jastiv@localhost:/var/log$ dpkg -S /lib/modules/2.6.30.7-libre-fshoppe1
dpkg: /lib/modules/2.6.30.7-libre-fshoppe1 not found.
then I tried on a file I know was installed by the package manager.
jastiv@localhost:/var/log$ dpkg -S /usr/share/gnome/help/gnect/it/figures
gnome-games-data: /usr/shar
> jastiv@localhost:~/Programs$ sudo dpkg --configure -a
> [sudo] password for jastiv:
> Setting up initramfs-tools (0.85eubuntu36) ...
> update-initramfs: deferring update (trigger activated)
>
> Processing triggers for initramfs-tools ...
> update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-2.6.30.7-
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 1:35 AM, Lori Nagel wrote:
> jastiv@localhost:~/Programs$ sudo dpkg --configure -a
> [sudo] password for jastiv:
> Setting up initramfs-tools (0.85eubuntu36) ...
> update-initramfs: deferring update (trigger activated)
>
> Processing triggers for initramfs-tools ...
> updat
Benjamin Scott writes:
>
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Joshua Judson Rosen
> wrote:
> > > The Debian package downloads and runs an executable installer.
> > > d-m.org offered a proper packaging of the installed files.
> >
> > I'd go for that, but... is that even *legal*? In the USA?
>
>
I'm pretty sure that this was broken before you issued your first listed
apt-get install command. It looks like you have a kernel package registered
as installed, but one of the directories it installed,
/lib/modules/2.6.30.7-libre-fshoppe1, is now gone. You should be able to
track down the package
For anyone interested in how I broke my package management in gNewSense (a
ubuntu derivative)
read on the terminal commands that I have tried.
I still do not understand what I did that led to it not working anymore.
jastiv@localhost:~/Programs$ sudo apt-get install gtk-devel
[sudo] password for
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
> On Sun, February 13, 2011 11:06 am, Jeffry Smith wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Lori Nagel wrote:
> >
> >> I hate apt-get stuff.
>
>
> I guess the bottom line is, ain't no package management system that's
> perfect (though
On Sun, February 13, 2011 11:06 am, Jeffry Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Lori Nagel wrote:
>
>> I hate apt-get stuff.
>[T]he only way I've found to hose up apt-get or aptitude (which
> does a better job of resolving conflicts) is to use dpkg
> --force-(insert option here).
I wil
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Joshua Judson Rosen
wrote:
>> The Debian package downloads and runs an executable installer.
>> d-m.org offered a proper packaging of the installed files.
>
> I'd go for that, but... is that even *legal*? In the USA?
IANAL, but I believe that's an open questi
Benjamin Scott writes:
>
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Joshua Judson Rosen
> wrote:
> > I don't even understand how/why the word "conveniently" is supposed
> > to apply, here--how do you, as an end user, even see any difference?
>
> The Debian package downloads and runs an executable ins
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Lori Nagel wrote:
> I hate apt-get stuff. I don't know what kernel you have. I assume you
> probably
>
> are not using the libre-fshoppe kernel or something since you are installing
> proprietary software.
>
> I want to say go back to a red hat (rpm) based dist
On 02/12/2011 11:22 PM, Lori Nagel wrote:
> I hate apt-get stuff. I don't know what kernel you have. I assume you
> probably
>
> are not using the libre-fshoppe kernel or something since you are installing
> proprietary software.
>
> I want to say go back to a red hat (rpm) based distro. honest
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Benjamin Scott wrote:
> (1) Updates work automatically, like every other managed package on
> the system.
P.S.: Given Flash's history of frequent security vulnerabilities and
consequence fix releases, this is pretty significant.
-- Ben
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Joshua Judson Rosen
wrote:
> I don't even understand how/why the word "conveniently" is supposed
> to apply, here--how do you, as an end user, even see any difference?
The Debian package downloads and runs an executable installer.
d-m.org offered a proper packa
Benjamin Scott writes:
>
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Alan Johnson wrote:
> > If you don't want to fish through the repos, you will likely find it in
> > /var/cache/apt/archives/
>
> Alas, no. apt-get won't even download the package because it thinks
> there are unsolved dependencies.
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Tom Buskey wrote:
> It's nice/sad to see Debian getting the symptoms of RPM hell that people
> always bring up.
Debian -- or rather, dpkg/APT -- has always had the exact same
behavior as RPM/YUM, it's just Debian bigots (who crawl out of the
woodwork whenever pa
Benjamin Scott writes:
>
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Joshua Judson Rosen
> wrote:
> > What's wrong with the `flashplugin-nonfree' package that Debian has
> > in lenny-backports?
>
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Scott wrote:
> > They conveniently kept a
> > current release p
Escaping from Dependency Hell sometimes involves gymnastics that
rival BistroMathics in complexity...
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
>> If you don't want to fish through the repos, you will likely find it in
>> /var/cache/apt/archives/
>
> Alas, no. apt-get won't even download the package because it thinks
>there are unsolved dependencies.
You should be able to pull an inventory from any repo mentioned in your
/etc/apt/sour
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Jon 'maddog' Hall wrote:
>> after a unfortunate accident involving a package manager, a liquid
>> lunch, and a pair of rubber bands
>
> I would love to hear more about this at the upcoming ManchLUG meeting.
> I knew there was a reason for avoiding rubber bands.
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Lori Nagel wrote:
> (unlike rpm distros where you could just compile it from source as long
> as you don't need a package for the program installed)
Source packages exist in dpkg/APT land as well.
-- Ben
___
gnhlug-d
>after a unfortunate accident involving a package manager, a liquid
>lunch, and a pair of rubber bands
I would love to hear more about this at the upcoming ManchLUG meeting.
I knew there was a reason for avoiding rubber bands.
md
___
gnhlug-discuss mai
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Benjamin Scott wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Alan Johnson wrote:
> > If you don't want to fish through the repos, you will likely find it in
> > /var/cache/apt/archives/
>
> Alas, no. apt-get won't even download the package because it thinks
> there
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Roger H. Goun wrote:
> Is the source package available? If so, you could remove the errant
> dependencies from the control file and rebuild the .deb.
The reason I liked d-m.org's packaging of Flash was that it gave me
a proper package that was maintained at curr
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Alan Johnson wrote:
> If you don't want to fish through the repos, you will likely find it in
> /var/cache/apt/archives/
Alas, no. apt-get won't even download the package because it thinks
there are unsolved dependencies.
-- Ben
___
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Joshua Judson Rosen
wrote:
> What's wrong with the `flashplugin-nonfree' package that Debian has
> in lenny-backports?
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Benjamin Scott wrote:
> They conveniently kept a
> current release packaged in a "real" Debian package, not th
26 matches
Mail list logo
