On Lu, 13 dec 10, 16:49:33, Camaleón wrote:
>
> But curious is that some of those packages are not "essential" but are
> selected to be unistalled as they were... from OP's log, "apt" and "das",
> for instance :-?
Don't forget OP is running Ubuntu ;)
Regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions am
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:55:19 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Lu, 13 dec 10, 14:33:39, Camaleón wrote:
>>
>> Is the norm for base packages, like this. At least the package manager
>> is smart enough to warn you against the operation :-)
>
> AFAIK this is warning is only done for packages with "
On Lu, 13 dec 10, 14:33:39, Camaleón wrote:
>
> Is the norm for base packages, like this. At least the package manager is
> smart enough to warn you against the operation :-)
AFAIK this is warning is only done for packages with "Essential: yes".
Regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among De
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 01:55:37 +, Frank Church wrote:
> I was paring down my installation and the command for gcc-4.2-base more
> or less threatened to wipe out everything on the server.
>
> apt-get purge gcc-4.2-base
Wow, "gcc" is an important package on every linux system:
s...@stt008:~$ a
On Lu, 13 dec 10, 10:50:16, Frank Church wrote:
> >
> > Please ask on Ubuntu lists for help next time.
>
> Aren't ubuntu questions welcome here?
Please don't take it the wrong way, it's not that we don't want to help
Ubuntu users[1][2], it's just that some of our advices will not work, be
compl
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:50:16AM +, Frank Church wrote:
> Aren't ubuntu questions welcome here?
What is wrong with the ubuntu-user support mailing lists?
--
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-re
On 2010-12-13 11:50 +0100, Frank Church wrote:
> Aren't ubuntu questions welcome here?
Depends on the type of question. In any case, please mention that you
are using Ubuntu, and which distribution.
> I thought that at this kind of low level Ubuntu and Debian are the same.
Except that you woul
On 13 December 2010 09:54, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2010-12-13 10:47 +0100, Frank Church wrote:
>
> > ==
> > r...@heron01:/usr/src# apt-cache policy libgcc1
> > libgcc1:
> > Installed: 1:4.2.4-1ubuntu4
> > Candidate: 1:4.2.4-1ubuntu4
> > Version table
On 2010-12-13 10:47 +0100, Frank Church wrote:
> ==
> r...@heron01:/usr/src# apt-cache policy libgcc1
> libgcc1:
> Installed: 1:4.2.4-1ubuntu4
> Candidate: 1:4.2.4-1ubuntu4
> Version table:
> *** 1:4.2.4-1ubuntu4 0
> 500 http://www.ftp.uni-erl
On 13 December 2010 08:58, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2010-12-13 02:55 +0100, Frank Church wrote:
>
> > I was paring down my installation and the command for gcc-4.2-base more
> or
> > less threatened to wipe out everything on the server.
> >
> > apt-get purge gcc-4.2-base
> >
> > Is that the norm
On 2010-12-13 02:55 +0100, Frank Church wrote:
> I was paring down my installation and the command for gcc-4.2-base more or
> less threatened to wipe out everything on the server.
>
> apt-get purge gcc-4.2-base
>
> Is that the norm, or is it due to a corrupted package database?
My hunch is that
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Simon Hollenbach
wrote:
> - Original message -
>> I was paring down my installation and the command for gcc-4.2-base more
>> or less threatened to wipe out everything on the server.
>> apt-get purge gcc-4.2-base
> http://packages.debian.org/lenny/gcc-4.2-
- Original message -
> I was paring down my installation and the command for gcc-4.2-base more
> or less threatened to wipe out everything on the server.
> apt-get purge gcc-4.2-base
http://packages.debian.org/lenny/gcc-4.2-base
> Is that the norm, or is it due to a corrupted package data
I was paring down my installation and the command for gcc-4.2-base more or
less threatened to wipe out everything on the server.
apt-get purge gcc-4.2-base
Is that the norm, or is it due to a corrupted package database?
r...@sys-1275:~# apt-get purge gcc-4.2-base
Reading package lists... Done
B
When I do "dpkg -l 'perl*'" I get the following (abbreviated):
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge
| Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err:
uppercase=bad)
||/ Name VersionDescriptio
[EMAIL PROTECTED]*
***
How to remove the obsolete 'base' package:
The package has been rendered unneeded but not by another package
replacing it, rather by the placing of most of its files in the base
diskettes that the system is installed with from scratch. This is why no
In regards to my last message, I see that package "base" has been replaced
with base-files. and that Base-files "replaces base" but shouldn't it not
"provide base"?
--
Daniel Stringfield
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jax-inter.net/users/servo
Send
Hi all.
One note to say thanks to all the people who e-mailed with my initial
install problem.
I have another question about my ethernet card support. I have an
etherlink iii XL card which is not supported by the loadable modules. I
found a patch to replace the driver file 3c59x.c which when repl
18 matches
Mail list logo