2009/10/5 Vic :
>
> Hi All.
>
> I've upgraded my Kubuntu laptop. I was running 8.10 successfully. I
> upgraded to 9.04, but that crashed hard every few minutes, so I've now
> upgraded again to 9.10.
>
> It's taken me most of the day to sort out the .deb hell that
> update-manager left for me (which
2009/10/7 Dr A. J. Trickett :
> http://www.slideshare.net/macoafi/sysadmins-rosetta-stone
>
That's a nice set of slides. Have thanked maco for them :)
Cheers,
Al.
--
Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk
Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
LUG URL: http:/
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 at 12:56:37PM +0100, Alan Pope wrote:
> 2009/10/6 Dr A. J. Trickett :
> > We should should have table on our Wiki with the equivalents,
> > written by people who use system X rather than by people who don't
> > use X.
> >
> http://hants.lug.org.uk/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CommandLineEqu
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 11:46:20AM +0100, Vic wrote:
>
> >It follows on from the package update policy for Debian stable,
> > which is that bug-fixes for packages are always back-ported to the
> > original pacakge version. Thus, over the lifetime of a stable release,
> > the "upstream" part of
2009/10/7 Vic :
> So what would happen in the event that a security upgrade *did* require
> new packages[1]?
>
It has happened in recent memory. If I recall correctly when the ssh
issue happened last year the ssh server package gained an extra
dependancy "openssh-blacklist". If someone did a "safe
>It follows on from the package update policy for Debian stable,
> which is that bug-fixes for packages are always back-ported to the
> original pacakge version. Thus, over the lifetime of a stable release,
> the "upstream" part of the package version will never change (although
> the debian p
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 11:45:41PM +0100, Vic wrote:
> > aptitude (safe-)upgrade
>
> I'm still trying to work out exactly what safe-upgrade actually does.
>
> The page I found describing it says :-
>
> "The new action will upgrade a package only if it does not impact other
> packages, i-e: if it
> aptitude (safe-)upgrade
I'm still trying to work out exactly what safe-upgrade actually does.
The page I found describing it says :-
"The new action will upgrade a package only if it does not impact other
packages, i-e: if it is necessary to add or remove a dependency package
during upgrade,
> Just to be clear, it *was* the case many years ago. At the time when
> the then current documentation and accepted recommended method of
> installing software in a RedHat based system was to use rpm directly,
> Debian was using apt.
It doesn't matter whether it was or was not. It is no longer t
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:24:14 +0100
Stuart Sears wrote:
> ** this would be the sources.list file that totally confused me when I
> first got to it? Never mind all the apt pinning stuff... :)
the sources list is essential to ensure only packages for the Debian
version (stable, testing, unstable) y
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 20:41:29 +0100
Lisi wrote:
> . but it makes me feel as uncomfortable as going downhill with an
> automatic gear-box: out of control.
you just take your foot off the accelerator and brake gently to slow
down if needed.
There is one hill near here when coming back from Dor
On 06/10/09 20:41, Lisi wrote:
[...]
> Please could someone add the deal breaker for me, and the reason I
> have only ever looked cursorily at rpm/yum systems.
>
> What are the yum equivalents of: aptitude update
As that just downloads metadata (IIRC) - nothing.
Yum does this automatically withou
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 02:56:25PM +0100, James Ashburner wrote:
> My distro of choice uses apt and is rpm based, which side of the fence
> should I be sitting on? :)
I think you should probably be sitting over in *that* corner of the
room where we can all look at you with undisguised pity. ;)
On Tuesday 06 Oct 2009, Stuart Sears wrote:
> On 06/10/09 13:25, Dr A. J. Trickett wrote:
> > On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 at 12:56:37PM +0100, Alan Pope wrote:
> >> 2009/10/6 Dr A. J. Trickett:
> >>> We should should have table on our Wiki with the equivalents,
> >>> written by people who use system X rath
On Tuesday 06 October 2009 13:56:52 Alan Pope wrote:
> 2009/10/6 Stephen Rowles :
> > ||Display a list of package groups available || || yum grouplist
> >
> > || ||
> >
> > ||Install a group of package || || yum groupinstall || ||
>
> Added..
Please could someone add the deal breaker for me, a
On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 15:04 +0100, Philip Stubbs wrote:
> > My distro of choice uses apt and is rpm based, which side of the fence
> > should I be sitting on? :)
>
> That proves it! There is no fence. :-)
[ja...@pylecream ~]$ yum info synaptic
Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, refresh-packagekit
Av
2009/10/6 James Ashburner :
> Philip Stubbs wrote:
>>
>> I would say that it is ignorant to not accept that rpm based distroes
>> have had to catch up with Debian based ones with regards to package
>> management. If they did not have to catch up, why did they introduce
>> yum? Maybe now they have c
Philip Stubbs wrote:
>
> I would say that it is ignorant to not accept that rpm based distroes
> have had to catch up with Debian based ones with regards to package
> management. If they did not have to catch up, why did they introduce
> yum? Maybe now they have caught up, and for some, maybe they
On 06/10/09 13:25, Dr A. J. Trickett wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 at 12:56:37PM +0100, Alan Pope wrote:
>> 2009/10/6 Dr A. J. Trickett:
>>> We should should have table on our Wiki with the equivalents,
>>> written by people who use system X rather than by people who don't
>>> use X.
>>>
>>
>> http:
2009/10/6 Vic :
> I *suspect* that what is being said was never really true - it's just a
> feature of individuals not knowing what was available. But whether or not
> that was the case many years ago, it certainly isn't the case now.
Just to be clear, it *was* the case many years ago. At the time
2009/10/6 Stephen Rowles :
> ||Display a list of package groups available || || yum grouplist
> || ||
> ||Install a group of package || || yum groupinstall || ||
>
Added..
--
Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk
Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
LUG
Vic wrote:
>> That's a bit harsh Vic.
>>
>
> If this were the first time this discussion had occurred, you'd be right.
>
> But it isn't. It's the latest in a long line of RH-bashing from someone
> who has been repeatedly told that a direct comparison of rpm to apt is
> ludicrous, just as a dir
On 10/06/2009 12:56 PM, Alan Pope wrote:
> 2009/10/6 Dr A. J. Trickett:
>
>> We should should have table on our Wiki with the equivalents,
>> written by people who use system X rather than by people who don't
>> use X.
>>
>>
> http://hants.lug.org.uk/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CommandLineEquivalents
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 at 12:56:37PM +0100, Alan Pope wrote:
> 2009/10/6 Dr A. J. Trickett :
> > We should should have table on our Wiki with the equivalents,
> > written by people who use system X rather than by people who don't
> > use X.
> >
>
> http://hants.lug.org.uk/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CommandLineE
2009/10/6 Dr A. J. Trickett :
> We should should have table on our Wiki with the equivalents,
> written by people who use system X rather than by people who don't
> use X.
>
http://hants.lug.org.uk/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CommandLineEquivalents
Your starter for 10.
Don't tell me something is wrong with
2009/10/6 Philip Stubbs :
> This has given me an idea. How about at a BaB meeting, three machines
> could be setup with a base RedHat, Debian and Gentoo installation.
> Then people could have a go or be demonstrated doing common tasks in
> each system.
>
> I think we all probably have a favored dis
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 at 12:09:20PM +0100, Philip Stubbs wrote:
>
> This has given me an idea. How about at a BaB meeting, three machines
> could be setup with a base RedHat, Debian and Gentoo installation.
> Then people could have a go or be demonstrated doing common tasks in
> each system.
Thereh
> That's a bit harsh Vic.
If this were the first time this discussion had occurred, you'd be right.
But it isn't. It's the latest in a long line of RH-bashing from someone
who has been repeatedly told that a direct comparison of rpm to apt is
ludicrous, just as a direct comparison of dpkg to yum
2009/10/6 Victor Churchill :
> 2009/10/5 Hugo Mills :
>> On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 04:30:22PM +0100, John Lewis wrote:
>>> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:11:09 +0100
>>> Philip Stubbs wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Nor have I. Then it was about three years ago that I started using
>>> > Debian :-)
>>>
>>> nor have I, bu
2009/10/5 Hugo Mills :
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 04:30:22PM +0100, John Lewis wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:11:09 +0100
>> Philip Stubbs wrote:
>> >
>> > Nor have I. Then it was about three years ago that I started using
>> > Debian :-)
>>
>> nor have I, but then I stopped using rpm based system
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 03:08:00 +0100 (BST)
"Vic" wrote:
> Being the eternal optimist, I'm sure there will come a day when John
> will stop trolling with this one. But it is not this day.
I wasn't trolling, back in the days of RH 5.1 dependency problems were a
"feature" of RH as was the need to rei
Vic wrote:
> Being the eternal optimist, I'm sure there will come a day when John will
> stop trolling with this one. But it is not this day.
>
>
>> nor have I, but then I stopped using rpm based systems when I dumped
>> RedHat 5.1 and moved to a distro with 'proper' dependency control based
>>
Hi Vic,
I suspect you have the kde default compositor turned on and are using
a low/poor quality 3d driver, but that's just a hunch.
2009/10/6 Vic :
>> What video card does it have
>
> It's an ATi Radeon - don't know exactly which one (the laptop is
> downstairs & turned off, and it's a bit late
>> Unfortunately, I can't use it. The machine is a total dog. Running top
>> shows that Xorg is taking approx 75% of the CPU. Now this is only an old
>> Athlon 1800+ machine, but that amount of grunt when the system is
>> completely idle is a bit much...
>>
>
> What video card does it have
It's a
Being the eternal optimist, I'm sure there will come a day when John will
stop trolling with this one. But it is not this day.
> nor have I, but then I stopped using rpm based systems when I dumped
> RedHat 5.1 and moved to a distro with 'proper' dependency control based
> on dpkg/apt and more re
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 04:30:22PM +0100, John Lewis wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:11:09 +0100
> Philip Stubbs wrote:
>
> > 2009/10/5 Stephen Davies :
> > > .deb Hell ??? wtf?
> > >
> > > We all know that it is only rpm's that give you hell!
> > > (Now where's the 'only pulling your leg emoc
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:11:09 +0100
Philip Stubbs wrote:
> 2009/10/5 Stephen Davies :
> > .deb Hell ??? wtf?
> >
> > We all know that it is only rpm's that give you hell!
> > (Now where's the 'only pulling your leg emocion?')
> >
> > I for one have not had an 'rpm dependency hell' for well over
2009/10/5 Stephen Davies :
> .deb Hell ??? wtf?
>
> We all know that it is only rpm's that give you hell!
> (Now where's the 'only pulling your leg emocion?')
>
> I for one have not had an 'rpm dependency hell' for well over three years.
Nor have I. Then it was about three years ago that I sta
.deb Hell ??? wtf?
We all know that it is only rpm's that give you hell!
(Now where's the 'only pulling your leg emocion?')
I for one have not had an 'rpm dependency hell' for well over three years.
Stephen D
--
Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk
Web Interface: https://mailman.l
2009/10/5 Vic :
> Unfortunately, I can't use it. The machine is a total dog. Running top
> shows that Xorg is taking approx 75% of the CPU. Now this is only an old
> Athlon 1800+ machine, but that amount of grunt when the system is
> completely idle is a bit much...
>
What video card does it have,
Hi All.
I've upgraded my Kubuntu laptop. I was running 8.10 successfully. I
upgraded to 9.04, but that crashed hard every few minutes, so I've now
upgraded again to 9.10.
It's taken me most of the day to sort out the .deb hell that
update-manager left for me (which apt wouldn't sort out), but th
41 matches
Mail list logo
