Re: Manually installed packages

[Jörg-Volker Peetz]

Rodolfo Medina wrote on 12/04/16 12:54:
> Jörg-Volker Peetz  writes:

>>   aptitude -F '%p %I %d' --sort installsize search '~i'
> 
> 
> What about reverse (descending) installsize order?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rodolfo
> 
For that purpose, the unix command "tac" comes handy

  aptitude -F '%p %I %d' --sort installsize search '~i' | tac

Regards,
jvp.

Re: Manually installed packages

[Rodolfo Medina]

Jörg-Volker Peetz  writes:

> Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote on 12/04/16 10:40:
>> Greg Wooledge wrote on 12/01/16 20:06:
>>> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 06:38:45PM +, Rodolfo Medina wrote:
>> 
>>>
>>> P.S. http://wooledge.org/~greg/ds will sort the installed packages by
>>> size for you.  As you can see, many of us have been there, done that.
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, e.g., aptitude can do this sorting (and sorting by other criteria):
>> 
>>   aptitude -F '%p %D %d' --sort installsize search '~i'
>> 
> Correction: to display the installed size this should be
>
>   aptitude -F '%p %I %d' --sort installsize search '~i'


What about reverse (descending) installsize order?

Thanks,

Rodolfo

Re: Manually installed packages

[Jörg-Volker Peetz]

Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote on 12/04/16 10:40:
> Greg Wooledge wrote on 12/01/16 20:06:
>> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 06:38:45PM +, Rodolfo Medina wrote:
> 
>>
>> P.S. http://wooledge.org/~greg/ds will sort the installed packages by
>> size for you.  As you can see, many of us have been there, done that.
>>
> 
> 
> Yes, e.g., aptitude can do this sorting (and sorting by other criteria):
> 
>   aptitude -F '%p %D %d' --sort installsize search '~i'
> 
Correction: to display the installed size this should be

  aptitude -F '%p %I %d' --sort installsize search '~i'

Regards,
jvp.

Re: Manually installed packages

[Jörg-Volker Peetz]

Greg Wooledge wrote on 12/01/16 20:06:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 06:38:45PM +, Rodolfo Medina wrote:

> 
> P.S. http://wooledge.org/~greg/ds will sort the installed packages by
> size for you.  As you can see, many of us have been there, done that.
> 


Yes, e.g., aptitude can do this sorting (and sorting by other criteria):

  aptitude -F '%p %D %d' --sort installsize search '~i'

Regards,
jvp.

Re: Manually installed packages

[kamaraju kusumanchi]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Greg Wooledge  wrote:
>
> P.S. http://wooledge.org/~greg/ds will sort the installed packages by
> size for you.  As you can see, many of us have been there, done that.
>

I would like to mention couple of things

1) You can do this by running dpigs in the debian-goodies package. For example

 % dpigs -H -n 5
 284.0M rstudio
 228.2M valgrind-dbg
 180.7M google-chrome-stable
 164.0M gcompris-data
 155.9M linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64

where -H lists the size in human readable format, -n specifies the
number of packages to be listed.

BTW there is nothing wrong with having your own script. I do it all
the time:). But I thought it might help users who are not aware of
this functionality in Debian itself.

2) The results from your script and dpigs are not consistent. The
dpigs utility shows valgrind-dbg but your script does not show it.

% perl ds | head -n 5
rstudio   290867
google-chrome-stable  184994
gcompris-data 167973
linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64159681
chromium  158398

 % dpigs -n 5
290867 rstudio
233675 valgrind-dbg
184994 google-chrome-stable
167973 gcompris-data
159681 linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64

3) Please consider putting these type of scripts in a public
repository hosting services such as gitlab or github? They make it
easier for others to collaborate by reducing the barrier to report
bugs, suggest features, provide patches etc.,

thanks
raju
-- 
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi | http://raju.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Blog

Re: Manually installed packages

[Rodolfo Medina]

Greg Wooledge  writes:

> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 06:38:45PM +, Rodolfo Medina wrote:
>> Suppose that, during months and years, you have installed many packages in
>> your Debian system that you no more want and no more use, and that you want
>> to free some space on disk because your machine is old with a small hard
>> disk.  The problem is what packages you can be really sure and safe to
>> remove.
>
> At some point you actually have to *know* what a package does.  Go through
> the list sorted by size and skip everything you know is useful.  When you
> get to one that you think is not useful, or which you don't recognize
> *at all*, dig into it and find out what it does.  Then consider removing
> it, but be prepared to put it back if you break something.
>
> This is how you learn.
>
> P.S. http://wooledge.org/~greg/ds will sort the installed packages by
> size for you.  As you can see, many of us have been there, done that.


Very useful.  Thanks.

Rodolfo

Re: Manually installed packages

[Cindy-Sue Causey]

On 12/1/16, David Wright  wrote:
> On Wed 30 Nov 2016 at 08:47:21 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> so I'm just as confused as Rodolfo
>> and I think for good reasons.
>
> I don't know whether Rodolfo is still confused after the explanation
> I gave. AFAICT once you realise that manual means "not marked as auto"
> rather than "I installed this by typing apt* ", then it's
> fairly obvious that "manual" is a bucket term that includes, for
> example, packages installed by the debian-installer because they're
> essential, with Priority: required.
>
> I can't remember installing bash or grep, but they're certainly not
> auto, so they're going to be "unmarked auto", or "marked non-auto",
> or "marked manual". I think I'll stick to the last. What would
> you prefer?


What you're saying here, I'd never noticed anything beyond that the
"set to manually installed" message occurs to packages I am, in fact,
manually installing.. It never occurred to me to ponder that packages
might come out of the box that way and that there might be a reason
for them to do so.

>> There might be technical reasons behind
>> the way it currently works, but I think this qualifies as a bug (maybe
>> a UI bug, maybe a coding bug, maybe a doc bug).
>
> *What* qualifies as a bug...that you're confused?


That's why I chimed in with my part again. Can't remember what you
said the other day, but it helped trigger the thought process to
connect this all directly to the "set to manually installed"
advisement I (regularly) receive from apt-get. It's a no-brainer to me
to feel that there is surely some predictable purposeful purpose for
the *auto*magically generated "set to manually installed" feature I
accidentally trigger (regularly). :)

Thanks for you insight. As has been to date, this is an "of least
concern" kind of thing for me because nothing within my own system
seems affected, either positively or negatively. My instinct has been
to a-sume maybe it was a feature that proved of significant value to
practicing developers or something like that... there. *grin*

Cindy

-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* runs with plastic sporks *

Re: Manually installed packages

[Cindy-Sue Causey]

On 11/30/16, Stefan Monnier  wrote:
>> apt-mark showmanual   gives you the complement of   apt-mark showauto.
>> The second paragraph of apt-mark's description explains what's meant
>> by "auto". So "manual" doesn't mean what you appear to assume it does,
>> that you were involved in manually selecting it for installation. It
>> just means "not auto".
>
> To me "auto" means "not manually", so I'm just as confused as Rodolfo
> and I think for good reasons.  There might be technical reasons behind
> the way it currently works, but I think this qualifies as a bug (maybe
> a UI bug, maybe a coding bug, maybe a doc bug).


The other day I commented that I played along with this thread by
testing apt-mark against what I've observed while installing packages
over time. That observation was that apt-get automatically marks
packages as manually installed without being proactively told to do so
*IF* one (accidentally) installs a package that is currently up to
date on upgrades..

Note: While I was typing the above, it came to mind that maybe that's
a purposeful feature that happens because I most frequently perform
"apt-get install" instead of "apt-get upgrade" (k/t managing limited
resources).

Part of what I shared in my previous related comment is that I see the
following when accidentally using "at-get install" on a package that
is already up to date:

++
libchromaprint1 is already the newest version (1.3.2-2).
libchromaprint1 set to manually installed.
++

My observation the other day was that once that occurs, apt-mark then
understandably and immediately adds that package to any future query
feedback.

An observation today is that you apparently only see that message
once, that being the first time you (accidentally) try to install a
currently current package. That makes sense so that's where tools like
apt-mark come in handy. If you miss that "set to manually installed."
advisement during that single instance when it occurs, tools like
apt-mark have your back.

My reaction over time has been that, nope, I didn't want packages set
as manually installed primarily because #1 I didn't specifically
command it to be so and #2 I don't know what that action affects
deeper under the hood. So far it hasn't *appeared to* hurt anything,
and, point blank, there are far more pressing issues needing addressed
in my local, real World community at this moment. #Priorities. :)

Cindy :)

-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* runs with plastic sporks *

Re: Manually installed packages

[Brian]

On Thu 01 Dec 2016 at 18:38:45 +, Rodolfo Medina wrote:

> Curt  writes:
> 
> > I think in the OP's case having asked for the whole Gnome kit and
> > caboodle upon installation he's got lots of stuff he might not even be
> > aware of necessarily that doesn't fall into the auto category (or the
> > high priority required category either), but that he didn't expressly
> > install. I guess I'm just repeating what you already said though. I
> > suppose the confusion derives from the fact that the word manual
> > connotes "requiring human effort," and certain manual packages appear
> > on our systems effortlessly. 
> 
> 
> The present thread has collected many replies whose I thank all that kindly
> contributed.  But I unfortunately see no real solution to the general problem 
> I
> put to myself of which the uninstallation of Gnome is only an example.

But you never tried uninstalling GNOME as advised. Solving the general
proceeds from solvng the particular.

> Suppose that, during months and years, you have installed many packages in 
> your
> Debian system that you no more want and no more use, and that you want to free
> some space on disk because your machine is old with a small hard disk.  The
> problem is what packages you can be really sure and safe to remove.

You lay out the problem clearly. There is no silver bullet. You cannot
always be sure but you can imagine biting it. Trust the packaging system
and your own judgement.

-- 
Brian.

Re: Manually installed packages

[Jörg-Volker Peetz]

Speaking of aptitude, it does remove automatically installed package if no other
package depends on it, or recommends it. This behavior can be changed by
configuration entries in /etc/apt/apt.conf, /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/*, etc.

To show any installed packages that aren't "auto" and which are dependencies or
recommendations of other packages, in short, packages that aren't marked "auto"
but could (should?) be, order

  aptitude search '~i!~M(~R~i|~Rrecommends:~i)'

Go through this list and, as root, mark the ones you don't need with

  aptitude markauto PACKAGE

When done,

  aptitude search '~g'

shows what can be purged from the system.

Regards,
jvp.

Re: Manually installed packages

[Greg Wooledge]

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 06:38:45PM +, Rodolfo Medina wrote:
> Suppose that, during months and years, you have installed many packages in 
> your
> Debian system that you no more want and no more use, and that you want to free
> some space on disk because your machine is old with a small hard disk.  The
> problem is what packages you can be really sure and safe to remove.

At some point you actually have to *know* what a package does.  Go through
the list sorted by size and skip everything you know is useful.  When you
get to one that you think is not useful, or which you don't recognize
*at all*, dig into it and find out what it does.  Then consider removing
it, but be prepared to put it back if you break something.

This is how you learn.

P.S. http://wooledge.org/~greg/ds will sort the installed packages by
size for you.  As you can see, many of us have been there, done that.

P.P.S. do this learning on your desktop box, not a server.

Re: Manually installed packages

[Rodolfo Medina]

Curt  writes:

> I think in the OP's case having asked for the whole Gnome kit and
> caboodle upon installation he's got lots of stuff he might not even be
> aware of necessarily that doesn't fall into the auto category (or the
> high priority required category either), but that he didn't expressly
> install. I guess I'm just repeating what you already said though. I
> suppose the confusion derives from the fact that the word manual
> connotes "requiring human effort," and certain manual packages appear
> on our systems effortlessly. 


The present thread has collected many replies whose I thank all that kindly
contributed.  But I unfortunately see no real solution to the general problem I
put to myself of which the uninstallation of Gnome is only an example.

Suppose that, during months and years, you have installed many packages in your
Debian system that you no more want and no more use, and that you want to free
some space on disk because your machine is old with a small hard disk.  The
problem is what packages you can be really sure and safe to remove.

First, you need knowing what actually you have installed with your hands
because you don't remember them all.  This information is not provided by
apt-mark because its meaning of `manual' is not yours.  That information is
stored here and there, in pieces and chunks, within /var/log inside apt-get,
aptitude an dpkg log files that is not so simple to grep.  Besides, those files
seem to go back in the past not further 12 months or so.  So the best way is to
take note, in future, with pencil and paper, of what you installed during time;
and, for the present, erase the disk and reinstall everything.

Now, suppose you know - thanks to pencil and paper - what packages you've been
installed on your system since its creation.  And suppose that you decide to
remove, say, package1 bcause you don't need it any more.  You do: `aptitude
purge package1' or equivalent command but here comes another problem: only
package1 is removed but not all those packages that were installed at its time
along with package1.  Then you use for this purpose deborphans.  But this
morning I did a little experiment (see thread `deborphan') and it came out that
neither deborphan seems to actually remove those orphans packages.  The
solution seems so to be that pencil and paper should take note *also* of those
children or configuration files and not only of the main packages - in future.
In the present, erase and reinstall.

It seems to me not very enthusiastical all this.  To you?

Thanks,

Rodolfo

Re: Manually installed packages

[Curt]

On 2016-12-01, David Wright  wrote:
> On Wed 30 Nov 2016 at 08:47:21 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> > apt-mark showmanual   gives you the complement of   apt-mark showauto.
>> > The second paragraph of apt-mark's description explains what's meant
>> > by "auto". So "manual" doesn't mean what you appear to assume it does,
>> > that you were involved in manually selecting it for installation. It
>> > just means "not auto".
>> 
>> To me "auto" means "not manually",
>
> Yes, auto and manual are anotnyms.
>
>> so I'm just as confused as Rodolfo
>> and I think for good reasons.
>
> I don't know whether Rodolfo is still confused after the explanation
> I gave. AFAICT once you realise that manual means "not marked as auto"
> rather than "I installed this by typing apt* ", then it's
> fairly obvious that "manual" is a bucket term that includes, for
> example, packages installed by the debian-installer because they're
> essential, with Priority: required.

I think in the OP's case having asked for the whole Gnome kit and
caboodle upon installation he's got lots of stuff he might not even be
aware of necessarily that doesn't fall into the auto category (or the
high priority required category either), but that he didn't expressly
install. I guess I'm just repeating what you already said though. I
suppose the confusion derives from the fact that the word manual
connotes "requiring human effort," and certain manual packages appear
on our systems effortlessly. 

> I can't remember installing bash or grep, but they're certainly not
> auto, so they're going to be "unmarked auto", or "marked non-auto",
> or "marked manual". I think I'll stick to the last. What would
> you prefer?

>> There might be technical reasons behind
>> the way it currently works, but I think this qualifies as a bug (maybe
>> a UI bug, maybe a coding bug, maybe a doc bug).
>
> *What* qualifies as a bug...that you're confused?
>
> Cheers,
> David.
>
>


-- 
“It is enough that the arrows fit exactly in the wounds that they have made.”
Franz Kafka

Re: Manually installed packages

[David Wright]

On Wed 30 Nov 2016 at 08:47:21 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > apt-mark showmanual   gives you the complement of   apt-mark showauto.
> > The second paragraph of apt-mark's description explains what's meant
> > by "auto". So "manual" doesn't mean what you appear to assume it does,
> > that you were involved in manually selecting it for installation. It
> > just means "not auto".
> 
> To me "auto" means "not manually",

Yes, auto and manual are anotnyms.

> so I'm just as confused as Rodolfo
> and I think for good reasons.

I don't know whether Rodolfo is still confused after the explanation
I gave. AFAICT once you realise that manual means "not marked as auto"
rather than "I installed this by typing apt* ", then it's
fairly obvious that "manual" is a bucket term that includes, for
example, packages installed by the debian-installer because they're
essential, with Priority: required.

I can't remember installing bash or grep, but they're certainly not
auto, so they're going to be "unmarked auto", or "marked non-auto",
or "marked manual". I think I'll stick to the last. What would
you prefer?

> There might be technical reasons behind
> the way it currently works, but I think this qualifies as a bug (maybe
> a UI bug, maybe a coding bug, maybe a doc bug).

*What* qualifies as a bug...that you're confused?

Cheers,
David.

Re: Manually installed packages

[Stefan Monnier]

> apt-mark showmanual   gives you the complement of   apt-mark showauto.
> The second paragraph of apt-mark's description explains what's meant
> by "auto". So "manual" doesn't mean what you appear to assume it does,
> that you were involved in manually selecting it for installation. It
> just means "not auto".

To me "auto" means "not manually", so I'm just as confused as Rodolfo
and I think for good reasons.  There might be technical reasons behind
the way it currently works, but I think this qualifies as a bug (maybe
a UI bug, maybe a coding bug, maybe a doc bug).


Stefan

Re: Manually installed packages

[Jörg-Volker Peetz]

Here you have the answer to your own question.
Use apt-mark to mark the packages you want to keep and all "required" packages
as "manual"ly installed. Then mark all other packages as "auto".
Then let
  apt-get autoremove
do its work.

After that, use e.g. aptitude to remove remaining configuration files with
  aptitude purge '~c'

Regards,
jvp.

Re: Manually installed packages (was: Uninstalling Gnome)

[Cindy-Sue Causey]

On 11/29/16, David Wright  wrote:
> On Tue 29 Nov 2016 at 23:45:51 (+), Rodolfo Medina wrote:
>>
>> If I run `apt-mark showmanual', a list of packages is ouput that are
>> supposed
>> to have been manually installed on my system but that actually I don't at
>> all
>> remember ever installing neither do I believe they truly have been nay I'm
>> sure
>> they haven't...  Any people could explain that?
>
> apt-mark showmanual   gives you the complement of   apt-mark showauto.
> The second paragraph of apt-mark's description explains what's meant
> by "auto". So "manual" doesn't mean what you appear to assume it does,
> that you were involved in manually selecting it for installation. It
> just means "not auto".


I just played along here by running apt-mark. I received back a LONG
list that is "fine by me", i.e. nothing to sweat over on my end,
because of how upgrading has been going lately. That "no sweat"
reaction is because David's response brought back to mind that I see
the following sometimes after running "apt-get install" for an already
up-to-date package::

+
libilmbase12 is already the newest version (2.2.0-11).
libilmbase12 set to manually installed.
+

I had to work hard to find something that wasn't on the list apt-mark
had just given me. /var/log/apt/history.log.1 was my friend there.

Everything else that I tried turned out to already be on the apt-mark
generated list. Attempts at "accidentally" installing packages already
on the apt-mark list all simply responded back with the "is already
the newest version" line.

It's tied in. libilmbase12 was NOT in my initial apt-mark showmanual
query response. It IS on that list now.

Cindy :)

-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* runs with plastic sporks *

Re: Manually installed packages (was: Uninstalling Gnome)

[David Wright]

On Tue 29 Nov 2016 at 23:45:51 (+), Rodolfo Medina wrote:
> Rodolfo Medina  writes:
> 
> > When I freshly installed Debian on my present system, I chose Gnome as my
> > Desktop manager, then I switched to Openbox.  To free space, now I want to
> > remove all those Gnome packages that I haven't used any more but am not sure
> > what of them I may delete without perturbing the system.  How can I know?
> > More in general, is there a way to know what packages one is not using and 
> > so
> > can be removed?
> 
> 
> If I run `apt-mark showmanual', a list of packages is ouput that are supposed
> to have been manually installed on my system but that actually I don't at all
> remember ever installing neither do I believe they truly have been nay I'm 
> sure
> they haven't...  Any people could explain that?

apt-mark showmanual   gives you the complement of   apt-mark showauto.
The second paragraph of apt-mark's description explains what's meant
by "auto". So "manual" doesn't mean what you appear to assume it does,
that you were involved in manually selecting it for installation. It
just means "not auto".

Cheers,
David.

Manually installed packages (was: Uninstalling Gnome)

[Rodolfo Medina]

Rodolfo Medina  writes:

> When I freshly installed Debian on my present system, I chose Gnome as my
> Desktop manager, then I switched to Openbox.  To free space, now I want to
> remove all those Gnome packages that I haven't used any more but am not sure
> what of them I may delete without perturbing the system.  How can I know?
> More in general, is there a way to know what packages one is not using and so
> can be removed?


If I run `apt-mark showmanual', a list of packages is ouput that are supposed
to have been manually installed on my system but that actually I don't at all
remember ever installing neither do I believe they truly have been nay I'm sure
they haven't...  Any people could explain that?

Thanks, Cheers

Rodolfo

Re: apt-get trying to remove manually installed packages

[James Robertson]

 Please post the full output of 'apt-get dist-upgrade' here, otherwise we
 can only guess.



I waited a few days and did an apt-get update and dist-upgrade and the
manually installed packages that were previously a problem were no longer
going to be removed.  So the problem is solved but I do not know why apt
ignored my manual selections at the time?

Re: apt-get trying to remove manually installed packages

[Andrei Popescu]

On Jo, 24 mar 11, 12:52:03, James Robertson wrote:
 I am running Sid.
 
 while doing a dist-upgrade apt-get wants to remove a number of packages that
 are manually installed.
 
 One example is rxvt-unicode which I manually installed.  I have run apt-get
 unmarkauto rxvt-unicode to ensure it's set to manual but it keeps wanting
 to remove it during dist-upgrade.
 
 How can I prevent apt from removing my manually installed packages?

Please post the full output of 'apt-get dist-upgrade' here, otherwise we 
can only guess.

Regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: apt-get trying to remove manually installed packages

[i'll teach you to turn away.]

James Robertson j...@mesrobertson.com wrote:
JR I am running Sid.
JR while doing a dist-upgrade apt-get wants to remove a number of packages that
JR are manually installed.
JR How can I prevent apt from removing my manually installed packages?

i've made apt-get ignore packages with this:
# echo $packagename hold | dpkg --set-selections

 to take it off hold:
# echo $packagename install | dpkg --set-selections

lishi left all my kinder parts
cr...@got.net   rusting  peeling. -mm


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8v7n11fa8...@mid.individual.net

apt-get trying to remove manually installed packages

[James Robertson]

I am running Sid.

while doing a dist-upgrade apt-get wants to remove a number of packages that
are manually installed.

One example is rxvt-unicode which I manually installed.  I have run apt-get
unmarkauto rxvt-unicode to ensure it's set to manual but it keeps wanting
to remove it during dist-upgrade.

How can I prevent apt from removing my manually installed packages?