tells me that:
> >
> > * /var/cache - Data cached for programs.
> >
> > * /var/lib - Variable state information for programs.
>
> These leave open the question of what "data cached for the program" mean
> and what "Variable state" means.
>
&g
> I would imagine that it's due to the FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard)
> which defines what the various directories on a "typical Linux system" are
> for. "man hier", for example, tells me that:
>
> * /var/cache - Data cached for programs.
>
&g
On 16/12/2023 15:59, Stefan Monnier wrote:
AFAICT, all of `/var/lib/apt/lists` is made of files fetched from
repositories, which APT will re-fetch if missing.
So, it sounds to me like it belongs in `/var/cache/apt/lists`, really.
What am I missing? Or is it just a historical accident
>> That was a typo. it's `/var/cache/plocate/plocate.db`, sorry.
> My plocate.db is in /var/lib/plocate/, as is bookworm's.
> Is that changing in the future?
Hmm... I could swear that I saw it in /var/cache but every machine
I look at has it in /var/lib, indeed.
[ GNU locat
volved.
>
> That was a typo. it's `/var/cache/plocate/plocate.db`, sorry.
My plocate.db is in /var/lib/plocate/, as is bookworm's.
Is that changing in the future?
$ ls -l /var/lib/*locate/
/var/lib/mlocate/:
total 19344
-rw-r- 1 root mlocate 19807421 Aug 28 07:43 mlocat
>> That seems similar to things like `locate` failing if you remove
>> `/var/log/plocate/plocate.db` (until that DB is rebuilt).
>
> It's tricky to discern your point as /var/log/ is not involved.
That was a typo. it's `/var/cache/plocate/plocate.db`, sorry.
Stefan
on is not really whether "apt/lists" is similar to
> "apt/archives", but whether the content of "apt/lists" is appropriate
> for `/var/cache`.
I didn't bring up apt/archives, but my first words posted were:
"This may not answer your question".
&g
;, but whether the content of "apt/lists" is appropriate
for `/var/cache`.
AFAIK nothing bad will happen to your system if you delete
`/var/lib/apt/lists`. It will still run as before and you can still
install packages as before. The only thing that seems to be impacted is
that some APT o
On Sat 16 Dec 2023 at 12:50:51 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> David Wright [2023-12-16 11:30:01] wrote:
> > On Sat 16 Dec 2023 at 10:59:48 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> AFAICT, all of `/var/lib/apt/lists` is made of files fetched from
> >> repositories, which A
Max Nikulin [2023-12-17 09:10:29] wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 22:59, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> AFAICT, all of `/var/lib/apt/lists` is made of files fetched from
>> repositories, which APT will re-fetch if missing.
>> So, it sounds to me like it belongs in `/var/cache/apt/lists`, rea
On 16/12/2023 22:59, Stefan Monnier wrote:
AFAICT, all of `/var/lib/apt/lists` is made of files fetched from
repositories, which APT will re-fetch if missing.
So, it sounds to me like it belongs in `/var/cache/apt/lists`, really.
APT running by a regular user is unable to write to /var/cache
David Wright [2023-12-16 11:30:01] wrote:
> On Sat 16 Dec 2023 at 10:59:48 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> AFAICT, all of `/var/lib/apt/lists` is made of files fetched from
>> repositories, which APT will re-fetch if missing.
>> So, it sounds to me like it belongs in
On Sat 16 Dec 2023 at 10:59:48 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> AFAICT, all of `/var/lib/apt/lists` is made of files fetched from
> repositories, which APT will re-fetch if missing.
> So, it sounds to me like it belongs in `/var/cache/apt/lists`, really.
> What am I missing? Or
AFAICT, all of `/var/lib/apt/lists` is made of files fetched from
repositories, which APT will re-fetch if missing.
So, it sounds to me like it belongs in `/var/cache/apt/lists`, really.
What am I missing? Or is it just a historical accident?
Stefan "whose `/var/lib/apt/lists`
Hello,
I have upgrade my debian samba domain controller yesterday.
After that I get on both (dc1 and dc2) this error:
Could not get lock /var/lib/apt/lists/lock - open (11: Resource
temporarily unavailable)
I have try to remove the look and list files, reconfigure all installed
packages but the
On Thu 07 Sep 2017 at 16:13:37 (-0700), James H. H. Lampert wrote:
> If I remember right, Linux file systems can have not only symbolic
> links to files, but also multiple hard links to the same file. Is
> there an easy way to look for something like that?
find -type f ! -links 1 -exec ls -l {}
I also stuck a similar named trivial static context into
/var/lib/tomcat7/webapps (with a different directory name: "foobar" in
Tomcat 8, "bozbar" in Tomcat 7).
In theory, Tomcat 8.5 should be able to see the foobar context, but not
the bozbar context; this is also true in
Just for grins, I put a trivial static context (nothing more than a
directory containing a simple "index.html" file) into
/var/lib/tomcat8/webapps. Tomcat 8.5 found it. So it's only the root
context that's somehow getting redirected.
But on the other hand, if I rename var
James H. H. Lampert wrote:
> Pete Helgren (on the Tomcat List) wrote:
>> Longshotsomething in .profile of the user the Tomcat instance is
>> running under?
>
> Neither the "tomcat7" nor "tomcat8" users have .profile files.
>
> This is interesting. I got rid of the Tomcat 8.5 catalina.out fil
boxes (the one where everything works right, and the one where 8.5
is getting 7's root context) and restarted them, and I got this at the
tops of both catalina.out files:
WARNING [main] . . . Problem with directory [/var/lib/tomcat8/common/classes],
exists: [false], isDirectory: [false], canRe
ow pulling the root context from
Tomcat 7: the Tomcat 8.5 server is going to
/var/lib/tomcat7/webapps/ROOT when it should be going to
/var/lib/tomcat8/webapps/ROOT.
On the other box (Tomcat 8.5 installed on top of Tomcat 8.0, alongside
Tomcat 7), the Tomcat 8.5 server is correctly finding
On 01/22/2017 06:06 PM, Jimmy Johnson wrote:
I'm getting this on a few of my system while updating apt,
"Failed to fetch
copy:/var/lib/apt/lists/partial/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_sid_non-free_dep11_icons-64x64.tar.gz
Hash Sum mismatch Hashes of expected file: - Filesize:
I'm getting this on a few of my system while updating apt,
"Failed to fetch
copy:/var/lib/apt/lists/partial/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_sid_non-free_dep11_icons-64x64.tar.gz
Hash Sum mismatch Hashes of expected file: - Filesize:1024 [weak]
I'm getting this on a few of my system while updating apt,
"Failed to fetch
copy:/var/lib/apt/lists/partial/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_sid_non-free_dep11_icons-64x64.tar.gz
Hash Sum mismatch Hashes of expected file: - Filesize:1024 [weak]
Quoting Cindy-Sue Causey (butterflyby...@gmail.com):
> On 9/4/15, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> > On 01/09/15 17:47, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks to all three for very helpful replies.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately Elimar's suggestion only pa
On 9/4/15, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
>
> Related to your previous reply about "provided it works properly",
> maybe someone here with the knowledge of how it's done can tip you on
> setting up a report that's automatically generated when update runs.
> That's surely a possibility, and that way you'd
On 9/4/15, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> On 01/09/15 17:47, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
>>
>> Thanks to all three for very helpful replies.
>>
>> Unfortunately Elimar's suggestion only partially helped; it did not
>> clear /var/lib/apt/lists/partial, although runni
On 01/09/15 17:47, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> On 01/09/15 16:43, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
>> On 9/1/15, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
>>> * Tony van der Hoff [2015-09-01 14:17 +0200]:
>>>
>>>> On this jessie box I have started to see /var/lib/apt/lists/partia
* Tony van der Hoff [2015-09-01 17:47 +0200]:
[...]
[...]
> Running apt-get update manually showed an error:
> Err http://ftp.uk.debian.org jessie-backports/non-free amd64 Packages
> and the directory started filling.
deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian jessie-backports non-free
works flawlesl
On 01/09/15 16:43, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
> On 9/1/15, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
>> * Tony van der Hoff [2015-09-01 14:17 +0200]:
>>
>>> On this jessie box I have started to see /var/lib/apt/lists/partial
>>> gradually filling the entire 2.7 GiB /var partit
On 9/1/15, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
> * Tony van der Hoff [2015-09-01 14:17 +0200]:
>
>> On this jessie box I have started to see /var/lib/apt/lists/partial
>> gradually filling the entire 2.7 GiB /var partition with hundreds of
>> smallish files. Google show some result
Quoting Elimar Riesebieter (riese...@lxtec.de):
> * Tony van der Hoff [2015-09-01 14:17 +0200]:
>
> > On this jessie box I have started to see /var/lib/apt/lists/partial
> > gradually filling the entire 2.7 GiB /var partition with hundreds of
> > smallish files. Google
* Tony van der Hoff [2015-09-01 14:17 +0200]:
> On this jessie box I have started to see /var/lib/apt/lists/partial
> gradually filling the entire 2.7 GiB /var partition with hundreds of
> smallish files. Google show some results for a similar, but not
> identical problem for Ubuntu
On this jessie box I have started to see /var/lib/apt/lists/partial
gradually filling the entire 2.7 GiB /var partition with hundreds of
smallish files. Google show some results for a similar, but not
identical problem for Ubuntu but I can't find anything matching this.
This problem has deve
>> SMART Error Log Version: 1
>> No Errors Logged
>>
>> SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
>> Num Test_DescriptionStatus Remaining LifeTime(hours)
>> LBA_of_first_error
>> # 1 Short offline Completed without error 00% 14025 -
>> # 2 Extended
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 10:15:36PM -0500, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
> The gist of whatever I read was that all we could do was hope it never
> happened to anything crucially important.. I am so sorry that that is
> as much as I remember with chances I'll ever stumble back on the same
> being pretty s
On 12/26/14, Bob Proulx wrote:
>
> It feels more like a random machine failure due to the consumer grade
> hardware which we are all using these days. It isn't required to run
> faster than the bear. It is only required to run faster than the
> other person who is also running from the bear. Th
Simon Bell wrote:
> SMART Error Log Version: 1
> No Errors Logged
>
> SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
> Num Test_DescriptionStatus Remaining LifeTime(hours)
> LBA_of_first_error
> # 1 Short offline Completed without error 00% 14025 -
> # 2
Thanks Bob,
I'll update /etc/smartd.conf as you recommended. The output currently looks
ok:
***
...
=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED
...
SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 16
Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with
Simon Bell wrote:
> My /var/lib/dpkg/status file became corrupt recently, I was getting
> this when trying to apt-update:
> ...
> I managed to correct the issue by pulling some stuff from
> /var/lib/dpkg/status-old...
Also don't forget about /var/backups. There is a daily c
Hi Everyone,
My /var/lib/dpkg/status file became corrupt recently, I was getting this when
trying to apt-update:
dpkg: error: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 27803 package 'gcr':
field name `°[?@' must be followed by colon
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg
On 06/11/13 14:39, Sven Hartge wrote:
> Tony van der Hoff wrote:
>
> I recommend to run "aptitude purge ~c" after a dist-upgrade to get rid
> of all removed but still un-purged packages.
>
> ~c matches all removed, but still configured packages. Purging them
> removes the left-over cruft, such
Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> I recently did a dist-upgrede from squeezy to wheezy, and all went
> -apparently- well.
> I'm now getting the following message from cron at half-hourly
> intervals. No big deal, but I'd rather not.
> I think php5 has now abandoned suhosin in favour of its own
> impro
rid of the message?
Original Message
Subject: Cron[ -x /usr/lib/php5/maxlifetime ] && [ -d
/var/lib/php5 ] && find /var/lib/php5/ -depth -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1
-type f -ignore_readdir_race -cmin +$(/usr/lib/php5/maxlifetime) !
-execdir fuser -s {} 2>/dev/null
Hi there,
I am trying to get dashing to work well. Please let me know what
system details will be helpful to post.
root@ce-lab1:~/sweet_dashboard_project# ruby -v
ruby 1.9.3p194 (2012-04-20 revision 35410) [x86_64-linux]
here is my Gemfile:
:~/sweet_dashboard_project# cat Gemfile
sour
> >
> > Not quite. I want sudo 'activated' when I enter my password.
> >
> > Ie, when I log in to XFCE, or when I unlock the xscreensaver, I have
> > in both cases just entered my password. So because I just entered my
> > password, I expect sudo to be 'activated'.
>
> Ah, now I get it. :)
>
On 4/25/13, Wolfgang Karall wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:56:30PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>> > If I understand you correctly, you never want to type a password when
>> > running your commands with sudo?
>>
>> Not quite. I want sudo 'activated' when I enter my password.
>>
>> Ie, when I
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:56:30PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > If I understand you correctly, you never want to type a password when
> > running your commands with sudo?
>
> Not quite. I want sudo 'activated' when I enter my password.
>
> Ie, when I log in to XFCE, or when I unlock
>>
>> In rc.local, I put touch /var/lib/sudo/{my-usr} and I find this very
>> convenient.
This means when I first log in (by entering my password), sudo is
'active' for a few minutes, so when I run a script to get my external
monitor working, it requires sudo, which
Hello,
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 11:22:23AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> I run sid XFCE, and have some keyboard shortcuts for
> docked-with-external-monitor, no-external-monitor (.screenlayout
> files) and corresponding networking configs.
>
> In rc.local, I put touch /var/lib/su
I run sid XFCE, and have some keyboard shortcuts for
docked-with-external-monitor, no-external-monitor (.screenlayout
files) and corresponding networking configs.
In rc.local, I put touch /var/lib/sudo/{my-usr} and I find this very convenient.
I would like the same in principle, when unlocking
On 9/27/12 9:58 PM, lars nooden wrote:
> If a bunch of packages have been uninstalled, what is an automated way
> of reinstalling them using /var/lib/dpkg/status-old or
> /var/backups/dpkg.status.* ?
>
> I see a lot of material mentioning status but nothing about precisely
If a bunch of packages have been uninstalled, what is an automated way
of reinstalling them using /var/lib/dpkg/status-old or
/var/backups/dpkg.status.* ?
I see a lot of material mentioning status but nothing about precisely
how to use it.
Regards,
/Lars
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian
David Baron writes:
>On Sunday 18 Tishrey 5772 19:32:50 debian-user-digest-requ...@lists.debian.org
>wrote:
>> What is the output of the command
>>
>> grep 'Status:' /var/lib/dpkg/status | grep -v installed
>>
>A bunch of lines:
>Status: deinst
On Sunday 18 Tishrey 5772 19:32:50 debian-user-digest-requ...@lists.debian.org
wrote:
> What is the output of the command
>
> grep 'Status:' /var/lib/dpkg/status | grep -v installed
>
A bunch of lines:
Status: deinstall ok config-files
> ? You could try to remove
What is the output of the command
grep 'Status:' /var/lib/dpkg/status | grep -v installed
? You could try to remove the annoying entries, e.g., with an emacs kbd macro.
But, I would try the macro first on a copy of the file /var/lib/dpkg/status and
make a backup of the original be
On Sun 16 Oct 2011 at 14:11:59 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2011-10-16 13:50 +0200, Brian wrote:
>
> > 'dpkg --clear-avail' followed by 'apt-get update'.
>
> This will not help since the problem is in the status file, not in the
> available file. It is necessary to purge or reinstall the pac
On 2011-10-16 13:50 +0200, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 16 Oct 2011 at 11:50:44 +0200, David Baron wrote:
>
>> This is a repeat posting.
>
> This is probably a repeat response. :)
>
> [Snip complaints from dpkg]
>
>> How can I get rid of these entries (without attempting to hand-edit 100,000
>> lines of
ollowed by 'apt-get update'.
Back up /var/lib/dpkg/available first.
--
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/20111016115009.GJ3019@desktop
This is a repeat posting.
I get zillions of these running any apt/dpkg:
dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 117808
package 'user-de':
missing architecture
dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 119794
David Baron 012.net.il> writes:
>
> Get load of these on any dpkg/apt operation:
>
> dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 39750
> package 'libmal0':
> missing architecture
> dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '
Get load of these on any dpkg/apt operation:
dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 39750
package 'libmal0':
missing architecture
dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 40988
package 'hwdata-knoppix&
On Vi, 17 iun 11, 00:38:02, William Hopkins wrote:
> >
> > To find packages installed and then removed but not purged:
> >
> > grep-status -F Status 'deinstall ok config-files' -ns Package
>
> OT, but an easier way to do this is dpkg -l | grep ^rc
# aptitude search ~c # inspect the li
On 06/16/11 at 02:13pm, Wayne Topa wrote:
> On 06/16/2011 12:59 PM, David Baron wrote:
> >This file is full of cruft, stuff left over years ago starting with
> >knoppix-3.
> >Recent dpkg produce a lot of parse-errors from the file, though they do not
> >effect anything.
> >
> >Is it possible to re
On 06/16/2011 12:59 PM, David Baron wrote:
This file is full of cruft, stuff left over years ago starting with knoppix-3.
Recent dpkg produce a lot of parse-errors from the file, though they do not
effect anything.
Is it possible to regenerate this file without all the cruft?
You might want t
ll the cruft?
Yes, but it's quite tedious ime. Do you have a valid /var/lib/dpkg/status-old ?
It could save you some headaches.
--
Liam
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
This file is full of cruft, stuff left over years ago starting with knoppix-3.
Recent dpkg produce a lot of parse-errors from the file, though they do not
effect anything.
Is it possible to regenerate this file without all the cruft?
On 2011-03-05, Regid Ichira wrote:
> The output of that command varies by a +/-1 in the last couple of days.
> Why it that? Could it be related to security updates in stable?
> The listing itself is related to the contents of /etc/apt/sources.list. My
> sources.list uses:
>
> deb securi
The output of that command varies by a +/-1 in the last couple of days.
Why it that? Could it be related to security updates in stable?
The listing itself is related to the contents of /etc/apt/sources.list. My
sources.list uses:
deb security stable/updates main contrib non-free
deb
On Tue 01 Mar 2011 at 22:41:41 +0800, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
> Seems to happen every other day,
> W: Failed to fetch
> bzip2:/var/lib/apt/lists/partial/ftp.tw.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-i386_Packages
> Hash Sum mismatch
> Anybody else notice such errors occ
Seems to happen every other day,
W: Failed to fetch
bzip2:/var/lib/apt/lists/partial/ftp.tw.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-i386_Packages
Hash Sum mismatch
Anybody else notice such errors occurring more and more?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:44 +, Waqqas Dadabhoy wrote:
> SOLVED: I edited the available file manually, then used "dpkg
> --update-avail /var/lib/dpkg/available".
No problem, but why did you edit it? My point was that it does not make
sense to edit that file manually, becausei
SOLVED: I edited the available file manually, then used "dpkg
--update-avail /var/lib/dpkg/available".
Thank you, Camaleón, Goran, and Wolodja .
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Wolodja Wentland
wrote:
> Have a look at /var/lib/dpkg/available-old as well, as it should contain
>
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 22:36 +, Waqqas Dadabhoy wrote:
> I played around with Zimbra a while ago, but have removed it now. I
> get the following error whenever I use apt-get:
>
> warning, in file '/var/lib/dpkg/available' near line 8727 package
> 'zimbra-lda
On 01/24/2011 11:36 PM, Waqqas Dadabhoy wrote:
I played around with Zimbra a while ago, but have removed it now. I
get the following error whenever I use apt-get:
warning, in file '/var/lib/dpkg/available' near line 8727 package 'zimbra-ldap':
error in Version string '
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 22:36:45 +, Waqqas Dadabhoy wrote:
> I played around with Zimbra a while ago, but have removed it now. I get
> the following error whenever I use apt-get:
>
> warning, in file '/var/lib/dpkg/available' near line 8727 package
> 'zimbra-lda
I played around with Zimbra a while ago, but have removed it now. I
get the following error whenever I use apt-get:
warning, in file '/var/lib/dpkg/available' near line 8727 package 'zimbra-ldap':
error in Version string '6.0.8_GA_2661.DEBIAN5_64': invalid charac
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
wrote:
> In <9ef66fac1002102000u63567764s84a867b7376c4...@mail.gmail.com>, Albretch
> Mueller wrote:
>>> ... GRUB 2 should be able to find your kernel based on filesystem UUID
>>
>> Boyd, how am I gona know the filesystem UUID of a machine I
In <9ef66fac1002102000u63567764s84a867b7376c4...@mail.gmail.com>, Albretch
Mueller wrote:
>> ... GRUB 2 should be able to find your kernel based on filesystem UUID
>
> Boyd, how am I gona know the filesystem UUID of a machine I have
>never used? ;-)
The only filesystems you need (for booting and
> ... GRUB 2 should be able to find your kernel based on filesystem UUID
~
Boyd, how am I gona know the filesystem UUID of a machine I have
never used? ;-)
~
Also from their own manual:
~
http://grub.enbug.org/Manual
~
UUID entries - Test these first. They are automatically generated by
some gr
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 15:10:16 Albretch Mueller wrote:
> My whole point is that you can not assume a certain dir structure
> once you plug the micro drive
I can. If you can't, you are doing it wrong. :P
Seriously, if you can get the BIOS to load the bootloader from the USB device,
GRUB
~
I did strace the process run by the script
~
strace -e trace=open,read,write -s 8192 -o debug.webserver.txt sh ./ri08.sh
~
but I can not see what is producing the "(21: Is a directory)" error
~
apt-get update -o RootDir=/media/sdb2/inst/sw/deb -o
Dir::Etc::SourceList=/etc/apt/local00_sources.l
> Googling "debian live cd persist" shows:
>
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianLive/Howto/Custom_Install
>
>> Purpose
>>
>> Do a custom install of Debian Live on a removable flash drive or hard
>> disc with a persistent home directory or entire root filesystem, and
>> create a partition for sharing do
On 10-02-10 13:56:49, Albretch Mueller wrote:
> ~
> I get those "what are you really trying to do?" questions all the
> time. Let me start by explaining to you, why I do things in a certain
> way
> ~
> I love live CDs and use them all the time. I carry one of them, my
> pen drive and/or my extern
On Wed,10.Feb.10, 18:56:49, Albretch Mueller wrote:
> ~
> I get those "what are you really trying to do?" questions all the
> time. Let me start by explaining to you, why I do things in a certain
> way
It is not rare that when given the *real* problem a different solution
is found which is easie
~
I get those "what are you really trying to do?" questions all the
time. Let me start by explaining to you, why I do things in a certain
way
~
I love live CDs and use them all the time. I carry one of them, my
pen drive and/or my external micro drive almost everywhere in one of
my pockets. I am
resolving
>>> > dependencies and downloading the apropiate .deb files which are then
>>> > passed to dpkg.
>>>
>>> I see but I can't find out how to change that directory, which is
>>> what I need ;-)
>>
>> What exactly are you trying
In <9ef66fac1002060513q7316011fvececd062063ad...@mail.gmail.com>, Albretch
Mueller wrote:
>~
> After taking snapshots of my file system before and after
>installations using apt-get, I noticed lots of files in:
>~
>/var/lib/dpkg/{info,alternatives,info, ...}
Right, th
t; passed to dpkg.
>> ~
>> I see but I can't find out how to change that directory, which is
>> what I need ;-)
>> ~
>
> What exactly are you trying to achieve? Maybe there is a better way.
~
Well, as I said, I need to reset the default "/var/lib/dpkg"
direct
On Sat,06.Feb.10, 22:37:13, Albretch Mueller wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Andrei Popescu
> wrote:
> > On Sat,06.Feb.10, 13:13:33, Albretch Mueller wrote:
> >
> >> How is it being set to beging with if I don't explicitly use dpkg to
> >> install packages?
> >
> > Only dpkg installs pa
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Sat,06.Feb.10, 13:13:33, Albretch Mueller wrote:
>
>> How is it being set to beging with if I don't explicitly use dpkg to
>> install packages?
>
> Only dpkg installs packages. APT "just" takes care of resolving
> dependencies and downloa
On Sat,06.Feb.10, 13:13:33, Albretch Mueller wrote:
> How is it being set to beging with if I don't explicitly use dpkg to
> install packages?
Only dpkg installs packages. APT "just" takes care of resolving
dependencies and downloading the apropiate .deb files which are then
passed to dpkg.
R
~
After taking snapshots of my file system before and after
installations using apt-get, I noticed lots of files in:
~
/var/lib/dpkg/{info,alternatives,info, ...}
~
relating to the files I installed, but those files I had grabbed
locally like this:
~
_SL=
apt-get update -o Dir::Etc::SourceList
>
> Jeffrey,
>
> >Don't know if there's automatic way. But one way you can try is to write a
> >script to remove those sections whose "Status" is not "installed" in the
> >file /var/lib/dpkg/status.
> I thought about that but I wonderin
ms that the status file maintains a list of all the packages
> and their current states that have been ever installed on the system since
> the fresh installation.
>
> For example:
> debian:/var/lib/dpkg# cat status | grep custom
> Package: linux-image-2.6.28-custom-test1
> P
fresh installation.
For example:
debian:/var/lib/dpkg# cat status | grep custom
Package: linux-image-2.6.28-custom-test1
Package: linux-image-2.6.28-custom-test2
Package: linux-image-2.6.29-custom-test1
Package: linux-image-2.6.29-custom-test2
The above packages are no longer installed on my
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
tree
Reading state information... Done
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 27 not upgraded.
1 not fully installed or removed.
After this operation, 0B of additional disk space will be used.
dpkg: parse error, in file `/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 2881
package `python-4suite-xml&
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 27 not upgraded.
> 1 not fully installed or removed.
> After this operation, 0B of additional disk space will be used.
> dpkg: parse error, in file `/var/lib/dpkg/status&
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:42:30PM +0530, Raj Kiran Grandhi wrote:
> I tried to do a dist-upgrade on my machine running sid, when dpkg failed
> complaining about the following parse error in the `status' file.
>
> =
> # apt-get -f install
...
> dpkg: parse error,
1 - 100 of 315 matches
Mail list logo
