 at 21:12:42 +0100, Javi Barroso wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> El 31 de octubre de 2015 20:17:41 CET, Teemu Likonen
> escribió:
>> >Brian [2015-10-31 18:49:59Z] wrote:
>> >
>> >> Here are two verifiable facts:
>> >>
>> >>
On Saturday 31 October 2015 19:14:30 Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> >> I have also noticed that Debian installs a lot of "extra" programs by
> >> default. For example, when I installed LXDE using the latest (Debian 7)
> >> LXDE CD and, I obtained LibreOffice, Iceweasel and Deluge (among many
> >> o
On Saturday 31 October 2015 21:22:42 Tim McDonough wrote:
> Is there an option that just installs the bare basics of a running
> system with networking and apt-get?
I think that the netinstall CD can give you that,if you choose the most
minimal system on offer.
Lisi
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 14:15:08 -0700
Rick Thomas wrote:
>
> In my experience (I’m the OP) aptitude was always part of the default
> installation, even when I specified a text-only (no DE) system. It’s
> very recent (last month or so) that I now have to “apt-get install
> aptitude”. I wonder wh
I agree. Note that this does not contradict the claim that what I called
“extras” (LibreOffice, etc.) are installed by Debian. Also note that I
mentioned the Debian 7.0.2 LXDE CD, not apt-get nor tasksel.
In this message I meant to write “Debian 7.2.0” rather than “Debian
7.0.2 LXDE CD”.
El 31/10/15 a las 13:22, Brian escribió:
On Sat 31 Oct 2015 at 16:24:36 +, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Saturday 31 October 2015 16:18:15 Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
I have also noticed that Debian installs a lot of "extra" programs by
default. For example, when I installed LXDE using the latest
Perhaps there is a way to do this with a CD/DVD boot parameter and I'm
not aware of it... I wish there was a way to be presented with a more
complete list of options at install time. On some installations with
small disks I really don't need all of the documentation, utilities,
etc. Is there an
I have also noticed that Debian installs a lot of "extra" programs by
default. For example, when I installed LXDE using the latest (Debian 7)
LXDE CD and, I obtained LibreOffice, Iceweasel and Deluge (among many
others), none of which are part of LXDE, and of those, I only wanted
Icweasel installe
On Oct 31, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Joe wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:49:59 +
> Brian wrote:
>
>> On Sat 31 Oct 2015 at 10:01:36 -0600, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
>>
>>> Will Debian 9 no longer install Aptitude by default?.
>>
>> Que Sera, Sera. . Let's stay in the present (in line w
On Sat 31 Oct 2015 at 21:12:42 +0100, Javi Barroso wrote:
> Hello,
>
> El 31 de octubre de 2015 20:17:41 CET, Teemu Likonen
> escribió:
> >Brian [2015-10-31 18:49:59Z] wrote:
> >
> >> Here are two verifiable facts:
> >>
> >> brian@sid:~$ dpkg --status aptitude | grep Priority
> >> Priority:
Hello,
El 31 de octubre de 2015 20:17:41 CET, Teemu Likonen escribió:
>Brian [2015-10-31 18:49:59Z] wrote:
>
>> Here are two verifiable facts:
>>
>> brian@sid:~$ dpkg --status aptitude | grep Priority
>> Priority: important
>
>Package's priority can be overruled by... some system unknown to m
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:49:59 +
Brian wrote:
> On Sat 31 Oct 2015 at 10:01:36 -0600, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
>
> > Will Debian 9 no longer install Aptitude by default?.
>
> Que Sera, Sera. . Let's stay in the present (in line with the post
> which started this thread) and look at
On Sat 31 Oct 2015 at 16:24:36 +, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Saturday 31 October 2015 16:18:15 Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> >
> > I have also noticed that Debian installs a lot of "extra" programs by
> > default. For example, when I installed LXDE using the latest (Debian 7)
> > LXDE CD and, I o
Brian [2015-10-31 18:49:59Z] wrote:
> Here are two verifiable facts:
>
> brian@sid:~$ dpkg --status aptitude | grep Priority
> Priority: important
Package's priority can be overruled by... some system unknown to me.
This is Debian 8:
$ dpkg --status aptitude | grep Priority
Priority:
On Sun 01 Nov 2015 at 00:38:25 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 03:57:30AM -0700, Rick Thomas wrote:
> > I notice that Sid is not including aptitude by default in the stock
> > installation. I have to do “apt get install aptitude” manually after
> > installation.
> >
> >
On Sat 31 Oct 2015 at 10:01:36 -0600, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> Will Debian 9 no longer install Aptitude by default?.
Que Sera, Sera. . Let's stay in the present (in line with the post
which started this thread) and look at unstable. Here are two verifiable
facts:
brian@sid:~$ dpkg --
El 31/10/15 a las 10:05, Richard Owlett escribió:
Martin Read wrote:
On 31/10/15 12:02, Chris Bannister wrote:
Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you
install
with the minimum number of packages necessary, and then
download any
extra packages you want *after* the install?
On Saturday 31 October 2015 16:37:41 Richard Owlett wrote:
> Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Saturday 31 October 2015 16:18:15 Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> >> El 31/10/15 a las 10:05, Richard Owlett escribió:
> >>> Martin Read wrote:
> On 31/10/15 12:02, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > Logically, do
Will Debian 9 no longer install Aptitude by default?.
ebian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: How to identify obsolete packages (was: Anybody know why aptitude is
not installed by default in Sid?)
Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 14:30:06 + (UTC)
Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 07:38:25 -0400 (EDT), Chris Bannister wrote:
Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Saturday 31 October 2015 16:18:15 Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
El 31/10/15 a las 10:05, Richard Owlett escribió:
Martin Read wrote:
On 31/10/15 12:02, Chris Bannister wrote:
Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you
install
with the minimum number of pa
Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
El 31/10/15 a las 10:05, Richard Owlett escribió:
Martin Read wrote:
On 31/10/15 12:02, Chris Bannister wrote:
Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you
install
with the minimum number of packages necessary, and then
download any
extra packages y
On Saturday 31 October 2015 16:18:15 Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> El 31/10/15 a las 10:05, Richard Owlett escribió:
> > Martin Read wrote:
> >> On 31/10/15 12:02, Chris Bannister wrote:
> >>> Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you
> >>> install
> >>> with the minimum number
Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
On 10/31/15, Martin Read wrote:
On 31/10/15 12:02, Chris Bannister wrote:
Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you install
with the minimum number of packages necessary, and then download any
extra packages you want *after* the install?
Only if you
Martin Read wrote:
On 31/10/15 12:02, Chris Bannister wrote:
Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you
install
with the minimum number of packages necessary, and then
download any
extra packages you want *after* the install?
Only if you accept austere minimalism as axiomatic
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 10:38:48 -0400 (EDT), "Reco" wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 10:29:48 -0400 (EDT), Stephen Powell wrote:
>> Does anyone know an easy way to identify obsolete packages without
>> using aptitide?
>
> deborphan --guess-all
According to the documentation for deborphan,
"deborphan
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Stephen Powell wrote:
>
> Does anyone know an easy way to identify obsolete packages without
> using aptitide?
>
Here is one way.
To identify packages that are no longer present in the archive
% apt-show-versions -r . | grep "No available version in archive"
On 10/31/15, Martin Read wrote:
> On 31/10/15 12:02, Chris Bannister wrote:
>> Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you install
>> with the minimum number of packages necessary, and then download any
>> extra packages you want *after* the install?
>
> Only if you accept austere
On 31/10/15 12:02, Chris Bannister wrote:
Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you install
with the minimum number of packages necessary, and then download any
extra packages you want *after* the install?
Only if you accept austere minimalism as axiomatically good.
Hi.
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 10:29:48 -0400 (EDT)
Stephen Powell wrote:
> Does anyone know an easy way to identify obsolete packages without
> using aptitide?
deborphan --guess-all
Reco
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 07:38:25 -0400 (EDT), Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> Oh great! They've fixed it. I hated having to "dpkg --purge aptitude"
> after a new installation. If you want extra packages, it's just an
> apt-get install step away.
I used to use aptitude; but I've switched back to using apt
On Saturday 31 October 2015 12:02:19 Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:44:45AM +, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Saturday 31 October 2015 11:38:25 Chris Bannister wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 03:57:30AM -0700, Rick Thomas wrote:
> > > > I notice that Sid is not including apt
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:44:45AM +, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Saturday 31 October 2015 11:38:25 Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 03:57:30AM -0700, Rick Thomas wrote:
> > > I notice that Sid is not including aptitude by default in the stock
> > > installation. I have to do “apt
On Saturday 31 October 2015 11:38:25 Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 03:57:30AM -0700, Rick Thomas wrote:
> > I notice that Sid is not including aptitude by default in the stock
> > installation. I have to do “apt get install aptitude” manually after
> > installation.
> >
> > Does
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 03:57:30AM -0700, Rick Thomas wrote:
> I notice that Sid is not including aptitude by default in the stock
> installation. I have to do “apt get install aptitude” manually after
> installation.
>
> Does anybody know why this is?
Oh great! They've fixed it. I hated havin
I notice that Sid is not including aptitude by default in the stock
installation. I have to do “apt get install aptitude” manually after
installation.
Does anybody know why this is?
Thanks!
Rick
64 matches
Mail list logo
