es" proposes to remove dozens of packages. Generally, I think this is
because some key package is not yet built. If I wait some days the upgrade
tends to go smoothly.
Aptitude, on the other hand, is able to somehow pick out the subset of
upgradeable packages that can be installed WITHO
Hi,
Le 16/06/2024, Dmitry a écrit:
> if press `u` => iuA => Update
> if pres `-` => idA => Delete
> if press `_` => ipA => Purge
> if press `=` => ihA => Hold
>
> But how to go back to `i A`?
I believe you are looking for `:`, aka “keep”. This is less
strong/persistent than `=` (Hold).
Regards
Hi.
When I take a look at a package line in the SecurityUpdates of the
TextUserInterface of Autitude I see `PackageName i A`
if press `u` => iuA => Update
if pres `-` => idA => Delete
if press `_` => ipA => Purge
if press `=` => ihA => Hold
But how to go back to `i A`?
I am using Ctrl+u to
ion.
Your swift assistance has been invaluable.
I also could have done the same with aptitude search ~R to list reverse
dependencies
and aptitude search ~D to list dependencies
Onward and upward.
--
yassine -- sysadm
+213-779 06 06 23
http://about.me/ychaouche
Looking for side gigs.
Yassine Chaouche wrote:
> In my ongoing mission for precise package management,
> I embarked on a quest to swiftly locate all installed packages dependent on
> /mysql-server/.
> Swift reconnaissance led me to /aptitude/, our stalwart ally in the Debian
> arsenal.
> Executing a
Debian Users,
In my ongoing mission for precise package management,
I embarked on a quest to swiftly locate all installed packages dependent on
/mysql-server/.
Swift reconnaissance led me to /aptitude/, our stalwart ally in the Debian
arsenal.
Executing a tactical maneuver akin to this
e days and one annoying bug in the openbox window manager
> occured less often.
>
> On Dec 1, I did aptitude update && aptitude full-upgrade and it found
> lots of dependency problems. It seems this was mainly caused by
> changing from gcc-8 to gcc-10 and python 3.7 to pyt
On Dec 1, I did aptitude update && aptitude full-upgrade and it found
lots of dependency problems. It seems this was mainly caused by
changing from gcc-8 to gcc-10 and python 3.7 to python 3.9. I accepte
the second suggestion to solve these problems, removing a couple of
packages, and t
'm also getting:
> >
> > E; Packae '' has no installation candidate
> >
> > or is alerady the newest version ()
> >
> > dpkg -l | grep -v ^ii | wc -l
> > 209
> >
> > Which is lower than before, but aptitude still runs for hour
> or is alerady the newest version ()
>
> dpkg -l | grep -v ^ii | wc -l
> 209
>
> Which is lower than before, but aptitude still runs for hours resolving
> dependencies and exhausts RAM and swap.
With aptitude you might want to try running
aptitude keep-all
&
to fix broken
> > > > dependencies,
> > > > broken packages, etc, and they all return without error now [1], but
> > > > aptitude
> > > > starts "resolving dependencies" and it soon uses up all the available
> > > > RAM,
&
ies and some packages (like some vim addon) don't work at all.
> > > Vim, for instance is unusable.
> > >
> > > I have tried all the dpkg/apt/apt-get commands to fix broken dependencies,
> > > broken packages, etc, and they all return without error now [1],
.
> > Vim, for instance is unusable.
> >
> > I have tried all the dpkg/apt/apt-get commands to fix broken dependencies,
> > broken packages, etc, and they all return without error now [1], but
> > aptitude
> > starts "resolving dependencies" and it soon uses
commands to fix broken dependencies,
> broken packages, etc, and they all return without error now [1], but aptitude
> starts "resolving dependencies" and it soon uses up all the available RAM,
> then all the available swap and the system slows down (thrashing) and then
> freeze
cies,
> broken packages, etc, and they all return without error now [1], but aptitude
> starts "resolving dependencies" and it soon uses up all the available RAM,
> then all the available swap and the system slows down (thrashing) and then
> freezes.
my recommendation would be t
eturn without error now [1], but aptitude
starts "resolving dependencies" and it soon uses up all the available RAM,
then all the available swap and the system slows down (thrashing) and then
freezes.
Earlier on, I fixed /etc/apt/sources.list and the apt/apt-get/dpkg commands
installed a
On 9/25/21 2:08 AM, Rodolfo Medina wrote:
Please help with this:
# aptitude update
Hit http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb stable InRelease
Get: 1 http://ftp.debian.org/debian stable InRelease [113 kB]
Get: 2 http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian stable InRelease [113 kB]
E: Repository '
On Saturday, September 25, 2021 08:32:26 AM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> When you're ready to upgrade to a newer stable release, you can read
> through the release notes, and take the time to perform the upgrade
> properly.
All replies I've seen so far mention this (reading (and following) the release
following,
such as "buster" or "bullseye".
When you're ready to upgrade to a newer stable release, you can read
through the release notes, and take the time to perform the upgrade
properly.
> # aptitude update
> Hit http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb st
On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 09:08:55AM +, Rodolfo Medina wrote:
> Please help with this:
>
> # aptitude update
> Hit http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb stable InRelease
> Get: 1 http://ftp.debian.org/debian stable InRelease [113 kB]
> Get: 2 http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debia
Please help with this:
# aptitude update
Hit http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb stable InRelease
Get: 1 http://ftp.debian.org/debian stable InRelease [113 kB]
Get: 2 http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian stable InRelease [113 kB]
E: Repository 'http://ftp.debian.org/debian stable InRelease
On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 19:44:02 +
Julius Hamilton wrote:
> I tried to search for aptitude with apt-cache search aptitude and it
> returned nothing. I also tried apt-get install aptitude and it said no
> package was found.
>
> I am on Ubuntu 20.
This is a Debian list. Did yo
On 7/19/21 10:44 PM, Julius Hamilton wrote:
anyone know why
- just tried :
#apt search aptitude
- turns up stuff
.
rgds
.
On 20-07-2021 05:44, Julius Hamilton wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I tried to search for aptitude with apt-cache search aptitude and it
> returned nothing. I also tried apt-get install aptitude and it said no
> package was found.
>
> I am on Ubuntu 20.
>
> Would anyone know why
Hey,
I tried to search for aptitude with apt-cache search aptitude and it
returned nothing. I also tried apt-get install aptitude and it said no
package was found.
I am on Ubuntu 20.
Would anyone know why aptitude is missing from my packages list?
Thanks very much,
Julius
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 04:37:39PM -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
> I use both apt and cmdline aptitude. Mostly cmdline aptitude
>
> I'm curios if when I call `apt update' or `aptitude update', if they
> are refreshing the same database files... wondering if I could do
I use both apt and cmdline aptitude. Mostly cmdline aptitude
I'm curios if when I call `apt update' or `aptitude update', if they
are refreshing the same database files... wondering if I could do just
one update on either tool and that would do both.
On Ma, 27 oct 20, 13:03:32, David Wright wrote:
> On Tue 27 Oct 2020 at 15:05:36 (+0200), Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Lu, 26 oct 20, 09:55:00, John Hasler wrote:
> >
> > I believe someone demonstrated quite recently on list that dpkg has some
> > limits in the number and/or combination of packag
On Tue 27 Oct 2020 at 15:05:36 (+0200), Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 26 oct 20, 09:55:00, John Hasler wrote:
> > Andrei writes:
> > > dpkg does its own dependency checking, in addition to APT (the
> > > software, not the command), and will prevent any inconsistencies
> > > unless you use one of t
On Lu, 26 oct 20, 09:55:00, John Hasler wrote:
> Andrei writes:
> > dpkg does its own dependency checking, in addition to APT (the
> > software, not the command), and will prevent any inconsistencies
> > unless you use one of the --force switches.
>
> What it does not do is resolve dependencies.
So, if you don't pin down the priority of deb-multimedia, virtually every
audio- and video-related package on your system will be replaced with the
deb-multimedia version, which for the sake of stability is very likely a
bad idea.
So it is safer to lower the priority of deb-multimedia and that of
an easily mess
with apt's dependencies and cause nasty situations ("dependency hell")
> In other words, should I stick to aptitude's decision?
I really recommend to do the pinning first, then re-run
$ apt update
and then look again what is suggested when you call apt-g
To resolve this, you might consider to create a file
like e.g. /etc/apt/preferences.d/multimedia .
Here the content of that file looks like:
Package: *
Pin: release o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages,n=buster
Pin-Priority: 332
Package: *
Pin: release o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages,n=buster-back
Andrei writes:
> dpkg does its own dependency checking, in addition to APT (the
> software, not the command), and will prevent any inconsistencies
> unless you use one of the --force switches.
What it does not do is resolve dependencies. Apt recursively resolves
dependencies, installing them as r
in addition to APT (the software,
not the command), and will prevent any inconsistencies unless you use
one of the --force switches.
In my opinion this is pretty safe ;)
APT, aptitude and others are more than just front ends to dpkg as they
are also the ones working with your configured reposito
l
(...)
> My apt-get/aptitude output showed clear differences between the two.
> So, I am not convinced about your claim that they should do the same
> thing on a stable release unless stable release itself was broken when
> installing with debian-10.6.0-amd64-netinst.iso.
it looks like wha
To begin with, which distribution is it? In general, with Stable, it
pretty much doesn't matter which tool is used. The kind of problems you
have indicate Unstable or Testing.
First, apt is pretty much apt-get, with different syntax and a few
extra features. Aptitude can generally do a b
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 12:12:19 -0500
Ram Ramesh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to upgrade the current setup and I am unable to
> understand the differences between aptitude vs. apt-get usage.
> When I do apt-get -s upgrade, I get
> > myth2 [rramesh] 100 > sudo apt-ge
Hi,
I am trying to upgrade the current setup and I am unable to
understand the differences between aptitude vs. apt-get usage.
When I do apt-get -s upgrade, I get
myth2 [rramesh] 100 > sudo apt-get -s upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state informat
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 1:58 AM Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> On Ma, 11 aug 20, 15:33:53, Javier Barroso wrote:
> >
> > I swiched from aptitude to apt-get/apt some years ago
> >
> > aptitude need love :(
> >
> > My problem was mixing 64 and 32 bits packag
On Ma, 11 aug 20, 15:33:53, Javier Barroso wrote:
>
> I swiched from aptitude to apt-get/apt some years ago
>
> aptitude need love :(
>
> My problem was mixing 64 and 32 bits packages. Seem aptitude didn't do a
> good job
>
> Reading Planet debian and transition
El mar., 11 ago. 2020 13:31, Andrei POPESCU
escribió:
> On Vi, 07 aug 20, 13:31:53, Default User wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > Recently there was a thread about aptitude dependency resolution
> > limitations.
>
> If you are referring to the limitations of
On Vi, 07 aug 20, 13:31:53, Default User wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> Recently there was a thread about aptitude dependency resolution
> limitations.
If you are referring to the limitations of 'aptitude why', this 1)
reverse dependency and 2) apt / apt-get don't even hav
On Sat, 08 Aug 2020 13:06:50 +0200
Johann Klammer wrote:
> On 08/07/2020 10:10 PM, Joe wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:31:53 -0400
> > Default User wrote:
> >
> >> Hey guys,
> >>
> >> Recently there was a thread about aptitude dependency res
On 08/07/2020 10:10 PM, Joe wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:31:53 -0400
> Default User wrote:
>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> Recently there was a thread about aptitude dependency resolution
>> limitations.
>>
>> Years ago, I believe I read in the Debian docume
* 2020-08-07 20:04:24-03, riveravaldez wrote:
> On Friday, August 7, 2020, Joe wrote:
>> I believe it is still aptitude.
>>
>> However, the length of time it takes increases sharply with number of
>> packages to be upgraded. If you have more than a hundred or so, (not
On Friday, August 7, 2020, Joe wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:31:53 -0400
> Default User wrote:
>> So, all other things being equal, which is currently considered to be
>> the best at dependency resolution?
>
> I believe it is still aptitude.
>
> However, the len
On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:31:53 -0400
Default User wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> Recently there was a thread about aptitude dependency resolution
> limitations.
>
> Years ago, I believe I read in the Debian documentation that aptitude
> was preferred to apt-get, because it
Hey guys,
Recently there was a thread about aptitude dependency resolution
limitations.
Years ago, I believe I read in the Debian documentation that aptitude was
preferred to apt-get, because it seemed to have better dependency
resolution.
Now, we have apt, as well.
So, all other things being
On 2020-08-07 14:08 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> On 8/5/20 6:29 PM, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> I am not sure I understand what you actually want to do, though.
>>
>
> I am maintaining a set of meta packages, referencing the packages
> to install on my hosts. To avoid having separate meta packages for
On 8/5/20 6:29 PM, Sven Joachim wrote:
I am not sure I understand what you actually want to do, though.
I am maintaining a set of meta packages, referencing the packages
to install on my hosts. To avoid having separate meta packages for
each new Debian version I have to use conditional depend
On 2020-08-06 at 07:24, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Urs Thuermann wrote:
>
>> $ aptitude why libpam-systemd
>> i systemd Recommends libpam-systemd
>> $ aptitude why policykit-1 libpam-systemd
>> i A policykit-1 Depends libpam-systemd
>>
>> But now I see
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020, 7:42 AM Dan Ritter wrote:
> Urs Thuermann wrote:
> > $ aptitude why libpam-systemd
> > i systemd Recommends libpam-systemd
> > $ aptitude why policykit-1 libpam-systemd
> > i A policykit-1 Depends libpam-systemd
> >
> > But now I se
Urs Thuermann wrote:
> $ aptitude why libpam-systemd
> i systemd Recommends libpam-systemd
> $ aptitude why policykit-1 libpam-systemd
> i A policykit-1 Depends libpam-systemd
>
> But now I see reason: policykit-1 is also installed only because
> virt-manager *recommends*
David Wright writes:
> On Wed 05 Aug 2020 at 22:53:26 (+0200), Urs Thuermann wrote:
>
> > Should this be considered a bug? Shouldn't 'aptitude why' show the
> > packages that depend on it?
>
> Why not read the man page:
>
>Note
>
Hello,
perhaps options described here could help you:
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/aptitude/ch02s05s05.en.html
On 2020-08-05 12:33 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> On 8/5/20 11:03 AM, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> I am surprised to read that, considering that your installed lxc
>> version
>> does not actually fulfill the dependency. Note the epoch.
>> $ dpkg --compare-versions 1:2.0.11-1~xgo90+1 lt 3 || echo 'Got i
On 8/5/20 11:03 AM, Sven Joachim wrote:
I am surprised to read that, considering that your installed lxc version
does not actually fulfill the dependency. Note the epoch.
$ dpkg --compare-versions 1:2.0.11-1~xgo90+1 lt 3 || echo 'Got it!'
Got it!
Maintaining the sample-lxc package I have no
This package provides LXC for our environment.
>
> lxc-templates is available only for lxc >= 3 (Buster or Bullseye), and
> then its a must-have in my environment.
>
> Trying to install this package on Stretch aptitude complains about a
> missing lxc-templates package, eve
or lxc >= 3 (Buster or Bullseye), and
then its a must-have in my environment.
Trying to install this package on Stretch aptitude complains about a
missing lxc-templates package, even though the most recent lxc version
1:2.0.11-1~xgo90+1 is installed.
apt and apt-get are fine, AFAICS.
???
Regards
Harri
kage and all "subpackages" the
> > package depends on. Normally I use aptitude to install packages.
>
> Something like this should do the trick:
>
> # aptitude reinstall mypackage '~i~Rmypackage'
>
> See the "Search term reference" in the ap
On 2020-07-31 15:10 +0200, local10 wrote:
> Am looking for a way to reinstall a package and all "subpackages" the
> package depends on. Normally I use aptitude to install packages.
Something like this should do the trick:
# aptitude reinstall mypackage '~i~Rmypackage&#
source more
> available. I do not consider it a major improvement over aptitude or the
> whole debian and linux project. But should you consider using it for
> commercial purposes, or outside open-source goals and aims, I would like to
> know, and ask to discuss such use.
>
>
Am looking for a way to reinstall a package and all "subpackages" the package
depends on. Normally I use aptitude to install packages.
Any ideas? Thanks
On 2020-04-23 09:19:10 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> This is controlled by the apt configuration options
>
> APT::AutoRemove::RecommendsImportant
> APT::AutoRemove::SuggestsImportant
>
> See apt.conf(5) for how to adjust these.
The user may want to keep Recommends.
--
Vincent Lefèvre
g Raspbian jessie:
[...]
> But after many updates/upgrades no installed package needs
> gcc-4.8-base anymore but it hasn't been removed. If I check why it's
> still installed I get:
>
> # aptitude why gcc-4.8-base
> i cron Recommends exim4 | postfix | mail-tra
running Raspbian jessie:
[Be aware that I'm two versions ahead of jessie, and have never used
either a PI or the Raspbian OS.]
> Some time in the past there were probably packages that needed
> gcc-4.8-base so it were installed automatically:
>
> # aptitude show gcc-4.8-ba
On 2020-04-22 16:39:00 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> I don't find 'aptitude why' very reliable in a lot of cases.
Ditto.
> One thing I habitually do nowadays, to minimize this type of problem, is
> to also run
>
> # apt-get remove $(deborphan)
>
> and inte
remove anything that you care about.
Well, I usually just call aptitude purge without --simulate because I
want unneeded packages to be really removed and aptitude asks for
confirmation if it would need to remove more packages. Here, with -s,
but you can see that gcc-4.8-base is really not needed by
jessie:
>
> Some time in the past there were probably packages that needed
> gcc-4.8-base so it were installed automatically:
> But after many updates/upgrades no installed package needs
> gcc-4.8-base anymore but it hasn't been removed. If I check why
> it's still
eeded
gcc-4.8-base so it were installed automatically:
# aptitude show gcc-4.8-base
Package: gcc-4.8-base
State: installed
Automatically installed: yes
Multi-Arch: same
Version: 4.8.4-1
Priority: required
Section: libs
Maintainer: Debian GCC Maintainers
Architecture: armhf
Uncompressed Size:
> On 2019-07-08 19:21 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>> I am trying to look which packages are new in buster that were not in
>> stretch. I am using aptitude since it't great tool for browsing packages.
Sven Joachim wrote:
> Beware that the list of new pac
On 2019-07-08 19:21 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> I am trying to look which packages are new in buster that were not in
> stretch. I am using aptitude since it't great tool for browsing packages.
Beware that the list of new packages in buster is way too large to
browse ca
Hello,
I am trying to look which packages are new in buster that were not in
stretch. I am using aptitude since it't great tool for browsing packages.
until now it was easy:
do 'f'orget new packages in aptitude
change sources.list to point to new release
do 'u'pdat
lar. Such permission side-effects are well
documented on the Internet. Unfortunately, I only found out about it
recently.
When scanning all my files under my home directory, I noticed that
/home/rdiez/.aptitude/config was owned by root. I guess that is not
desirable.
However, Aptitude
On 2018-03-30 04:00, John Crawley (johnraff) wrote:
> On 2018-03-29 09:15, Abdullah Ramazanoglu wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 20:00:34 +0200 Mikhail Morfikov said:
>>> Is there some variable that holds, for instance, a list of the
>>> packages that apt wants to upgrade? In such way it would be easy
On 2018-03-29 09:15, Abdullah Ramazanoglu wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 20:00:34 +0200 Mikhail Morfikov said:
Is there some variable that holds, for instance, a list of the
packages that apt wants to upgrade? In such way it would be easy to
set this up.
apt list --upgradable
will print out a list
On 2018-03-29 01:03, John Crawley (johnraff) wrote:
> On 2018-03-29 03:40, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:18:24PM +0200, Mikhail Morfikov wrote:
>>> On 2018-03-28 20:12, Sven Joachim wrote:
>>> I really thought there's some easy way to include user's scripts when you
>>> wan
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 20:00:34 +0200 Mikhail Morfikov said:
> Is there some variable that holds, for instance, a list of the
> packages that apt wants to upgrade? In such way it would be easy to
> set this up.
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 20:18:24 +0200 Mikhail Morfikov said:
> But I will try to do something
On 2018-03-29 03:40, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
I really thought there's some easy way to include user's scripts when you want
to make some additional changes to the upgraded packages, but it looks like the
apt mechanism is a little bit limited. But I will try to do something with the
trigger and se
On 2018-03-29 03:40, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:18:24PM +0200, Mikhail Morfikov wrote:
On 2018-03-28 20:12, Sven Joachim wrote:
I really thought there's some easy way to include user's scripts when you want
to make some additional changes to the upgraded packages, but it
On 2018-03-28 21:25, David Wright wrote:
> On Wed 28 Mar 2018 at 20:00:34 (+0200), Mikhail Morfikov wrote:
>> On 2018-03-28 18:58, Andy Smith wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:29:06PM +0200, Mikhail Morfikov wrote:
>>>> Is there a way to pass some extra commands/
On Wed 28 Mar 2018 at 20:00:34 (+0200), Mikhail Morfikov wrote:
> On 2018-03-28 18:58, Andy Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:29:06PM +0200, Mikhail Morfikov wrote:
> >> Is there a way to pass some extra commands/script to apt/aptitude so when
> >> the
&g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:18:24PM +0200, Mikhail Morfikov wrote:
> On 2018-03-28 20:12, Sven Joachim wrote:
[...]
> > It requires you to create your own package (since there is no other way
> > to register triggers in dpkg) [...]
> I really thought
hard links
>>>> basically
>>>> stop working and they have to be removed and recreated manually after the
>>>> upgrade is done.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a way to pass some extra commands/script to apt/aptitude so when
>>>> the
>>&
nks. Those hard links
>>> are
>>> used as additional executable files to be profiled in AppArmor. But when I
>>> upgrade my system, and firefox is on the package list, the hard links
>>> basically
>>> stop working and they have to be removed and recreat
On 2018-03-28 18:58, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi Mikhail,
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:29:06PM +0200, Mikhail Morfikov wrote:
>> Is there a way to pass some extra commands/script to apt/aptitude so when the
>> firefox package is to be upgraded, it would recreate the links aut
ed in AppArmor. But when I
>> upgrade my system, and firefox is on the package list, the hard links
>> basically
>> stop working and they have to be removed and recreated manually after the
>> upgrade is done.
>>
>> Is there a way to pass some extra commands/script t
gt; basically
> stop working and they have to be removed and recreated manually after the
> upgrade is done.
>
> Is there a way to pass some extra commands/script to apt/aptitude so when the
> firefox package is to be upgraded, it would recreate the links automatically?
You could
Hi Mikhail,
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:29:06PM +0200, Mikhail Morfikov wrote:
> Is there a way to pass some extra commands/script to apt/aptitude so when the
> firefox package is to be upgraded, it would recreate the links automatically?
I've never tried it but looking at "man ap
de is done.
Is there a way to pass some extra commands/script to apt/aptitude so when the
firefox package is to be upgraded, it would recreate the links automatically?
--
Morfik
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Hi all:
I appreciate everyone’s answer, now I’m clear that “aptitude” is still one of
the main tool for package managing.
I installed from a CD Rom created by jigdo and I verified myself the iso image
with md5sum and sha1sums.
The only different thing I did from previous installations is that
On Wed 24 Jan 2018 at 16:38:24 (+), Curt wrote:
> On 2018-01-24, wrote:
> >
> >> > [1] https://packages.debian.org/
> >> > [2]
> >> > https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=aptitude&searchon=names&suite=all§ion=all
> >>
&
longer keyword
>> or more keywords."
>
> I do use that page as a second source, whenever I don't understand
> what apt/aptitude are trying to tell me -- or whenever I'm looking
> up something for a distribution I currently don't have access to.
> For that, t
n icon >indicating that the
>> > >package is not supported.
>> > >
>> > On my system (Debian sid) aptitude has the Debian logo in synaptics.
>>
>> Folks, learn to use the web site. Just surf over to [1] and you can
>> query the current package data
On 2018-01-24, wrote:
>
>> > [1] https://packages.debian.org/
>> > [2]
>> > https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=aptitude&searchon=names&suite=all§ion=all
>>
>> Hm. I had occasion to go to ¹ yesterday. (In passing, if I remove the
>&
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018, OECT T wrote:
Hi all:
I just installed Debian Stretch 9.3.0 and noticed that the Aptitude
package was not installed by default.
I searched into Synaptics package manager and noticed that the
package is not marked with the Debian icon indicating that the
package is not
100 schreef OECT T :
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > >I searched into Synaptics package manager and noticed that the
> > > >package is not marked with the Debian icon >indicating that the
> > > >package is not supported.
> > > >
> > > O
; >package is not marked with the Debian icon >indicating that the
> > >package is not supported.
> > >
> > On my system (Debian sid) aptitude has the Debian logo in synaptics.
>
> Folks, learn to use the web site. Just surf over to [1] and you can
> query the cu
On Tue 23 Jan 2018 at 19:44:19 +, OECT T wrote:
> I just installed Debian Stretch 9.3.0 and noticed that the Aptitude
> package was not installed by default.
The correct conclusion to draw from this is that aptitude does not have
a Priority: higher than optional in stretch.
> I
1 - 100 of 4132 matches
Mail list logo
