Re: Dependencies between components.

On Sat, 6 Apr 2024, Simon Hollenbach wrote: Hi, I have not found a mistake in your considerations about "sane" component inter-dependency. However, package dependencies are declared upon a package with a suitable version, whether this package can be set-up on a bespoke target syst

Re: Dependencies between components.

Hi, I have not found a mistake in your considerations about "sane" component inter-dependency. However, package dependencies are declared upon a package with a suitable version, whether this package can be set-up on a bespoke target system remains to be determined by APT when t

Re: Dependencies between components.

On 30/03/2024 22:54, Tim Woodall wrote: I'm unclear whether backports is allowed to depend on -updates You have not mentioned bookworm-security. contrib  : non-free non-free-firmware main non-free : non-free-firmware main non-free-firmware    :

Dependencies between components.

Is there a wiki or something else that lays out exactly what other distributions and components each debian (distribution,component) tuple is allowed to depend on? This is what I've concluded so far. I'm assuming transitive dependencies are allowed, e.g. bookworm-updates-contrib can depend

Re: Could/should you set Dir::Cache::{pkgcache, srcpkgcache} = ""; if all you are doing is locally downloading dependencies of an installation package?

On Wed 06 Dec 2023 at 22:40:23 (+), Albretch Mueller wrote: > What I had been doing is use "depends" to get all dependencies I did that. > and > then download each of them. I did that too. Not all of them, of course, as I don't need or want all those packages. >

Re: Could/should you set Dir::Cache::{pkgcache, srcpkgcache} = ""; if all you are doing is locally downloading dependencies of an installation package?

What I had been doing is use "depends" to get all dependencies and then download each of them. I think that is why I was getting those repeated binary files. I thought when you said "download" you just meant "download". lbrtchx

Re: Could/should you set Dir::Cache::{pkgcache, srcpkgcache} = ""; if all you are doing is locally downloading dependencies of an installation package?

On Mon 04 Dec 2023 at 21:24:58 (+), Albretch Mueller wrote: > On 12/2/23, David Wright wrote: > > Obviously I'm trying to replicate what you do. > ... > > Presumably you're running more commands than you revealed above? > > Yes, I am; for each " Depends: " package I have been using apt-get

Re: Could/should you set Dir::Cache::{pkgcache, srcpkgcache} = ""; if all you are doing is locally downloading dependencies of an installation package?

On 12/2/23, David Wright wrote: > Obviously I'm trying to replicate what you do. ... > Presumably you're running more commands than you revealed above? Yes, I am; for each " Depends: " package I have been using apt-get download lbrtchx

Re: Could/should you set Dir::Cache::{pkgcache, srcpkgcache} = ""; if all you are doing is locally downloading dependencies of an installation package?

ven though I am downloading them to specific > >> subdirectories in order to then install them using dpkg. > >> Do you really need those binaries and cache instructions if you are > >> just downloading the installation dependencies? How do you remove, > >>

Re: Could/should you set Dir::Cache::{pkgcache, srcpkgcache} = ""; if all you are doing is locally downloading dependencies of an installation package?

en install them using dpkg. >> Do you really need those binaries and cache instructions if you are >> just downloading the installation dependencies? How do you remove, >> disregard those kinds of caching strategies in a graceful way? > > Perhaps you could elaborate on the comma

Re: Could/should you set Dir::Cache::{pkgcache, srcpkgcache} = ""; if all you are doing is locally downloading dependencies of an installation package?

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 04:52:01PM -0600, David Wright wrote: > BTW could you not write part of your post in the Subject line: > in order to respond to that specific part of the post, the > replier has either to top post, or paste the Subject line > back into the correct place. That's ignoring the

Re: Could/should you set Dir::Cache::{pkgcache, srcpkgcache} = ""; if all you are doing is locally downloading dependencies of an installation package?

ose binaries and cache instructions if you are > just downloading the installation dependencies? How do you remove, > disregard those kinds of caching strategies in a graceful way? Perhaps you could elaborate on the commands you're running. I don't get "repeated" copies (

Re: Could/should you set Dir::Cache::{pkgcache, srcpkgcache} = ""; if all you are doing is locally downloading dependencies of an installation package?

tions if you are > just downloading the installation dependencies? How do you remove, > disregard those kinds of caching strategies in a graceful way? Does 'sudo apt clean' solve this for you? -dsr-

Could/should you set Dir::Cache::{pkgcache, srcpkgcache} = ""; if all you are doing is locally downloading dependencies of an installation package?

dependencies? How do you remove, disregard those kinds of caching strategies in a graceful way? lbrtchx

Re: Help fixing package dependencies

es have not yet been created > or been moved out of Incoming. > The following information may help to resolve the situation: > > The following packages have unmet dependencies: > libboost-thread1.74.0 : Breaks: libboost-regex1.74.0-icu67 > libc6-dev : Breaks: libnetcdf-dev (<= 1:4.9.0-3

Re: Help fixing package dependencies during Debian 11 -> 12 upgrade

On 11 Oct 2023 11:08 +0530, from 1rishikaka...@gmail.com (Rishikesh Kakade): > I am trying to upgrade my system from Debian 11 to Debian 12. Okay. First things first: did you read through and follow the upgrade preparation portions of the Bookworm release notes? Going straight for `apt

Re: Help fixing package dependencies

d not be installed. This may mean that you have > requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable > distribution that some required packages have not yet been created > or been moved out of Incoming. > The following information may help to resolve the situation: >

Help fixing package dependencies

dependencies: libboost-thread1.74.0 : Breaks: libboost-regex1.74.0-icu67 libc6-dev : Breaks: libnetcdf-dev (<= 1:4.9.0-3) but 1:4.7.4-1 is to be installed libgirepository-1.0-1 : Breaks: libgjs0g (< 1.68.4-1+b1) but 1.66.2-1 is to be installed E: Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generated breaks, th

Re: Understanding package dependencies

On 08/10/2023 01:45, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 08:27:11PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: In the current case, "aptitude search '~Plsb-base'" does the trick. Why on EARTH was this not ported to apt-patterns(7)? It is one of two features I miss in "apt list". Another one is

Re: Understanding package dependencies

On Sun, Oct 08, 2023 at 10:47:58AM +0200, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > Greg Wooledge wrote on 07/10/2023 20:45: > > unicorn:~$ apt list '?provides(~nlsb-base)' > > Listing... Error! > > E: input:0-21: error: Unrecognized pattern '?provides' > > ?provides(~nlsb-base) > > ^

Re: Understanding package dependencies

Greg Wooledge wrote on 07/10/2023 20:45: On Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 08:27:11PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: Yes, aptitude can do that. Quoting the manual[1]: , | ?provides(pattern), ~Ppattern | | Matches package versions which provide a package that matches the | pattern. For

Re: Understanding package dependencies

On Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 08:27:11PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > Yes, aptitude can do that. Quoting the manual[1]: > > , > | ?provides(pattern), ~Ppattern > | > | Matches package versions which provide a package that matches the > | pattern. For instance,

Re: Understanding package dependencies

On 2023-10-07 19:24 +0200, Steve Keller wrote: > Greg Wooledge writes: > >> Package: sysvinit-utils >> [...] >> Provides: lsb-base (= 11.1.0) >> >> When you remove the physical lsb-base package, the virtual package >> provided by sysvinit-utils remains

Re: Understanding package dependencies

ided by sysvinit-utils remains, to satisfy the dependencies of > > ntpsec, rsync, etc. > > OK, that explains, why lsb-base can be removed without ntpsec. Is there > a way to search for "Provides" in packages? I.e. show me all packages > (installed or all) that provide some feature

Re: Understanding package dependencies

Greg Wooledge writes: > Package: sysvinit-utils > [...] > Provides: lsb-base (= 11.1.0) > > When you remove the physical lsb-base package, the virtual package > provided by sysvinit-utils remains, to satisfy the dependencies of > ntpsec, rsync, etc. OK, that expla

Re: Understanding package dependencies

ckage? That's definitely part of the whole picture, yes. Package: sysvinit-utils [...] Provides: lsb-base (= 11.1.0) When you remove the physical lsb-base package, the virtual package provided by sysvinit-utils remains, to satisfy the dependencies of ntpsec, rsync, etc.

Re: Understanding package dependencies

On 7 Oct 2023 13:47 +0200, from keller.st...@gmx.de (Steve Keller): > But how can this then be explained? > > # aptitude why lsb-base > i ntpsec Depends lsb-base > # aptitude show ntpsec | grep ^Depends > Depends: adduser, lsb-base, netbase, python3, python3-ntp (= >

Understanding package dependencies

I've always thought, that a package's dependencies must be full-filled to install that package and that apt-get automatically manages these dependencies. And also, that if I remove a package, that all other packages are removed, that depend on it. Like this: # aptitude purge bind9-libs

Re: missing dependencies

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 01:33:49 AM to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Does apt-file update (cuz its cache was empty) use a different set of > > repo's? I always thought a synaptics->reload did exactly the same thing? > > No, it shouldn't. And, if I read you above correctly, apt-file and apt > do

Re: missing dependencies

On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 09:21:42PM -0500, gene heskett wrote: > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 8:10:34 AM EST to...@tuxteam.de wrote: [...] > > Remember: apt-file is your friend! > okaay: > gene@coyote:~$ sudo apt-file search openssl/bio.h > android-libboringssl-dev:

Re: missing dependencies

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 8:52:05 AM EST Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 04:41:46AM -0800, Gene Heskett wrote: > > Got yet another CF, repo has missing -dev packages, specifically > > openssl-dev > *sigh* > > unicorn:~$ apt-get -s install libssl-dev > NOTE: This is only a

Re: missing dependencies

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 8:10:34 AM EST to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 04:41:46AM -0800, Gene Heskett wrote: > > Greetings all; > > > > > > Got yet another CF, repo has missing -dev packages, specifically > > openssl-dev for its includes including openssl/bio.h. can't

Re: missing dependencies

On Sat 19 Feb 2022 at 15:03:38 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 08:52:05AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 04:41:46AM -0800, Gene Heskett wrote: > > > Got yet another CF, repo has missing -dev packages, specifically > > > openssl-dev > > [...] >

Re: missing dependencies

On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 08:52:05AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 04:41:46AM -0800, Gene Heskett wrote: > > Got yet another CF, repo has missing -dev packages, specifically openssl-dev [...] > This is part of the reason why you keep having problems, I suspect. OTOH...

Re: missing dependencies

On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 04:41:46AM -0800, Gene Heskett wrote: > Got yet another CF, repo has missing -dev packages, specifically openssl-dev *sigh* unicorn:~$ apt-get -s install libssl-dev NOTE: This is only a simulation! apt-get needs root privileges for real execution. Keep also in

Re: missing dependencies

On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 04:41:46AM -0800, Gene Heskett wrote: > Greetings all; > > > Got yet another CF, repo has missing -dev packages, specifically openssl-dev > for its includes including openssl/bio.h. can't make a kernel without it. > ncurses-dev is also missing so I can't use make

missing dependencies

Greetings all; Got yet another CF, repo has missing -dev packages, specifically openssl-dev for its includes including openssl/bio.h. can't make a kernel without it. ncurses-dev is also missing so I can't use make menuconfig, and had to install 49 pkgs just to do a make xconfig. No cheers,

Re: I'm getting a dependencies error when trying to install roundcube 1.5.1 on my bullseye machine

ally 30 seconds ago. Had to do the > > following: [...] > You might want to apt-mark auto the dependencies, currently they're set > to manual. +1 > And I'd create a local repo to hold the packages using apt-ftparchive - > then, in future, all you'd need to do is update the repo

Re: I'm getting a dependencies error when trying to install roundcube 1.5.1 on my bullseye machine

can't install roundcube-core until you install its dependencies: sudo apt-get install ../roundcube-mysql_*_*.deb sudo apt-get install ../roundcube-sqlite3_*_*.deb sudo apt-get install ../roundcube-pgsql_*_*.deb Note that above commands assume you are in the directory that the tutorial places

Re: I'm getting a dependencies error when trying to install roundcube 1.5.1 on my bullseye machine

install its dependencies: sudo apt-get install ../roundcube-mysql_*_*.deb sudo apt-get install ../roundcube-sqlite3_*_*.deb sudo apt-get install ../roundcube-pgsql_*_*.deb Note that above commands assume you are in the directory that the tutorial places you into. 4) No you can install roundcube

Re: I'm getting a dependencies error when trying to install roundcube 1.5.1 on my bullseye machine

s may mean that you have requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable distribution that some required packages have not yet been created or been moved out of Incoming. The following information may help to resolve the situation: The following packages have unmet dependencies:

I'm getting a dependencies error when trying to install roundcube 1.5.1 on my bullseye machine

impossible situation or if you are using the unstable distribution that some required packages have not yet been created or been moved out of Incoming. The following information may help to resolve the situation: The following packages have unmet dependencies: roundcube : Depends: roundcube-core (= 1.

Re: What is libc5-i686 | lib32gcc1 (proliant package dependencies)

eems possible that this might have been what changed during the dist-upgrade you mentioned. > HP doesn't seem to be inclined to update their support packages. > Should I force the install, rebuild the package with a different > DEBIAN/control, or something else? If the dependencies actu

What is libc5-i686 | lib32gcc1 (proliant package dependencies)

Hi all, I have a .deb package from HP (hp-health) that has this requirement, and doesn't install because of it. It got damaged somehow during the last dist-upgrade. I think I'd better re-install it. I have both libc6:i386 and lib32gcc-s1 (on an AMD 64bit machine). libc6-i686:i386 is

Re: Apt dependencies

On 2020-12-05 at 18:48 +, Joe wrote: > What does the >= sign mean as regards dependencies? I took it to mean > 'this version or later', but apparently not. It does. > > I've had a logjam on sid for a while now, so I thought I'd > investigate. > > debfoster ca

Apt dependencies

What does the >= sign mean as regards dependencies? I took it to mean 'this version or later', but apparently not. I've had a logjam on sid for a while now, so I thought I'd investigate. debfoster cannot be upgraded because of a dependency on guile-2.0-libs. guile-2.0-libs depends on libgc

Re: apt-get build-dep emacs-gtk: unmet dependencies

> It looks as though you have installed from security.debian.org but now > it's not in your sources.list. If you add a line like > > deb http://security.debian.org/ buster/updates main contrib non-free > > then do "apt-get update", does that help the "apt-get build-dep"? This seems to

Re: Re: apt-get build-dep emacs-gtk: unmet dependencies

> > $ apt-cache policy libtiff-dev libtiff5 > > The command (w/ libidn2-0 added) reports: > > libtiff-dev: > Installed: (none) > Candidate: 4.0.10-4 > Version table: > 4.0.10-4 500 > 500 http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian stable/main amd64 Packages > libtiff5: > Installed:

Re: apt-get build-dep emacs-gtk: unmet dependencies

> You could try downgrading the two library packages explicitly: > > $ apt-get install libtiff5=1.0.10-4 libidn2-0=2.0.5-1 This is what I tried eventually, and it worked, thanks! > That might result in other errors if doing this breaks versioned > dependencies from other pac

Re: apt-get build-dep emacs-gtk: unmet dependencies

ges ...and similarly a newer version of libidn2-0; you didn't show libidn-dev, but I'm guessing the same "no newer version available" holds true there. You could try downgrading the two library packages explicitly: $ apt-get install libtiff5=1.0.10-4 libidn2-0=2.0.5-1 That might

Re: apt-get build-dep emacs-gtk: unmet dependencies

> In turn, please respond on-list only I'll try, but I can't use my usual MUA ATM, so sorry if I fail at that. > $ apt-cache policy libtiff-dev libtiff5 The command (w/ libidn2-0 added) reports: libtiff-dev: Installed: (none) Candidate: 4.0.10-4 Version table: 4.0.10-4 500

Re: apt-get build-dep emacs-gtk: unmet dependencies

> In my experience with 8 and before, yes, it may be a sign of trouble > ahead. Was there an apt-get process spinning on a CPU after that point > in the install? I didn't check, so IDK. > IIRC the network-assisted install of a package may have failed because > the pkg couldn't be found online

Re: apt-get build-dep emacs-gtk: unmet dependencies

o-core-dev x11proto-dev x11proto-xext-dev xorg-sgml-doctools xtrans-dev zlib1g-dev 0 upgraded, 88 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 43.1 MB of archives. After this operation, 142 MB of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] Install the dependencies required and build.

Re: apt-get build-dep emacs-gtk: unmet dependencies

On Sun, Feb 2, 2020, 9:51 AM İ. Göktuğ Kayaalp wrote: > Hi all, > > Lastly, there was an error during installation yesterday, package > installation was paused when I returned to my computer, so I restarted > the installation process. It downloaded one more package and installed > it, and

Re: apt-get build-dep emacs-gtk: unmet dependencies

(I'm replying both public and private in response to your request for such in another message. In turn, please respond on-list only - preferably to the copy transmitted via the list, if possible; the way you replied to deloptes seems to have produced the desired effect, at least by what is

Re: apt-get build-dep emacs-gtk: unmet dependencies

BTW I'd really appreciate if you could reply to me on-list instead of to the list only, given I'm not subscribed to the list. Thanks a lot in advance! -- İ. Göktuğ Kayaalp / @cadadr / pgp: 024C 30DD 597D 142B 49AC 40EB 465C D949 B101 2427

Re: apt-get build-dep emacs-gtk: unmet dependencies

> But libgnutls28-dev is in buster They all are, the problem is that build-dep:emacs requires packages which seem to require some downgrades. These are not major downgrades, but minor version or debian package version: libtiff-dev : Depends: libtiff5 (= 4.0.10-4) but 4.1.0+git191117-2~deb10u1

Re: apt-get build-dep emacs-gtk: unmet dependencies

İ. Göktuğ Kayaalp wrote: > I follow Emacs' master branch for my day-to-day use, so I need to build > it manually for my daily workflow.  Yesterday I did a fresh reinstall of > Debian 10, after which I haven't been able to install build dependencies > for emacs25 or emacs-gtk

apt-get build-dep emacs-gtk: unmet dependencies

Hi all, I follow Emacs' master branch for my day-to-day use, so I need to build it manually for my daily workflow. Yesterday I did a fresh reinstall of Debian 10, after which I haven't been able to install build dependencies for emacs25 or emacs-gtk. The error is as follows: , | Reading

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

In this case, unless you're specifically trying to remove all of these specific dependencies (for no apparent reason) *it simply doesn't matter*. Saying, "there was a troll post which shows that this is an issue" just isn't compelling. Are there any real users with valid use cas

Re: et.al., (was: Dependencies et al, was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Tue 08 Oct 2019 at 00:25:44 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 18:42:38 (+0100), Brian wrote: > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 15:09:09 +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > But how do Debian list servers know ? > > > > A good question. How are my mails matched with

Re: et.al., (was: Dependencies et al, was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 08:52:11 -0400 Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 09:13:31AM +0100, Joe wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 00:25:44 -0500 > > David Wright wrote: > > > Why would you use a "subscribed.address" (presumably an email > > > address) for your HELO (presumably actually a

Re: et.al., (was: Dependencies et al, was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 09:13:31AM +0100, Joe wrote: > On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 00:25:44 -0500 > David Wright wrote: > > Why would you use a "subscribed.address" (presumably an email address) > > for your HELO (presumably actually a EHLO). I was under the impression > > that it should be a domain, ie a

Re: et.al., (was: Dependencies et al, was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 00:25:44 -0500 David Wright wrote: > > > > "subscribed.address" is the HELO and can be what I want it to be. > > See the headers of my previous mail. > > Why would you use a "subscribed.address" (presumably an email address) > for your HELO (presumably actually a EHLO). I

Re: et.al., (was: Dependencies et al, was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 18:42:38 (+0100), Brian wrote: > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 15:09:09 +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > > [...] > > > But how do Debian list servers know ? > > A good question. How are my mails matched with my subscribed address > so that I am awarded the accolade of LDOSUBSCRIBER?

Re: et.al., (was: Dependencies et al, was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 15:09:09 (+0200), Thomas Schmitt wrote: > i wrote: > > > To my best knowledge, "X-Spam-Status: ... tests=...,LDOSUBSCRIBER,..." > > > says that the "From:" address of the mail is subscribed. > > Brian wrote: > > Are you sure it is the From: and not the envelope From? My

Re: [OT] Dependencies et al

(Warning: irrelevancy ahead.) On 07/10/2019 21.29, Brian wrote: > I am not overly bothered whether my answers are read. That is up to the > OP. For all I know, all my mails are deleted on sight by all users on > this list. :) Wrong, there is at least one that hasn't. QED ;) -- Étienne Mollier

Re: Dependencies et al

On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 20:49:08 +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > Brian wrote: > > I am still wondering what use it is to "check for the existence of > > that LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before* > > replying to e-mail". How does it affect the actions one takes? > >

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 10:05:30PM +0300, Reco wrote: On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 02:45:29PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 09:17:21PM +0300, Reco wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > I don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:45:29 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 09:17:21PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > > I don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a beneficial > > > outcome. > > > > You're entitled

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 02:45:29PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 09:17:21PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > > I don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a beneficial > > > outcome. > > > > You're

Re: Dependencies et al

Michael Stone writes: > Are there any real users with valid use cases for which this as an > issue? "I told it to remove xyzzy and it removed all of Gnome!" (or some other metapackage) is a common complaint. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 21:17:21 +0300, Reco wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:39:56PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > > No, I got you first time. Rather it's my response deviated elsewhere. > > > > > > I see nothing in those three

Re: Dependencies et al

Hi, Brian wrote: > I am still wondering what use it is to "check for the existence of > that LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before* > replying to e-mail". How does it affect the actions one takes? As said, i use it as guideline whether to add a Cc: for the thread starter. If

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 09:17:21PM +0300, Reco wrote: On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:54:17PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: I don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a beneficial outcome. You're entitled to your option, of course. For context, the most recent message from that account

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

ind of dependency itself. > > I don't agree that responding to a troll will lead to a beneficial outcome. You're entitled to your option, of course. Still, there were some valid points in that e-mail. > In this case, unless you're specifically trying to remove all of these > specific

Re: Dependencies et al

It achieves this by > | depending on all the packages of the set. Thanks to the power of APT, the > | meta-package maintainer can adjust the dependencies and the user's system > | will automatically get the supplementary packages. The dropped packages > | that were automatically installed will be a

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 10:56:30 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 16:03:21 (+0300), Reco wrote: [...] > > Please show a e-mail from the list subscriber that does not have > > aforementioned attribute, then we'll have something to talk about. > > Dead easy. Just configure your

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

trying to remove all of these specific dependencies (for no apparent reason) *it simply doesn't matter*. Saying, "there was a troll post which shows that this is an issue" just isn't compelling. Are there any real users with valid use cases for which this as an issue? If not, why enc

Re: et.al., (was: Dependencies et al, was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 15:09:09 +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote: [...] > But how do Debian list servers know ? A good question. How are my mails matched with my subscribed address so that I am awarded the accolade of LDOSUBSCRIBER? On the basis that my past statements about the SMTP protocol

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 10:56:30AM -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 16:03:21 (+0300), Reco wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:32:59PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:59:31 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote: > >

Re: et.al., (was: Dependencies et al, was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 15:09:09 +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > i wrote: > > > To my best knowledge, "X-Spam-Status: ... tests=...,LDOSUBSCRIBER,..." > > > says that the "From:" address of the mail is subscribed. > > Brian wrote: > > Are you sure it is the From: and not the envelope From?

Re: Dependencies et al

install package A and not package B, but A doesn't absolutely require B. All or almost all of the dependencies in metapackages would then be weak. I had wondered about the very same thing for multiple times already, but this clear explanation above (thank you very much, John) has given me a good oppor

Re: Dependencies et al

nd not package B, but A doesn't absolutely require B. All or almost all of the dependencies in metapackages would then be weak. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 16:03:21 (+0300), Reco wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:32:59PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:59:31 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > > On

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Reco wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:08:04PM -, Dan Purgert wrote: >> Reco wrote: I don't think anything needs to be done here -- the whole idea of (meta)packages is that you give up some choice for the benefits of not having

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 16:03:21 +0300, Reco wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:32:59PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:59:31 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > > >

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

detail possible. But if no one is reading the documentation - is there a meaning in all this work? Hence my suggestion. Users are confused already, and it won't get better. I have no problem filling a wishlist bugreport, but I like to estimate the possible users' reaction. > >> > 4) Metapa

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

t;lxqt" needs across the board, but I imagine that >> since it wants one or the other archive program, there are one or more >> other packages built against them. > > Does not seem to be the case. One of "lxqt"'s dependencies, "ark" is a > KDE archive util

Re: et.al., (was: Dependencies et al, was: Default Debian install harassed me)

Hi, i wrote: > > To my best knowledge, "X-Spam-Status: ... tests=...,LDOSUBSCRIBER,..." > > says that the "From:" address of the mail is subscribed. Brian wrote: > Are you sure it is the From: and not the envelope From? My From: is > not subscribed. Interesting observation. So the address by

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 01:32:59PM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:59:31 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote: > >

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On 2019-10-07, Reco wrote: > > 1) Call me old-fashioned, but posters' personalities should not matter > here, at this list. I don't see what is old-fashioned about your opinion here. I would think it were the gentilities of polite discourse that have become outmoded (as demonstrated finely by

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:59:31 +0300, Reco wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > > >

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

cross the board, but I imagine that > since it wants one or the other archive program, there are one or more > other packages built against them. Does not seem to be the case. One of "lxqt"'s dependencies, "ark" is a KDE archive utility. Or so is says in the description. An

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 13:53:43 +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > Reco wrote: [...] > Brian wrote: > > The non-existence of LDOSUBSCRIBER in a mails's headers says nothing > > definite about whether the poster is subscribed to the list or reads > > list mails. > > To my best knowledge,

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

are one or more other packages built against them. The only way out of that then would be to compile the affected programs from source, so that they can call his preferred archive solution (assuming said solution can be hooked into by the affected programs). > > > 4) Metapackages tend to have rest

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:50:28PM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > PS Just a friendly reminder. Please

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

Hi, Reco wrote: > > 1) Call me old-fashioned, but posters' personalities should not matter > > here, at this list. [...] > > The language OP is using could definitely use some improvement indeed, It would serve the general issue of constructive discussion. > > discussing OP's personality just

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 14:11:15 +0300, Reco wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote: > > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > PS Just a friendly reminder. Please check for the existence of that > > > LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status

Re: Dependencies et al (was: Default Debian install harassed me)

On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 11:39:05AM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Mon 07 Oct 2019 at 11:28:03 +0300, Reco wrote: > > [...] > > > PS Just a friendly reminder. Please check for the existence of that > > LDOSUBSCRIBER value of X-Spam-Status e-mail header *before* replying to > > e-mail. Unless, of

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >