Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

t whats worse is that debian's > > > > people are denying there is a problem. 'scuse me? I swear, they > > > > couldn't smell coffee with a nose full of it. > > > > > > > > Cheers, Gene Heskett > > > > > > Well, if either of you

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

stem, I expect it ot ask me!!! > Note that I am assuming neither of you did "aptitude -y", that would be > bad and would also explain what happened. I used bash's history to confirm that I had had no such mental aberration. It confirmed that, after the root screen prompt, I had

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

is a problem. 'scuse me? I swear, they > > > couldn't smell coffee with a nose full of it. > > > > > > Cheers, Gene Heskett > > > > Well, if either of you two (that suffered the runaway aptitude > > issue) still have the /etc of the box

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

ffee with a nose full of it. > > > > Cheers, Gene Heskett > > Well, if either of you two (that suffered the runaway aptitude issue) > still have the /etc of the box that caused trouble, kindly do this: > > grep -r Assume-Yes /etc > > If it returns any match in the aptitu

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

ckages if you asked it to install one package... but it certainly is supposed to ask about installing that one package *after* informing you that it would remove one thousand packages in order to do that. Note that I am assuming neither of you did "aptitude -y", that would be bad and would a

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

On Thursday 30 June 2016 17:25:41 Francesco Ariis wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 05:27:16PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > I ran > > # aptitude install libreoffice-grammarcheck-en-gb > > and aptitude just carried on without asking as is correct when there > > is only on

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

On Thursday 30 June 2016 20:27:03 Brian wrote: > On Thu 30 Jun 2016 at 19:59:52 +0200, Hans wrote: > > Correct myself: > > > I used the log file and edited it that way, that I took all the > > > packagages from it and made an "aptitude reinstall" in front of t

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

ffee with a nose full of it. > > > > Cheers, Gene Heskett > > Well, if either of you two (that suffered the runaway aptitude issue) > still have the /etc of the box that caused trouble, kindly do this: > > grep -r Assume-Yes /etc > > If it returns any match in the aptitude

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

On Thursday 30 June 2016 16:12:46 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > grep -r Assume-Yes /etc 100% missing here, but lemme see what happens when I use the recursive -R since I can't ever recall using the lower case r for recursion. That took at least 3 or 4 minutes to complete, whereas the -r

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

(that suffered the runaway aptitude issue) still have the /etc of the box that caused trouble, kindly do this: grep -r Assume-Yes /etc If it returns any match in the aptitude config files, there you have it. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

On Thursday 30 June 2016 12:27:16 Lisi Reisz wrote: > I ran > # aptitude install libreoffice-grammarcheck-en-gb > and aptitude just carried on without asking as is correct when there > is only one package; but it proceeded to uninstall my entire desktop > environment, hundreds

Re: aptitude again

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Lisi Reisz wrote: Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:34:23 From: Lisi Reisz <lisi.re...@gmail.com> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: aptitude again Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:35:58 + (UTC) Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org aptitude upgrade is now re

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

Correct myself: > I used the log file and edited it that way, that I took all the packagages > from it and made an "aptitude reinstall" in front of the package list. Then I made a shellscript of it, just added the shebang line and made it executable with root-permissions. Hans

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

> 5. Assess the damage. Glance at the output of 'dpkg -l | less'. Is X >still about? The desktop? Anything obvious missing? Look at the files >in /var/log/apt. All packages removed and installed are recorded. > Supposedly aptitude also logs? > I used the log

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

On Thu 30 Jun 2016 at 17:27:16 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > I ran > # aptitude install libreoffice-grammarcheck-en-gb > and aptitude just carried on without asking as is correct when there > is only one package; but it proceeded to uninstall my entire desktop > environment, hundreds

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 17:27:16 +0100 Lisi Reisz <lisi.re...@gmail.com> wrote: >I ran ># aptitude install libreoffice-grammarcheck-en-gb >and aptitude just carried on without asking as is correct when there >is only one package; but it proceeded to uninstall my entire desktop >

Re: aptitude again

On 2016-06-30 17:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > aptitude upgrade is now removing things. I ought, of course, to have > typed safe-upgrade, but I thought only full-upgrade was supposed to > remove anything. It removes packages which are marked as automatically installed and are un

aptitude again

aptitude upgrade is now removing things. I ought, of course, to have typed safe-upgrade, but I thought only full-upgrade was supposed to remove anything. Am I dealing with root-kit or malware of some kind?? Lisi

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 05:27:16PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > I ran > # aptitude install libreoffice-grammarcheck-en-gb > and aptitude just carried on without asking as is correct when there > is only one package; but it proceeded to uninstall my entire desktop > environment, hundr

catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

I ran # aptitude install libreoffice-grammarcheck-en-gb and aptitude just carried on without asking as is correct when there is only one package; but it proceeded to uninstall my entire desktop environment, hundreds of packages. I couldn't believe it and used the bash history to confirm

Re: Rebuilding system after aptitude

May be a stupid question, as often: do you want a plugin in iceweasel and firefox, like flash, or a stand- alone video reader, like Totem or VLC? Jacques

Re: Rebuilding system after aptitude

Gene Heskett wrote: > On Sunday 12 June 2016 17:21:10 Sven Hartge wrote: >> egrep is in /bin/egrep and in the package grep. grep itself is >> "Priority: required" so you can't not have this package. If you don't >> have /bin/egrep, then your system is way more broken than

Re: h264/player/decoder stuff (was: Rebuilding system after aptitude)

On Sunday 12 June 2016 20:11:55 Gene Heskett wrote: > On Sunday 12 June 2016 17:51:50 Felix Miata wrote: > > Gene Heskett composed on 2016-06-12 17:02 (UTC-0400): > > > Felix Miata wrote: > > >> ii alsa-utils1.1.0-2 > > >> amd64Utilities for

Re: Rebuilding system after aptitude

Grep -e is the same as egrep. Read the man and you'll see.

Re: h264/player/decoder stuff (was: Rebuilding system after aptitude)

On Sunday 12 June 2016 17:51:50 Felix Miata wrote: > Gene Heskett composed on 2016-06-12 17:02 (UTC-0400): > > Felix Miata wrote: > >> ii alsa-utils1.1.0-2 > >> amd64Utilities for configuring and using > >> ALSA > > > > check but not amd64 > >

Re: Rebuilding system after aptitude

On Sunday 12 June 2016 17:21:10 Sven Hartge wrote: > Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Sunday 12 June 2016 16:23:47 Felix Miata wrote: > >> # dpkg -l | sort | egrep > >> 'alsa|arts|imedia-l|libasoun|mix|pavuc|phonon|pulse|space-libs' ii > > > > egrep apparently not in my $PATH,

Re: h264/player/decoder stuff (was: Rebuilding system after aptitude)

Le quintidi 25 prairial, an CCXXIV, Felix Miata a écrit : > I don't know how to translate what I have installed to what you actually need > to play what you want to play, but here's what I have on that machine: > > # dpkg -l | egrep -i 'kodi|mpeg|h264|mplay|vlc' > ii ffmpeg

Re: h264/player/decoder stuff (was: Rebuilding system after aptitude)

Gene Heskett composed on 2016-06-12 17:02 (UTC-0400): > Felix Miata wrote: >> ii alsa-utils1.1.0-2 >> amd64Utilities for configuring and using ALSA > check but not amd64 That can't be good. :-( ... > what about h264 stuff?, I can't find a

Re: Rebuilding system after aptitude

Gene Heskett wrote: > On Sunday 12 June 2016 16:23:47 Felix Miata wrote: >> # dpkg -l | sort | egrep >> 'alsa|arts|imedia-l|libasoun|mix|pavuc|phonon|pulse|space-libs' ii > egrep apparently not in my $PATH, can't find it even after a re-install. egrep is in /bin/egrep

Re: Rebuilding system after aptitude

On Sunday 12 June 2016 16:23:47 Felix Miata wrote: > Gene Heskett composed on 2016-06-12 16:05 (UTC-0400): > > While I was able to reinstall both iceweasel and firefox, I can't > > play any videos now, so what is everyone else using, both for flash, > > and for h264 stuffs? > > This is what I

Re: Rebuilding system after aptitude

Gene Heskett composed on 2016-06-12 16:05 (UTC-0400): > While I was able to reinstall both iceweasel and firefox, I can't play > any videos now, so what is everyone else using, both for flash, and for > h264 stuffs? This is what I have for Youtube, VLC and system sounds working in TDE on

Rebuilding system after aptitude

Greetings; While I was able to reinstall both iceweasel and firefox, I can't play any videos now, so what is everyone else using, both for flash, and for h264 stuffs? Thanks all. Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo.

aptitude upgrade no acaba mai

Hola, em dic Jaume i tinc un problema. Després d'instal·lar Debian Jessie (LTS) he fet un... # aptitude update Estat actual: 46 actualitzacions [+46]. # aptitude upgrade processant els activadors per a fontconfig (2.11.0-6.3)… S'estan processant els activadors per a libglib2.0-0

Re: "apt-cache search" ou "aptitude/apt-get search"?

se você quiser ser o mestre jedi da busca de pacotes: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/aptitude/ch02s04.en.html Em 13 de maio de 2016 15:07, Yuri Somacal <yuri_1...@hotmail.com> escreveu: > Entendi. Grato pelo esclarecimento. > > Em 13-05-2016 13:35, Guimarães Faria Corcete

Re: "apt-cache search" ou "aptitude/apt-get search"?

Conclui-se que o apt-cache search seria somente um aptitude/apt search | grep <descrição> ? Não, que o aptitude buscará apenas nos nomes dos pacotes, trazendo menos resultados para um único termo de busca (por exemplo) que o apt-cache, que buscará também nas descrições. Experimente e comprove. -- Att, Yuri

Re: "apt-cache search" ou "aptitude/apt-get search"?

quando você incluir > muitas palavras-chave. " Certíssimo. Mas às vezes é exatamente o que queremos, mais resultados, ou maior seletividade com palavras-chave. > Conclui-se que o apt-cache search seria somente um aptitude/apt search > | grep <descrição> ? Não, que o aptit

Re: "apt-cache search" ou "aptitude/apt-get search"?

, Leandro Henrique Stein <leandro.h.st...@gmail.com<mailto:leandro.h.st...@gmail.com>> escreveu: O apt-cache search é o comando padrão do APT para buscas. O aptitude é um outro programa para o gerenciamento de pacotes, ele usa o APT como base para realizar as operações, mas tem um enfoqu

Re: "apt-cache search" ou "aptitude/apt-get search"?

arch seria somente um aptitude/apt search | grep <descrição> ? Em 13-05-2016 12:05, Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA escreveu: Le 12 mai 2016 21:16:09 GMT-03:00, Yuri Somacal <yuri_1...@hotmail.com><mailto:yuri_1...@hotmail.com> a écrit : Aqui na lista percebi que todos semp

Re: "apt-cache search" ou "aptitude/apt-get search"?

Le 12 mai 2016 21:16:09 GMT-03:00, Yuri Somacal <yuri_1...@hotmail.com> a écrit : > >Aqui na lista percebi que todos sempre usam o comando "apt-cache >search" em vez de "aptitude search" ou "apt-get search". Eu sempre >utilizei o "apt

Re: "apt-cache search" ou "aptitude/apt-get search"?

ão do APT para buscas. > > O aptitude é um outro programa para o gerenciamento de pacotes, ele usa o > APT como base para realizar as operações, mas tem um enfoque mais amplo > para o controle de dependências o que facilita para muitos usuários finais > que tem menos ex

Re: "apt-cache search" ou "aptitude/apt-get search"?

O apt-cache search é o comando padrão do APT para buscas. O aptitude é um outro programa para o gerenciamento de pacotes, ele usa o APT como base para realizar as operações, mas tem um enfoque mais amplo para o controle de dependências o que facilita para muitos usuários finais que tem menos

Re: "apt-cache search" ou "aptitude/apt-get search"?

;apt-cache search" > em vez de "aptitude search" ou "apt-get search". Eu sempre utilizei o > "aptitude search" porque pra mim facilita a leitura. Qual a diferença > desses comandos? > > -- > Att, Yuri >

"apt-cache search" ou "aptitude/apt-get search"?

Fala galera. Aqui na lista percebi que todos sempre usam o comando "apt-cache search" em vez de "aptitude search" ou "apt-get search". Eu sempre utilizei o "aptitude search" porque pra mim facilita a leitura. Qual a diferença desses comandos? -- Att, Yuri

Re: Bug d'apt-get/aptitude ?

-vfs-modules samba passé en figé (« hold »). samba-common passé en figé (« hold »). samba-common-bin passé en figé (« hold »). samba-dsdb-modules passé en figé (« hold »). samba-libs passé en figé (« hold »). samba-vfs-modules passé en figé (« hold »). aptitude -s upgrade Résolution des dépendances…

Re: Bug d'apt-get/aptitude ?

dsdb-modules passé en figé (« hold »). > samba-libs passé en figé (« hold »). > samba-vfs-modules passé en figé (« hold »). > > aptitude -s upgrade > Résolution des dépendances… > Aucun paquet ne va être installé, mis à jour ou enlevé. > 0 paquets mis à jour, 0 nouvellement i

Re: Bug d'apt-get/aptitude ?

Le 15/04/2016 10:06, Jean-Louis Mas a écrit : * On bascule des paquet en hold En présence d'un paquet bogué, je préfère un aptitude forbid-version [paquet], qui gèle seulement la version proposée, et pas les versions suivantes. À noter qu'Apt-get ignore les paquets ainsi marqués par Aptitude

Re: Bug d'apt-get/aptitude ?

amba passé en figé (« hold »). samba-common passé en figé (« hold »). samba-common-bin passé en figé (« hold »). samba-dsdb-modules passé en figé (« hold »). samba-libs passé en figé (« hold »). samba-vfs-modules passé en figé (« hold »). aptitude -s upgrade Résolution des dépendances… Aucun

Re: Bug d'apt-get/aptitude ?

Bonjour, Il y a eu un bug dans une mise à jour de sécurité de samba hier, elle est corrigée depuis, il n'est donc plus nécessaire de faire des hold (juste un apt(itude|-get) update. >- Debian Security Advisory DSA-3548-2

Bug d'apt-get/aptitude ?

* On bascule des paquet en hold aptitude hold samba samba-common samba-common-bin samba-dsdb-modules samba-libs samba-vfs-modules * On vérifie ce qui est 'hold' aptitude search ~ahold ih samba - SMB/CIFS file, print, and login server for ihA samba-common - fichiers communs utilisés par le

Re: unattended aptitude

Le 04/04/2016 15:13, Pierre Frenkiel a écrit : > I think that with this option (or with --force-confnew), > one must look carefully at the differences between the .dpkg-dist > config files and the keeped ones. We do look from time to time to .dpkg-dist files, in order to update our puppet

Re: unattended aptitude

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 02:30:22PM +0200, Pierre Frenkiel wrote: > On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > >Ah -- the "things" in --force-things is a syntactic metavariable[1] :-) > > Actually, I tried >

Re: unattended aptitude

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Jean-Louis Mas wrote: aptitude -y -o Dpkg::Options::=--force-confdef -o Dpkg::Options::=--force-confold safe-upgrade We use this command with apt-get instead of aptitude for our debian servers since February. It works fine so far. We sometime have trouble

Re: unattended aptitude

Le 04/04/2016 12:09, Pierre Frenkiel a écrit : > aptitude -y -o Dpkg::Options::=--force-confdef -o > Dpkg::Options::=--force-confold safe-upgrade > > this command is accepted. > I'll try it as soon as some upgrades are available. We use this command with

Re: unattended aptitude

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: Ah -- the "things" in --force-things is a syntactic metavariable[1] :-) Actually, I tried aptitude --force-things confold safe-upgrade aptitude --force-things=confold safe-upgrade aptitude --force-confold safe-upgrade

Re: unattended aptitude

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Pierre Frenkiel wrote: what is the exact syntax? I tried: apt-get --force-things confold dist-upgrade E: Command line option --force-things is not understood I found this: aptitude -y -o Dpkg::Options::=--force-confdef -o Dpkg::Options::=--force

Re: unattended aptitude

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 11:51:56AM +0200, Pierre Frenkiel wrote: > On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Brian wrote: > > >In the dpkg manual you'll find 'confnew' and 'confdef', apt-get accepts > >dpkg paramters. aptitude probably does t

Re: unattended aptitude

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Brian wrote: In the dpkg manual you'll find 'confnew' and 'confdef', apt-get accepts dpkg paramters. aptitude probably does too. what is the exact syntax? I tried: apt-get --force-things confold dist-upgrade E: Command line option --force-things

Re: unattended aptitude

Pierre Frenkiel: > On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Jochen Spieker wrote: > >> aptitude | yes n > > I imagine you want to say > > yes n | aptitude Correct! But I guess Brian's suggestion is better. J. -- I eat meat and am concerned about bugs which are resistant to antibiot

Re: unattended aptitude

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Jochen Spieker wrote: aptitude | yes n I imagine you want to say yes n | aptitude best regards, -- Pierre Frenkiel

Re: unattended aptitude

On Mon 04 Apr 2016 at 10:12:25 +0200, Pierre Frenkiel wrote: > hi, > I would like run "aptitude safe-upgrade" without staying in front of my > screen for hours > A convenient way would be to postpone to the end of the upgrade all > package installs needing an answer, like

Re: unattended aptitude

Pierre Frenkiel: > > Is there a way to run aptitude with "N" as automatic answer? > May-be redirecting input from a file with several "N" lines ? That might interfere with standard questions like the first question that asks whether you actually want to instal

unattended aptitude

hi, I would like run "aptitude safe-upgrade" without staying in front of my screen for hours A convenient way would be to postpone to the end of the upgrade all package installs needing an answer, like ==> File on system created by you or by a script. ==> File also in

Re: aptitude purge vlc removes approximately 116 other KDE packages

some sort of conflict. > > > > Ran aptitude -y purge vlc to do the obvious. 116 packages were > > removed, most of the core of KDE. > > > > Why were so many other packages dependent on vlc? 116 removals just > > to get rid of one package is quite alot! > >

Re: aptitude purge vlc removes approximately 116 other KDE packages

Keith Christian composed on 2016-02-25 06:45 (UTC-0700): > Running Debian Jessie on a non-critical system at home. Wanted to use > xine-ui instead of vlc as a video player, since there appeared to be > some sort of conflict. > Ran aptitude -y purge vlc to do the obvious. 116 p

Re: aptitude purge vlc removes approximately 116 other KDE packages

On 2016-02-25 at 08:45, Keith Christian wrote: > Running Debian Jessie on a non-critical system at home. Wanted to > use xine-ui instead of vlc as a video player, since there appeared to > be some sort of conflict. > > Ran aptitude -y purge vlc to do the obvious. 116 packages

aptitude purge vlc removes approximately 116 other KDE packages

Running Debian Jessie on a non-critical system at home. Wanted to use xine-ui instead of vlc as a video player, since there appeared to be some sort of conflict. Ran aptitude -y purge vlc to do the obvious. 116 packages were removed, most of the core of KDE. Why were so many other packages

Re: aptitude program list

Richard Hector wrote on 02/25/16 00:35: > On 25/02/16 09:18, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: >> Better generate such a list with aptitude itself which allows to >> exclude automatically installed packages >> >> aptitude -F "%p" '~i!~M' > list_of_packages_manually_i

Re: aptitude program list

On 25/02/16 09:18, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > Better generate such a list with aptitude itself which allows to > exclude automatically installed packages > > aptitude -F "%p" '~i!~M' > list_of_packages_manually_installed Or perhaps aptit

Re: aptitude program list

Better generate such a list with aptitude itself which allows to exclude automatically installed packages aptitude -F "%p" '~i!~M' > list_of_packages_manually_installed That will preserve which packages are installed automatically. Then on another machine command aptitude

Re: Aptitude message.

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:49:15AM +, Brian wrote: > On Fri 22 Jan 2016 at 20:55:05 +1000, Weaver wrote: > > > Am receiving this on 'aptitude update'. > > ~~ > > root@Telaman:/home/weaver# aptitude update > > Hit http://ftp.au.debian.org/debia

Re: Aptitude message.

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 01:23:25PM +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > I had this problem once and had to delete the package cache and the update to > let it rebuild. Delete everything in the '/var/lib/apt/lists/partial' directory also. -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating

Re: Aptitude message.

On Tuesday 26 January 2016 09:22:40 Chris Bannister wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 01:23:25PM +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > I had this problem once and had to delete the package cache and the > > update to let it rebuild. > > Delete everything in the '/var/lib/apt/lists/partial' directory also.

Re: Aptitude message.

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 08:55:05PM +1000, Weaver wrote: > Hello all, > > Am receiving this on 'aptitude update'. > ~~ > root@Telaman:/home/weaver# aptitude update > Hit http://ftp.au.debian.org/debian unstable InRelease > [ ERR] Reading package lists > E:

Re: Aptitude message.

On 2016-01-22 21:49, Brian wrote: On Fri 22 Jan 2016 at 20:55:05 +1000, Weaver wrote: Am receiving this on 'aptitude update'. ~~ root@Telaman:/home/weaver# aptitude update Hit http://ftp.au.debian.org/debian unstable InRelease [ ERR] Reading package lists E: Unable to parse

Aptitude message.

Hello all, Am receiving this on 'aptitude update'. ~~ root@Telaman:/home/weaver# aptitude update Hit http://ftp.au.debian.org/debian unstable InRelease [ ERR] Reading package lists E: Unable to parse package file /var/lib/apt/lists

Re: Aptitude message.

On Fri 22 Jan 2016 at 20:55:05 +1000, Weaver wrote: > Am receiving this on 'aptitude update'. > ~~ > root@Telaman:/home/weaver# aptitude update > Hit http://ftp.au.debian.org/debian unstable InRelease > [ ERR] Reading package lists > E: Unable to parse package fi

Re: Aptitude message.

On Friday 22 January 2016 11:49:15 Brian wrote: > On Fri 22 Jan 2016 at 20:55:05 +1000, Weaver wrote: > > Am receiving this on 'aptitude update'. > > ~~ > > root@Telaman:/home/weaver# aptitude update > > Hit http://ftp.au.debian.org/debian unstable I

Correction - sorry - Re: Aptitude message.

On Friday 22 January 2016 13:23:25 Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 22 January 2016 11:49:15 Brian wrote: > > On Fri 22 Jan 2016 at 20:55:05 +1000, Weaver wrote: > > > Am receiving this on 'aptitude update'. > > > ~~ > > > root@Telaman:/home/we

Re: after sudo aptitude dist-upgrade lost Unicode in ttys and xterm

Anders Andersson <pipat...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> After I did sudo aptitude dist-upgrade I lost >>>> support for Unicode chars in the ttys as well as >>>> xterm. Instead I get '?'. Ideas? >>> >>> One idea would be to post a list of pack

Re: after sudo aptitude dist-upgrade lost Unicode in ttys and xterm

On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 7:41 PM, Emanuel Berg <embe8...@student.uu.se> wrote: > Anders Andersson <pipat...@gmail.com> writes: > >>> After I did sudo aptitude dist-upgrade I lost >>> support for Unicode chars in the ttys as well as >>> xterm. Instead I ge

Re: after sudo aptitude dist-upgrade lost Unicode in ttys and xterm

On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 07:41:52PM +0100, Emanuel Berg wrote: > Anders Andersson <pipat...@gmail.com> writes: > > >> After I did sudo aptitude dist-upgrade I lost > >> support for Unicode chars in the ttys as well as > >> xterm. Instead I get '?'. Ideas? &

Re: after sudo aptitude dist-upgrade lost Unicode in ttys and xterm

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Emanuel Berg <embe8...@student.uu.se> wrote: > After I did > > sudo aptitude dist-upgrade > > I lost support for Unicode chars in the ttys as well > as xterm. > > Instead I get '?'. > > Ideas? One idea would be to post a list of packages which were upgraded. :)

Re: after sudo aptitude dist-upgrade lost Unicode in ttys and xterm

Anders Andersson <pipat...@gmail.com> writes: >> After I did sudo aptitude dist-upgrade I lost >> support for Unicode chars in the ttys as well as >> xterm. Instead I get '?'. Ideas? > > One idea would be to post a list of packages which > were upgraded. :) My i

after sudo aptitude dist-upgrade lost Unicode in ttys and xterm

After I did sudo aptitude dist-upgrade I lost support for Unicode chars in the ttys as well as xterm. Instead I get '?'. Ideas? Linux debian 3.17.1 #9 SMP Fri Nov 7 23:05:01 CET 2014 x86_64 GNU/Linux No LSB modules are available. Distributor ID: Debian Description

Re: bones practiques: apt-get vs aptitude

Hi ha diverses d'eines per fer el mateix. Amb avantatges i inconvenients cadascuna, jo com tothom faig servir la que més m'hi he acostumat per cada tasca en concret. apt-get apt-cache apt-file dpkg dpkg-reconfigure dpkg-query aptitude etc. Jo faig servir tots aquests, cadascun en una situació

Re: bones practiques: apt-get vs aptitude

On 09/12/15 08:24, Àlex wrote: > On 08/12/15 20:55, Pedro wrote: > >> Jo havia llegit que l'eina és "aptitude", ja que és més elaborada, >> complexa, processa més. I que apt-get és més lightweight > > Però poc a poc han ant incorporant canvis i més canvis a apt.

Re: bones practiques: apt-get vs aptitude

Jordi Funollet: > A la trobada de Girona (si la neurona no m'enganya) vam comentar que > 'aptitude' havia deixat de ser l'eina de gestió de paquets recomanada a > Debian, i ara les bones pràctiques diuen que cal fer servir 'apt-get'. Com ja s'ha comentat, per l'upgrade a jessie es rec

Re: bones practiques: apt-get vs aptitude

On 09/12/15 08:24, Àlex wrote: > On 08/12/15 20:55, Pedro wrote: > >> Jo havia llegit que l'eina és "aptitude", ja que és més elaborada, >> complexa, processa més. I que apt-get és més lightweight > > Però poc a poc han ant incorporant canvis i més canvis a apt.

Re: bones practiques: apt-get vs aptitude

Jo crec que s'estan barrejant coses. De totes les eines que es comenten la pregunta incial és apt-get vs aptitude ja que són dues eines complementàries: fan el mateix de maneres lleugerament diferents. apt (a seques) o dpkg o d'altres que s'han comentat són eines que treballen amb paquetes però

Re: bones practiques: apt-get vs aptitude

Sergi Baila: > El que he llegit fa poc és que aptitude ha quedat sense mantenidor, però > imagino que és un problema temporal. Segons es veu al tracker[0] el paquet té activitat recent, suposo que la cosa es devia resoldre (també em sona que algun dels seus mantenidors havia plegat però ar

bones practiques: apt-get vs aptitude

A la trobada de Girona (si la neurona no m'enganya) vam comentar que 'aptitude' havia deixat de ser l'eina de gestió de paquets recomanada a Debian, i ara les bones pràctiques diuen que cal fer servir 'apt-get'. Buscant una mica em trobo això que diu just el contrari: https://wiki.debian.org

Re: bones practiques: apt-get vs aptitude

Jo havia llegit que l'eina és "aptitude", ja que és més elaborada, complexa, processa més. I que apt-get és més lightweight recentment també he trobat aquesta http://askubuntu.com/questions/481241/what-is-the-difference-between-sudo-apt-get-install-and-sudo-apt-install sudo apt --

Re: bones practiques: apt-get vs aptitude

On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 08:55:10PM +0100, Pedro wrote: > Jo havia llegit que l'eina és "aptitude", ja que és més elaborada, > complexa, processa més. I que apt-get és més lightweight > > recentment també he trobat aquesta > http://askubuntu.com/questions/481241/what-is-th

Re: bones practiques: apt-get vs aptitude

Jo sempre he pensat que "aptitude" es una comanda mes nova, i mes addient que "apt-get" per persones com jo, es a dir, que tenim algun coneixement d'anglès i fa entre 5 i 15 anys que fem servir distribucions ".deb" (jo vaig començar amb Debian 4.0 "Etch").

Re: bones practiques: apt-get vs aptitude

Jo ho havia llegit a la guia d'actualització a jessie: https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#minimal-upgrade Aquí es recomana de fer servir apt en comptes d'aptitude Salut!

Re: bones practiques: apt-get vs aptitude

2015-12- 8, 21:40 (+0100); Adrià escriu: > Em penso (corregiu-me, si us plau) que la intenció és (o era) que > «apt» acabés sent **el** frontal per treballar amb «dpkg». I > mentrestant, anar usant «aptitude» en comptes d'«apt-get», però també > he llegit el contrari. És al revés. Ap

Re: bones practiques: apt-get vs aptitude

bones, jo sempre faig servir apt-get, però quan trenca coses o he d'instal·lar un paquet a saco o amb més cura tiro cap a aptitude o dpkg. aptitude molts cops arregla les xapusses que fa apt-get quin és l'estandard, doncs no ho sé, però jo sóc una persona fora del corrent xD - Blackhold http

Re: bones practiques: apt-get vs aptitude

On 08/12/15 20:55, Pedro wrote: > Jo havia llegit que l'eina és "aptitude", ja que és més elaborada, > complexa, processa més. I que apt-get és més lightweight Però poc a poc han ant incorporant canvis i més canvis a apt. https://mvogt.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/

Re: bones practiques: apt-get vs aptitude

Hola, El dia 08/12/2015 22:45, "Pedro" <pederi...@gmail.com> va escriure: > > deixeu-me afegir un comentari més, > > no és que sigui massa expert, però de les vegades que he utilitzat > apt-get i aptitude: > - apt-get va molt ràpid però a vegades pren males de

Re: bones practiques: apt-get vs aptitude

correcció: aptitude una mica més lent que apt-get :) 2015-12-08 22:42 GMT+01:00 Pedro <pederi...@gmail.com>: > deixeu-me afegir un comentari més, > > no és que sigui massa expert, però de les vegades que he utilitzat > apt-get i aptitude: > - apt-get va molt ràpid però

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >