On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 10:18:44AM +0100, Adam Hardy wrote:
> apt-get is all I use - there's too much for me to deal with in the GUI
> programs, and combined with a bunch of single-key commands, I find it
> difficult. I use
>
> apt-get install x
> apt-get remove x
> apt-cache search
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 10:47:54PM -0500, Aaron Hall wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Ibrahim Mubarak wrote:
>
> >with all three of them at the same time (apt, aptitude, and synaptic).
> >That's what I am doing now. I started off with apt-get, then I got to
> >know aptitude, which adds a few nice tri
On Thursday 14 July 2005 21:39, Marc Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 01:48:38PM -0600, Jules Dubois wrote:
>> Obstinate trolls lacking the ability to learn or even RTFM.
>
> something stupid it does is obviously a troll
You certainly are a dedica
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Ibrahim Mubarak wrote:
with all three of them at the same time (apt, aptitude, and synaptic).
That's what I am doing now. I started off with apt-get, then I got to
know aptitude, which adds a few nice tricks, and finally went with
synaptic because I tried it and like it. I s
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 05:08:01PM +0200, Roel Schroeven wrote:
> Don't forget that there's more to aptitude than the full-screen
> interface; you can also use it on the command line:
>
> aptitude install x
> aptitude remove x
And then you find that its dependency resolution is different
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 01:48:38PM -0600, Jules Dubois wrote:
> Obstinate trolls lacking the ability to learn or even RTFM.
Yes, every single person that has ever filed a bug against aptitude for
something stupid it does is obviously a troll, and its maintainer is
obviously a god for his Barbie-li
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:44:02AM +0200, Jochen Schulz wrote:
> Of course it's best to always use aptitude if one is going to use it at
> all, but I cannot think of situations where it might be dangerous to use
> plain dpkg/apt.
Because aptitude by default ignores holds placed by dpkg/dselect.
-
On Thursday July 14 2005 9:36 am, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 05:08:01PM +0200, Roel Schroeven wrote:
> >Don't forget that there's more to aptitude than the full-screen
> >interface; you can also use it on the command line:
>
> But aptitude is missing a command like "apt-get buil
On Thursday July 14 2005 2:27 am, Paul Scott wrote:
> Adam Hardy wrote:
> > Paul Scott on 14/07/05 09:05, wrote:
> >> It has never broken my box. apt-get (before I learned about
> >> apt-listbugs) broke my box once and I upgrade packages almost
> >> every day.
> >
> > apt-get is all I use - there'
On Thursday July 14 2005 12:44 am, Jochen Schulz wrote:
> Marc Wilson:
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:42:49PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote:
> > > Yes, i386. aptitude here doesn't think so. I'm trying to work
> > > around it.
> >
> > Yes, but we all know aptitude is crap, with ideas about
> > dependenc
On Wednesday July 13 2005 10:21 pm, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:42:49PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote:
> > Yes, i386. aptitude here doesn't think so. I'm trying to work
> > around it.
>
> Yes, but we all know aptitude is crap, with ideas about dependency
> resolution different from
On Thursday 14 July 2005 02:05, Paul Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> Marc Wilson wrote:
>
>>Yes, but we all know aptitude is crap,
>>
> Who is this "we all?"
Obstinate trolls lacking the ability to learn or even RTFM.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wit
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 05:08:01PM +0200, Roel Schroeven wrote:
Don't forget that there's more to aptitude than the full-screen
interface; you can also use it on the command line:
But aptitude is missing a command like "apt-get build-dep". With this
you can install the build dependencies for a
Adam Hardy wrote:
apt-get is all I use - there's too much for me to deal with in the GUI
programs, and combined with a bunch of single-key commands, I find it
difficult. I use
apt-get install x
apt-get remove x
apt-cache search x
and that's it. But I am a relative newby at the ga
--- Paul Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam Hardy wrote:
>
> > Paul Scott on 14/07/05 09:05, wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >> It has never broken my box. apt-get (before I learned about
> >> apt-listbugs) broke my box once and I upgrade packages almost
> every day.
> >>
> >
> > apt-get is all
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:23:54 -0700
Jason Edson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/12/05, Paul Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Paul Scott wrote:
> >
> > > Robert Vangel wrote:
> > >
> > >> Paul Scott wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Don't I need xserver-xorg which is dependent on xserver-common >
> > >>>
Adam Hardy wrote:
Paul Scott on 14/07/05 09:05, wrote:
It has never broken my box. apt-get (before I learned about
apt-listbugs) broke my box once and I upgrade packages almost every day.
apt-get is all I use - there's too much for me to deal with in the GUI
programs,
Synaptic is GU
Paul Scott on 14/07/05 09:05, wrote:
with ideas about dependency
resolution different from the known universe, so if you're going to
use it,
don't mix it with any other package management.
It *will* break your box.
It has never broken my box. apt-get (before I learned about
apt-listbugs)
Marc Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:42:49PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote:
Yes, i386. aptitude here doesn't think so. I'm trying to work around it.
Yes, but we all know aptitude is crap,
Who is this "we all?" I started using aptitude because a number of
people on this list th
Marc Wilson:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:42:49PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote:
> > Yes, i386. aptitude here doesn't think so. I'm trying to work around it.
>
> Yes, but we all know aptitude is crap, with ideas about dependency
> resolution different from the known universe, so if you're going to use
On 2005-07-13T22:21:29-0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
> Yes, but we all know aptitude is crap, with ideas about dependency
> resolution different from the known universe, so if you're going to use it,
> don't mix it with any other package management.
aptitude has worked out great for me, so I guess that
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:42:49PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote:
> Yes, i386. aptitude here doesn't think so. I'm trying to work around it.
Yes, but we all know aptitude is crap, with ideas about dependency
resolution different from the known universe, so if you're going to use it,
don't mix it with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Scott's comments on Re: xorg in sid were as follows:
# Don't I need xserver-xorg which is dependent on xserver-common >
# 6.8.2.dfsg.1-1 and therefore not installable?
Mine did install and it shows that the correct xserver-common
On Tuesday 12 July 2005 10:31 pm, Paul Scott wrote:
> I see that some xorg packages are now in sid. Are there enough packages
> to switch from xfree86? Are there any problems?
Installed it on a couple of laptops with no problems. Unfortunately for this
machine, xorg doesn't like my Voodoo5 for
Paul Scott wrote:
I see that some xorg packages are now in sid. Are there enough packages
to switch from xfree86? Are there any problems?
xfree86 in all(?) Debian versions has the server isolateDevice option.
I would presume(?) that the Sid Xorg version that also has, the Ubuntu
Xorg has
Paul Scott wrote:
I see that some xorg packages are now in sid. Are there enough packages
to switch from xfree86? Are there any problems?
the new open gl packages remove the old ones and thus whole bunch of
programs:
apt-get install libglu1-xorg (or x-window-system-core wich installs
li
Jason Edson wrote:
On 7/12/05, Paul Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:
Yes, i386. aptitude here doesn't think so. I'm trying to work around
it.
apt-get lets me install xserver-xorg. aptitude doesn't.
I installed xorg in unstable today with synaptic and
On 7/12/05, Paul Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Scott wrote:
>
> > Robert Vangel wrote:
> >
> >> Paul Scott wrote:
> >>
> >>> Don't I need xserver-xorg which is dependent on xserver-common >
> >>> 6.8.2.dfsg.1-1 and therefore not installable?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> i386? http://packages.deb
Paul Scott wrote:
Robert Vangel wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:
Don't I need xserver-xorg which is dependent on xserver-common >
6.8.2.dfsg.1-1 and therefore not installable?
i386? http://packages.debian.org/unstable/x11/xserver-common version
looks fine to me...?
Yes, i386. aptitude here
Robert Vangel wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:
Lorenzo Taylor wrote:
Paul Scott's comments on xorg in sid were as follows:
# I see that some xorg packages are now in sid. Are there enough
packages # to switch from xfree86? Are there any problems?
My aptitude removed xfree86 and replaced it
Paul Scott wrote:
> Lorenzo Taylor wrote:
>
>> Paul Scott's comments on xorg in sid were as follows:
>> # I see that some xorg packages are now in sid. Are there enough
>> packages # to switch from xfree86? Are there any problems?
>>
>> My aptitude removed xfree86 and replaced it with xorg. I h
Lorenzo Taylor wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Scott's comments on xorg in sid were as follows:
# I see that some xorg packages are now in sid. Are there enough packages
# to switch from xfree86? Are there any problems?
My aptitude removed xfree86 and replaced it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Scott's comments on xorg in sid were as follows:
# I see that some xorg packages are now in sid. Are there enough packages
# to switch from xfree86? Are there any problems?
My aptitude removed xfree86 and replaced it with xorg. I have had no
33 matches
Mail list logo
