On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:32:08 +0200, Michelle Konzack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Am 2006-10-06 18:06:47, schrieb Mikhail Gusarov:
>> Do aptitude checks terminal even for 'aptitude install' or 'aptitude
>> search'?
>
>Good question! The two offending Servers use Monocrom-Graficcards.
>Maybe aptitud
Peter Palfrader wrote:
> Ever tried the simulate button in the orphaner frontend? I don't know
> apt-findremovable's UI but I very much like orphaner's. But then I
> might be just slightly biased. :)
don't care about apt-findremovable anymore, debfoster does it's job much
better :)
> Peter
Jan
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006, Jan Kechel wrote:
> Brian May wrote:
> >> "Jan" == Jan Kechel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> > Jan> I wrote a little perl-script:
> >
> > How does this compare with deborphan?
> >
>
> deborphan shows you the 'leave' packages of your dependency-tree
>
> apt
On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 06:32:08PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2006-10-06 18:06:47, schrieb Mikhail Gusarov:
> > Do aptitude checks terminal even for 'aptitude install' or 'aptitude
> > search'?
>
> Good question! The two offending Servers use Monocrom-Graficcards.
> Maybe aptitude can no
On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 06:30:33PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> If I tell the Maintainer: "I am connecting over ssh2 using keys
> to two of my servers in Tehran, I want to install something and
> I choose aptitude for better searching, aptitude crashs and kill
> the ssh session", he/she will c
On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 06:30:33PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
>
> > If aptitude kills your ssh session, I'd be inclined to believe more was
> > wrong
> > on your machine than just aptitude, but I guess that's up to whoever ends up
> > debugging this to find out.
>
> The problem is, that the
Am 2006-10-06 18:06:47, schrieb Mikhail Gusarov:
> Do aptitude checks terminal even for 'aptitude install' or 'aptitude
> search'?
Good question! The two offending Servers use Monocrom-Graficcards.
Maybe aptitude can not enter a colormode and crash?
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Ko
Am 2006-10-06 12:34:35, schrieb Steinar H. Gunderson:
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 02:42:43AM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > And HOW do you install/remove packages if the TUI from aptitude crashs?
>
> You file a bug at the appropriate severity against aptitude?
A bugreport about what?
If I tell
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am 2006-10-04 18:08:50, schrieb Alexey Feldgendler:
>
> > Why not just stop using apt-get? aptitude can do everything the
> > same as apt-get and even supports the same command line
> > parameters.
>
> And HOW do you install/remove packages if the TUI
You ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
MK> ...and if you have a computer on which aptitude do not want to
MK> run in the terminal? I have two Servers where this is the case.
Do aptitude checks terminal even for 'aptitude install' or 'aptitude
search'?
--
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTEC
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 02:42:43AM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> And HOW do you install/remove packages if the TUI from aptitude crashs?
You file a bug at the appropriate severity against aptitude?
> I do not know how aptitude is working and whether it use ncurses or
> slang but it segfaults a
Am 2006-10-04 15:38:18, schrieb Rolf Kutz:
> apt-get is faster and uses less resources.
I have a IBM TP760ED (233Mhz, 128 MB) where aptitude
need arround 3 minutes to let me do anything...
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Deb
Am 2006-10-04 18:08:50, schrieb Alexey Feldgendler:
> Why not just stop using apt-get? aptitude can do everything the
> same as apt-get and even supports the same command line parameters.
And HOW do you install/remove packages if the TUI from aptitude crashs?
I do not know how aptitude is working
Am 2006-10-04 16:00:28, schrieb Mike Hommey:
> Interesting... here, it tends to be the contrary. apt-get wants to
> install a whole lot of packages on dist-upgrade, while aptitude is able
> to pull the minimum required.
Not here. Only the bare minimum.
[ '/etc/apt/apt.conf' ]---
Am 2006-10-03 16:26:46, schrieb Michal Cihar:
> deborphan looks simmilar to what you describe. Anyway if you use
> aptitude instead of apt-get it tracks all that automatically and you
> don't have to guess.
...and if you have a computer on which aptitude do not want to run
in the terminal? I hav
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Brian May wrote:
>> "Jan" == Jan Kechel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> Jan> I wrote a little perl-script:
>
> How does this compare with deborphan?
>
deborphan shows you the 'leave' packages of your dependency-tree
apt-findremovab
> "Alexey" == Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexey> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:07:02 +0700, Raphael Hertzog
Alexey> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Some of us are partial to apt-get and would appreciate
>>> apt-findremovable.
>> I would rather appreciate that a
> "Jan" == Jan Kechel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jan> I wrote a little perl-script:
How does this compare with deborphan?
Package: deborphan
Priority: optional
Section: admin
Installed-Size: 176
Maintainer: Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Architecture: i386
Version: 1.7.15
Depends:
Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 10:23:21PM +0700, Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
>
>> Seems like debfoster does what you need. However, it's considered obsolete
>> now that aptitude takes care of unused packages.
>
> debfoster (2.6-1) unstable; urgency=low
>
> * N
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 01:07:02PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I would rather appreciate that apt-get and aptitude share the information
> of which packages have been explicitely installed and which have been
> automatically installed.
I often install packages to play with them a little or ju
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 01:50:59PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006, Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
> > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:07:02 +0700, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> Some of us are partial to apt-get and would appreciate
> > >> ap
* Quoting Alexey Feldgendler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:07:02 +0700, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Some of us are partial to apt-get and would appreciate
> >> apt-findremovable.
>
> > I would rather appreciate that apt-get and aptitude share the information
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 02:46:39PM +0200, Jan Kechel wrote:
> Isn't it just that some prefer apt and some aptitude, and that of course
> those that prefer aptitude think that apt-findremovable is obsolete, and
> that those that prefer apt not?
Just a bit more nitpicking: apt is different from apt-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> aptitude has this
> apt has that
> aptitude can't do that
> apt can't do this
> [...]
.. is this always here like this?
Isn't it just that some prefer apt and some aptitude, and that of course
those that prefer aptitude think that apt-findremo
Hi,
On Wednesday 04 October 2006 13:08, Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
> Why not just stop using apt-get? aptitude can do everything the same as
> apt-get and even supports the same command line parameters.
aptitude neither understand "build-dep" nor "source" as command...
regards,
Holger
Hello!
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 13:08:50 +0200, Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:07:02 +0700, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Some of us are partial to apt-get and would appreciate
>>> apt-findremovable.
>
>> I would rather appreciate that apt-get and aptitude share t
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006, Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:07:02 +0700, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Some of us are partial to apt-get and would appreciate
> >> apt-findremovable.
>
> > I would rather appreciate that apt-get and aptitude share the information
> >
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:07:02 +0700, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Some of us are partial to apt-get and would appreciate
>> apt-findremovable.
> I would rather appreciate that apt-get and aptitude share the information
> of which packages have been explicitely installed and which
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Cool, didn't know that.
> > But it doesn't work for packages that are already installed via apt-get.
> > I guess I'll use aptitude instead of apt-get from now on, and try to
> > cleanup via apt-findremovable :)
>
> Some of us are partial to apt-get and w
* Quoting Steinar H. Gunderson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:13:49PM +0200, Jan Kechel wrote:
> > I always had the problem, that if I removed a package via apt-get
> > remove, that there were still other packages that only were installed
> > because of that package.
>
> Use ap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/03/06 13:37, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include * Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) [Tue, Oct 03 2006,
> 05:11:46PM]:
>> Jan Kechel:
>>
>>> Michal Čihař wrote:
[snip]
>
> Aha... Ok... And how many cobolds do you need to kill to win that
> game? (SCNR)
s/co
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 10:23:21PM +0700, Alexey Feldgendler wrote:
> Seems like debfoster does what you need. However, it's considered obsolete
> now that aptitude takes care of unused packages.
debfoster (2.6-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New upstream version, new maintainer team.
* Revert
#include
* Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) [Tue, Oct 03 2006, 05:11:46PM]:
> Jan Kechel:
>
> > Michal Čihař wrote:
>
> >> Anyway if you use aptitude instead of apt-get it tracks
> >> all that automatically and you don't have to guess.
>
> > Cool, didn't know that. But it doesn't work for
> > packages t
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 16:34:37 +0200
Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Dienstag 03 Oktober 2006 16:26 schrieb Michal Čihař:
> > if you use
> > aptitude instead of apt-get it tracks all that automatically and you
> > don't have to guess.
>
> Only if you also installed the package-to-rem
Am Dienstag 03 Oktober 2006 16:26 schrieb Michal Čihař:
> if you use
> aptitude instead of apt-get it tracks all that automatically and you
> don't have to guess.
Only if you also installed the package-to-remove with aptitude.
HS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/03/06 11:01, Jan Kechel wrote:
>
>>> Some of us are partial to apt-get and would appreciate
>>> apt-findremovable.
>
> cool :)
>
> I just released v0.2:
> http://prevalent-digest.de/apt-findremovable/
>
> .. it's getting slower (takes about 1
Jan Kechel:
> Michal Čihař wrote:
>> Anyway if you use aptitude instead of apt-get it tracks
>> all that automatically and you don't have to guess.
> Cool, didn't know that. But it doesn't work for
> packages that are already installed via apt-get.
You can mark all packages as installed automat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> Some of us are partial to apt-get and would appreciate
> apt-findremovable.
cool :)
I just released v0.2:
http://prevalent-digest.de/apt-findremovable/
.. it's getting slower (takes about 1min to complete),
but now it re-checks, if apt-cache
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/03/06 09:54, Jan Kechel wrote:
> Michal ihaY wrote:
>>> deborphan looks simmilar to what you describe.
>
> yeah, similar, also it finds only the leaves, while apt-findremovable
> checks which depends have no other rdepends than the specified on
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:54:09 +0700, Jan Kechel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
deborphan looks simmilar to what you describe.
yeah, similar, also it finds only the leaves, while apt-findremovable
checks which depends have no other rdepends than the specified one
Seems like debfoster does what yo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Michal Čihař wrote:
> deborphan looks simmilar to what you describe.
yeah, similar, also it finds only the leaves, while apt-findremovable
checks which depends have no other rdepends than the specified one
> Anyway if you use
> aptitude instead
Hi
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:13:49 +0200
Jan Kechel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does a tool like this already exist?
deborphan looks simmilar to what you describe. Anyway if you use
aptitude instead of apt-get it tracks all that automatically and you
don't have to guess.
--
Michal Čihař
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:13:49PM +0200, Jan Kechel wrote:
> I always had the problem, that if I removed a package via apt-get
> remove, that there were still other packages that only were installed
> because of that package.
Use aptitude -- it has had this functionality for quite a while now.
/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Hi,
I hope this is the right mailinglist for this.
I always had the problem, that if I removed a package via apt-get
remove, that there were still other packages that only were installed
because of that package.
I wrote a little perl-script:
N
44 matches
Mail list logo
