On Thursday 21 May 2015 07:11:00 Reco wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 06:22:37AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Greetings all;
First problem solved. I had already done that and forgotten it. Can I
blame it on oldtimers since I'm 80yo? ;-)
New version installed, a couple sessions with c
east worried about security related stuff.
>
> Trying to apt-get purge the repos ancient amanda-common and amanda-client
> packages from one of my boxes so I can install the correct debs from
> that zmanda site.
>
> I have been a week trying to make those ancient versions work wi
Greetings all;
2 problems.
Wheezy or wheezy derived installs on all 3 boxes on my local network,
which I am the only user of, and all behind a dd-wrt install on the
router, so I am not in the least worried about security related stuff.
Trying to apt-get purge the repos ancient amanda-common
Am Donnerstag 09 Mai 2013, 13:26:32 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> On Thu, 09 May 2013 13:21:02 +0200, Matthias Nagel
> wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag 09 Mai 2013, 12:59:20 schrieb Sven Joachim:
> >> My suggestion is to try "dpkg --purge ", but I would also like
> >> to know how you got yourself into this si
On 2013-05-09 13:21 +0200, Matthias Nagel wrote:
> Am Donnerstag 09 Mai 2013, 12:59:20 schrieb Sven Joachim:
>> On 2013-05-09 11:41 +0200, Matthias Nagel wrote:
>>
>> > after I had upgraded to Wheezy this week, I ran the command
>> > "apt-show-versions | egrep -v wheezy" and I was suprised to see
On Thu, 09 May 2013 13:21:02 +0200, Matthias Nagel
wrote:
Am Donnerstag 09 Mai 2013, 12:59:20 schrieb Sven Joachim:
My suggestion is to try "dpkg --purge ", but I would also like
to know how you got yourself into this situation.
Mmh, OK. But in this case I need the actual *.deb-file, don't I
archive
>
> Those are indeed all dead and gone from the archive.
>
> > Theses packages also own some files, that are of no need any more (for
> > example, libvolume-id0 0.125-7+lenny3 owns the file
> > /lib/libvolume.0.). I wanted to remove these packages and tried
>
chive
> libvolume-id0 0.125-7+lenny3 installed: No available version in archive
Those are indeed all dead and gone from the archive.
> Theses packages also own some files, that are of no need any more (for
> example, libvolume-id0 0.125-7+lenny3 owns the file
> /lib/libvolume.0.
years ago.
(Thas was the time, my servers were set up.)
Theses packages also own some files, that are of no need any more (for example,
libvolume-id0 0.125-7+lenny3 owns the file /lib/libvolume.0.). I wanted to
remove these packages and tried the command
apt-get --purge remove libvolume-id
hich stopped tomcat starting, so I
>>> tried to de-install it.
>>>
>>> I ran apt-get remove tomcat5.5-admin
>>>
>>> The problem though remained - the tomcat manager settings were
>>> preventing a clean start-up.
>>>
>>> So I ran apt-g
an apt-get --purge remove tomcat5.5-admin
This made no difference. So I ran
apt-get --purge remove tomcat5.5
to clear the whole lot. However it let various tomcat files in
/usr/share/tomcat5.5/ which I manually deleted.
Those files that you deleted probably belong to some other package that
m with the tomcat manager
installed by tomcat5.5-admin, which stopped tomcat starting, so I tried
to de-install it.
I ran apt-get remove tomcat5.5-admin
The problem though remained - the tomcat manager settings were
preventing a clean start-up.
So I ran apt-get --purge remove tomcat5.5-admin
Th
installed by
tomcat5.5-admin, which stopped tomcat starting, so I tried to de-install it.
I ran apt-get remove tomcat5.5-admin
The problem though remained - the tomcat manager settings were preventing a
clean start-up.
So I ran apt-get --purge remove tomcat5.5-admin
This made no difference
l
Pace Systems Group, Inc.
800-624-5999
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Zach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 12:05 AM
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: help with "apt-get purge"
>
> On 6/23/07, Christ
Zach wrote:
> Christopher Nelson wrote:
> >To see for yourself, try it on any "-data" package.
>
> That's true but I like controlling exactly what is purged and I prefer
> CLI over GUI.
apt-get is a CLI. Try 'apt-get remove --purge somepackage'.
Bob
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT
On 6/23/07, Christopher Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The problem with this solution being that you have to work out
dependancy chains by yourself, where an apt-get/aptitude purge will work
them out for you.
To see for yourself, try it on any "-data" package.
That's true but I like contro
1.06.2007 15:55:
>> > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=133421 promised me
>> > > that "apt-get purge" now works (0.7.2) but it complains that it's an
>> > > invalid operation.
>> >
>> > Dunno if you didn't
1 promised me
> > that "apt-get purge" now works (0.7.2) but it complains that it's an
> > invalid operation.
>
> Dunno if you didn't see it but the last mail in this report says that the
patch
> providing the "purge" operation was not applie
On 6/21/07, Mathias Brodala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi.
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe, 21.06.2007 15:55:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=133421 promised me
> that "apt-get purge" now works (0.7.2) but it complains that it's an
> invalid operation.
Hi.
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe, 21.06.2007 15:55:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=133421 promised me
> that "apt-get purge" now works (0.7.2) but it complains that it's an
> invalid operation.
Dunno if you didn’t see it but the last mail in this report says
On Thursday 21 June 2007 15:55, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=133421 promised me
> that "apt-get purge" now works (0.7.2) but it complains that it's an
> invalid operation.
>
> --
> my place on the web:
Hi,
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=133421 promised me
that "apt-get purge" now works (0.7.2) but it complains that it's an
invalid operation.
--
my place on the web:
floss-and-misc.blogspot.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
nge "remove" to "purge" if you're not going to ever need
> the exim4 configuration files. ;-)
I wish it worked that way, but it needs to be "apt-get --purge remove ..."
since purge isn't provided as a command to apt-get. I guess aptitude does
provide the pu
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 10:38:27PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.12.05.1757 +0100]:
> > Then there's nothing more to do. The "purge" step only makes a
> > difference if the package has a post-removal script; it seems that this
> > one doesn't.
>
also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.12.05.1757 +0100]:
> Then there's nothing more to do. The "purge" step only makes a
> difference if the package has a post-removal script; it seems that this
> one doesn't.
Does it not also clean out config files?
--
.''`. martin f. krafft
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 08:58:59AM -0500, Lloyd Zusman wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Right. Also, the technical meaning of "foo depends on bar" for Debian
> > packages is that foo will not be configured until bar is configured.
> > Once a package is removed (even if not purg
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 07:34:40AM -0500, Lloyd Zusman wrote:
>> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > That does indeed suggest that it's those packages you need to purge.
>>
>> Aha! Yes, that did the trick. I incorrectly assumed that dpsyco-li
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 07:34:40AM -0500, Lloyd Zusman wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That does indeed suggest that it's those packages you need to purge.
>
> Aha! Yes, that did the trick. I incorrectly assumed that dpsyco-lib
> and dpsyco-base would be dependent on dpsyco
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 05:36:40AM -0500, Lloyd Zusman wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
> So 'dpkg --purge dpsyco-base dpsyco-lib' has no effect? That would be
> strange. I ask because you might have just tried 'dpkg --purge dpsyco',
> which does indeed appear to
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 05:36:40AM -0500, Lloyd Zusman wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Erm, if it's been removed and there are no conffiles and no post-removal
> > script, then there should be nothing left to remove. Otherwise it's a
> > bug. Could you elaborate on what packag
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 07:50:44PM -0500, Lloyd Zusman wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> OK. So then I won't worry about "--purge" not working here. I guess
>> I'll just dig into the installation scripts and try to figure out what
>> they created, so I can get
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 07:50:44PM -0500, Lloyd Zusman wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:14:01AM -0500, Lloyd Zusman wrote:
> >> dpkg - warning: ignoring request to remove the-package which
> >> isn't installed.
> >>
> >> ... and none of the remai
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 03:38:45PM -0600, Jeremy Turner wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 12:56, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Oh, both post-removal scripts and conffiles, yes. Post-removal scripts
> > often purge configuration files that aren't managed by dpkg.
> >
> > The full details of purging are in t
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:14:01AM -0500, Lloyd Zusman wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> dpkg - warning: ignoring request to remove the-package which
>> isn't installed.
>>
>> ... and none of the remaining pieces of "the-package" are removed.
>
> Then ther
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 12:56, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:27:21AM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-12-05 16:57:23 +]:
> > > Then there's nothing more to do. The "purge" step only makes a
> > > difference if the package has a post-removal sc
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:27:21AM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-12-05 16:57:23 +]:
> > Then there's nothing more to do. The "purge" step only makes a
> > difference if the package has a post-removal script; it seems that this
> > one doesn't.
>
> I think yo
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-12-05 16:57:23 +]:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:14:01AM -0500, Lloyd Zusman wrote:
> > ... and none of the remaining pieces of "the-package" are removed.
How are you determining that pieces of the package are remaining?
They should not be there at that po
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:14:01AM -0500, Lloyd Zusman wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:34:01AM -0500, Lloyd Zusman wrote:
> >> In other words, I intended to type this:
> >>
> >> apt-get --pur
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:34:01AM -0500, Lloyd Zusman wrote:
>> In other words, I intended to type this:
>>
>> apt-get --purge remove the-package
>>
>> ... but I inadvertantly typed this:
>>
>> a
On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:34:01 Lloyd Zusman wrote:
.
In these cases, is there any way that I can now do the equivalent of the
"--purge" without re-installing the package and re-issuing the "remove"
command with the "--purge" flag?
Try 'dpkg -P' or 'dpkg --purge' if the latter is easier to r
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:34:01AM -0500, Lloyd Zusman wrote:
> In other words, I intended to type this:
>
> apt-get --purge remove the-package
>
> ... but I inadvertantly typed this:
>
> apt-get remove the-package
>
> In these cases, is there any way that I c
previously
installed package, I have accidentally left out the "--purge" option to
the "apt-get" command.
In other words, I intended to type this:
apt-get --purge remove the-package
... but I inadvertantly typed this:
apt-get remove the-package
In these cases, is there
42 matches
Mail list logo
