On Sat, 2005-09-17 at 22:34 -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 12:27:07AM -0400, David Clymer wrote:
> > Perhaps he's saying 'apt-get' and meaning 'dpkg'
>
> Thank you, but unlike most users of unstable today, I do actually know the
> difference between the two.
To be honest, I f
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 12:27:07AM -0400, David Clymer wrote:
> Perhaps he's saying 'apt-get' and meaning 'dpkg'
Thank you, but unlike most users of unstable today, I do actually know the
difference between the two.
I also know the difference between a low-level tool written as a
demonstration of
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 23:17 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 20:56 -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 02:28:08PM -0500, Jason Clinton wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 13 September 2005 2:16 pm, Ron Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > Regarding package managers... apt-get isn't a
If you want to keep the packages installed to satisfy dependencies while
using aptitude you can
1) mark the package you want to remove and press 'g' as usual.
2) Now you should have a listing the packages that will be removed.
3) Mark the ones you want keep ('+'), then press 'q'.
4) You're
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 11:17:23PM -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:13:16PM -0400, H.S. wrote:
> > er .. a little question. What packages will be removed if I remove gnome
> > and gnome-desktop-environment. I am guessing since there are
> > metapackages, nothing else will be r
Apparently, _Marc Wilson_, on 16/09/05 02:17,typed:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:13:16PM -0400, H.S. wrote:
>
>>er .. a little question. What packages will be removed if I remove gnome
>>and gnome-desktop-environment. I am guessing since there are
>>metapackages, nothing else will be removed.
>
>
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:13:16PM -0400, H.S. wrote:
> er .. a little question. What packages will be removed if I remove gnome
> and gnome-desktop-environment. I am guessing since there are
> metapackages, nothing else will be removed.
Nothing *should* be removed, although apparently if you use
On 9/15/05, Byron Hillis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Therefore if you install g-d-e and it pulls in everything for your GNOME
> desktop environment, then ALL the packages that it does pull in will be
> marked as Automatic. Therefore, if through a dependency problem, i.e.
> sound-juicer, the g-d
On 14/09/05, Katipo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I don't know if he's trolling.
> He comes across as someone who uses one app. and therefore nothing else
> is any good.
>
> I've used aptitude for a couple of years now, on dial-up, go to bed on
> the upgrade, wake up in the morning, and every
Apparently, _H.S._, on 15/09/05 12:38,typed:
> So what's keeping sound juicer from coming into Etch? I mean, how come
> it is still not there? Looks like there are some issues with Etch and
> Gnome 2.10 that the Debian team is still trying to resolve.
>
> I wonder what made them release Gnome 2.10
So what's keeping sound juicer from coming into Etch? I mean, how come
it is still not there? Looks like there are some issues with Etch and
Gnome 2.10 that the Debian team is still trying to resolve.
I wonder what made them release Gnome 2.10 without sound juicer, or was
it an oversight?
->HS
Katipo wrote:
> I've used aptitude for a couple of years now, on dial-up, go to bed on
> the upgrade, wake up in the morning, and everything's done.
> Must be something wrong with me.
Well, obviously! What self-respecting geek wakes up in the _morning_?!
Well, okay, I guess 11AM is still consid
Jason Clinton wrote:
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 10:43 pm, Marc Wilson wrote:
I'm not feeding this troll any more.
Well, I don't know if he's trolling.
He comes across as someone who uses one app. and therefore nothing else
is any good.
I've used aptitude for a couple of years now, on
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 10:43 pm, Marc Wilson wrote:
I'm not feeding this troll any more.
--
I use digital signatures and encryption. My key is stored at pgp.mit.edu key
ID code: "0x8DB3BF09". F: F628 D9D3 E57A C281 5EFE 7DF7 B52A A393 8DB3 BF09
pgpQguMjXvX5E.pgp
Description: PGP signat
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 20:56 -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 02:28:08PM -0500, Jason Clinton wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 September 2005 2:16 pm, Ron Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> Regarding package managers... apt-get isn't a package manager, has never
> been billed as a package manager, a
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 02:28:08PM -0500, Jason Clinton wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 September 2005 2:16 pm, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > That's why "we" don't like aptitude. It too aggressively removes
> > things.
>
> Would the almighty Debian Gods decide which fraking package manager 'we' are
> supposed t
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 02:28:08PM -0500, Jason Clinton wrote:
> Unless unstable happens to be going through an ABI change and you don't want
> to babysit upgrades.
Oh, that explains everything. You're one of those "turn the tools loose
blindly and worry about what they've done after they've don
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 09:28:46AM -0500, Jason Clinton wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 September 2005 12:21 am, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > Because the whole reason the "gnome-desktop-environment" *meta-package*
> > exists is to give you a complete Gnome. Not Gnome minus whatever *this*
> > cluebie doesn't lik
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 14:28 -0500, Jason Clinton wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 September 2005 2:16 pm, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > That's why "we" don't like aptitude. It too aggressively removes
> > things.
>
> Would the almighty Debian Gods decide which fraking package manager 'we' are
> supposed to use?
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 2:16 pm, Ron Johnson wrote:
> That's why "we" don't like aptitude. It too aggressively removes
> things.
Would the almighty Debian Gods decide which fraking package manager 'we' are
supposed to use? I have seem countless times on this list that apt-get is
deprecated
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 09:28 -0500, Jason Clinton wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 September 2005 12:21 am, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > Because the whole reason the "gnome-desktop-environment" *meta-package*
> > exists is to give you a complete Gnome. Not Gnome minus whatever *this*
> > cluebie doesn't like, what
Hello all,
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 09:34:18AM -0500, Jason Clinton wrote:
> And actually it seems that someone made a mistake; according to this [0], the
> sound-juicer should have fallen in to testing but someone missed it:
It's more like sound-juicer has been left out deliberately, please see
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 12:21 am, Marc Wilson wrote:
> Because the whole reason the "gnome-desktop-environment" *meta-package*
> exists is to give you a complete Gnome. Not Gnome minus whatever *this*
> cluebie doesn't like, whatever *that* cluebie doesn't like, etc.
And actually it seems th
On Tuesday 13 September 2005 12:21 am, Marc Wilson wrote:
> Because the whole reason the "gnome-desktop-environment" *meta-package*
> exists is to give you a complete Gnome. Not Gnome minus whatever *this*
> cluebie doesn't like, whatever *that* cluebie doesn't like, etc.
>
> If you don't like wha
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:21:21PM -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:46:56PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On 9/12/05, H. S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Neither can I. gnomeo-desktop-environment depends upon sound-juicer >
> > > 2.10.1. And such a sound-juicer doesn
Mark Crean wrote:
>On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 22:21 -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
>
>
>> Because the whole reason the "gnome-desktop-environment" *meta-package*
>>
>>exists is to give you a complete Gnome. Not Gnome minus whatever *this*
>>cluebie doesn't like, whatever *that* cluebie doesn't like, etc.
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 22:21 -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:46:56PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On 9/12/05, H. S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Neither can I. gnomeo-desktop-environment depends upon sound-juicer >
> > > 2.10.1. And such a sound-juicer doesn't exis
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 19:08 -0600, Alejandro Bonilla Beeche wrote:
> or is it because of the Debian Perfect way
> of thinking?
Exactly :-)
--
Glenn English
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG ID: D0D7FF20
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMA
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:46:56PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 9/12/05, H. S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Neither can I. gnomeo-desktop-environment depends upon sound-juicer >
> > 2.10.1. And such a sound-juicer doesn't exist in Debian Testing at present.
>
> And this begs the questio
On 9/12/05, H. S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neither can I. gnomeo-desktop-environment depends upon sound-juicer >
> 2.10.1. And such a sound-juicer doesn't exist in Debian Testing at present.
And this begs the question, why does gnome-desktop-environment
*depend* on something like sound-juicer
On 9/12/05, Jason Clinton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 12 September 2005 8:15 pm, Joseph H. Fry wrote:> I can't install it... Everything is there except sound-juicer (>=> 2.10.1) which gnome-desktop-environment depends upon. Is this a bug?> Has anyone managed a way around this? Or is it m
On Monday 12 September 2005 8:15 pm, Joseph H. Fry wrote:
> I can't install it... Everything is there except sound-juicer (>=
> 2.10.1) which gnome-desktop-environment depends upon. Is this a bug?
> Has anyone managed a way around this? Or is it me?
I have the same problem. It looks like tomorro
Alejandro Bonilla Beeche wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:38 -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 04:48:44PM -0400, Colin wrote:
Jason Clinton wrote:
Around 10:30 UTC, all the mirrors should have Gnome 2.10 on them.
Great. When will they have Gnome 2.12?
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:38 -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 04:48:44PM -0400, Colin wrote:
> > Jason Clinton wrote:
> > > Around 10:30 UTC, all the mirrors should have Gnome 2.10 on them.
> >
> > Great. When will they have Gnome 2.12?
>
> Gee, sometime after unstable has it,
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 04:48:44PM -0400, Colin wrote:
> Jason Clinton wrote:
> > Around 10:30 UTC, all the mirrors should have Gnome 2.10 on them.
>
> Great. When will they have Gnome 2.12?
Gee, sometime after unstable has it, wouldn't you think?
Yet another "I'm just gonna DIE! if I can't ve
Jason Clinton wrote:
> Around 10:30 UTC, all the mirrors should have Gnome 2.10 on them.
Great. When will they have Gnome 2.12?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
36 matches
Mail list logo
