On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 9:39 AM Rishikesh Kakade <1rishikaka...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am trying to upgrade my system from Debian 11 to Debian 12. When I run
> sudo apt full-upgrade,
>
> λ ~/ main* sudo apt full-upgrade
>
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree... Done
>
On 11 Oct 2023 11:08 +0530, from 1rishikaka...@gmail.com (Rishikesh Kakade):
> I am trying to upgrade my system from Debian 11 to Debian 12.
Okay.
First things first: did you read through and follow the upgrade
preparation portions of the Bookworm release notes? Going straight for
`apt full-upgra
On Wed, 2023-10-11 at 11:08 +0530, Rishikesh Kakade wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am trying to upgrade my system from Debian 11 to Debian 12. When I
> run
> sudo apt full-upgrade,
Well, to start with what appears to be the obvious, did you begin with
`apt-get update' first?
The, `apt-get full-upgrade'.
It'
Hi!
I am trying to upgrade my system from Debian 11 to Debian 12. When I run
sudo apt full-upgrade,
λ ~/ main* sudo apt full-upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Error!
Some packages could not be installed.
On 08/10/2023 01:45, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 08:27:11PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
In the current case, "aptitude search '~Plsb-base'" does the trick.
Why on EARTH was this not ported to apt-patterns(7)?
It is one of two features I miss in "apt list".
Another one is --sh
On Sun, Oct 08, 2023 at 10:47:58AM +0200, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:
> Greg Wooledge wrote on 07/10/2023 20:45:
> > unicorn:~$ apt list '?provides(~nlsb-base)'
> > Listing... Error!
> > E: input:0-21: error: Unrecognized pattern '?provides'
> > ?provides(~nlsb-base)
> > ^
Greg Wooledge wrote on 07/10/2023 20:45:
On Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 08:27:11PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
Yes, aptitude can do that. Quoting the manual[1]:
,
| ?provides(pattern), ~Ppattern
|
| Matches package versions which provide a package that matches the
| pattern. For instance,
On Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 08:27:11PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> Yes, aptitude can do that. Quoting the manual[1]:
>
> ,
> | ?provides(pattern), ~Ppattern
> |
> | Matches package versions which provide a package that matches the
> | pattern. For instance, “?provides(mail-transport-ag
On 2023-10-07 19:24 +0200, Steve Keller wrote:
> Greg Wooledge writes:
>
>> Package: sysvinit-utils
>> [...]
>> Provides: lsb-base (= 11.1.0)
>>
>> When you remove the physical lsb-base package, the virtual package
>> provided by sysvinit-utils remains, to satisfy the dependencies of
>> ntpsec, r
On Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 07:24:24PM +0200, Steve Keller wrote:
> Greg Wooledge writes:
>
> > Package: sysvinit-utils
> > [...]
> > Provides: lsb-base (= 11.1.0)
> >
> > When you remove the physical lsb-base package, the virtual package
> > provided by sysvinit-utils remains, to satisfy the depende
Greg Wooledge writes:
> Package: sysvinit-utils
> [...]
> Provides: lsb-base (= 11.1.0)
>
> When you remove the physical lsb-base package, the virtual package
> provided by sysvinit-utils remains, to satisfy the dependencies of
> ntpsec, rsync, etc.
OK, that explains, why lsb-base can be removed
On Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 01:04:56PM +, Michael Kjörling wrote:
> On 7 Oct 2023 13:47 +0200, from keller.st...@gmx.de (Steve Keller):
> > # aptitude purge lsb-base
> > The following packages will be REMOVED:
> > lsb-base{p}
> > 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove
On 7 Oct 2023 13:47 +0200, from keller.st...@gmx.de (Steve Keller):
> But how can this then be explained?
>
> # aptitude why lsb-base
> i ntpsec Depends lsb-base
> # aptitude show ntpsec | grep ^Depends
> Depends: adduser, lsb-base, netbase, python3, python3-ntp (=
> 1.2.2+dfsg1
I've always thought, that a package's dependencies must be full-filled
to install that package and that apt-get automatically manages these
dependencies. And also, that if I remove a package, that all other
packages are removed, that depend on it. Like this:
# aptitude purge bind9-libs
T
On 2021-10-27 at 06:57, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a .deb package from HP (hp-health) that has this requirement,
> and doesn't install because of it. It got damaged somehow during the
> last dist-upgrade. I think I'd better re-install it.
>
> I have both libc6:i386 and lib32
Hi all,
I have a .deb package from HP (hp-health) that has this requirement, and
doesn't install because of it. It got damaged somehow during the last
dist-upgrade. I think I'd better re-install it.
I have both libc6:i386 and lib32gcc-s1 (on an AMD 64bit machine).
libc6-i686:i386 is tagged
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:38:13AM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Those concepts are fine for concrete packages. My MUD client Gypsum,
> if I were to package it as a .deb, would Depend on Pike and GTK, would
> Recommend the latest Pike (if it's possible to depend on one version
> and recommend ano
> Sven Joachim [2009-12-30 09:59]:
>
> What do you mean by "insist"? If they recommend the doc package, you
> can easily overrule that. If they depend on it, that is a bug and you
> should report it.
>
texlive-base depends on texlive-doc-base -- I'm gonna report it.
Thanks.
wbr,
Lukas
--
Luk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Andrei Popescu [2009-12-30 10:06]:
>
> On Wed,30.Dec.09, 09:37:16, Lukas Ruf wrote:
> > Dear all
> >
> > Is there any possibility to overrule the package dependencies without
> > modifying the package source?
&g
On Wed,30.Dec.09, 09:37:16, Lukas Ruf wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Is there any possibility to overrule the package dependencies without
> modifying the package source?
>
> Reason for asking: I do not need to have doc packages installed on all
> of my servers. But some pack
On 2009-12-30 09:37 +0100, Lukas Ruf wrote:
> Is there any possibility to overrule the package dependencies without
> modifying the package source?
Not really. While rebuilding from source is not strictly necessary, at
least you'll have to modify the binary package(s).
> Reason
Dear all
Is there any possibility to overrule the package dependencies without
modifying the package source?
Reason for asking: I do not need to have doc packages installed on all
of my servers. But some packages simply insist on installing their
doc package too.
In /etc/apt/preferences, I
->>In response to your message<<-
--received from Ink Bottle--
>
>
> I've found this little script around something
> I've heared about recently; it's a command dedicated
> to check dependencies.
> I don't know it it can be of some use.
> It's been hard to make it work (that's the bad part :)
OT AVAILABLE}
It is supposed to be fast at it (and probably other good properties).
$ apt-cache show $(dpkg-query -l "*"|grep "ii"|cut -d' ' -f3) $(dpkg-query -l
"tetex-bin"|cut -d' ' -f3)
The already installed packages, plus, the packages I wan
->>In response to your message<<-
--received from Chris Burkhardt--
>
> Paul Yeatman wrote:
> [...]
> >> There is a note in the man page about putting the --no-act flag before the
> >> action:
> >>
> >> $ sudo dpkg --no-act -i texlive-base_2007.dfsg.1-2_all.deb
> >>
> >> Does that make it beha
Paul Yeatman writes:
> > $ sudo dpkg -i --no-act texlive-base_2007.dfsg.1-2_all.deb (Reading
> > database ... 138033 files and directories currently installed.)
> > Preparing to replace texlive-base 2007.dfsg.1-2 (using
> > texlive-base_2007.dfsg.1-2_all.deb) ...
> > $ echo $?
> > 0
> >
> > tel
Paul Yeatman wrote:
[...]
>> There is a note in the man page about putting the --no-act flag before the
>> action:
>>
>> $ sudo dpkg --no-act -i texlive-base_2007.dfsg.1-2_all.deb
>>
>> Does that make it behave as expected?
>
> I wish but sadly no:
>
> $ sudo dpkg --no-act -i texlive-base_2007.d
->>In response to your message<<-
--received from Michael M. Moore--
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Paul Yeatman wrote:
> > Hi, I'm wondering if there is a command I can run on a debian
> > package that would test for whether all dependencies of that package
> > are already installed on
->>In response to your message<<-
--received from Chris Burkhardt--
>
> Paul Yeatman wrote:
> > Hi, I'm wondering if there is a command I can run on a debian package that
> > would test for whether all dependencies of that package are already
> > installed on the system without actually insta
->>In response to your message<<-
--received from Jimmy Johnson--
>
> Paul Yeatman wrote:
> > Hi, I'm wondering if there is a command I can run on a debian package
> that would test for whether all dependencies of that package are already
> installed on the system without actually installing th
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Paul Yeatman wrote:
> Hi, I'm wondering if there is a command I can run on a debian package that
> would test for whether all dependencies of that package are already installed
> on the system without actually installing the package if so. This mailing
> list t
Paul Yeatman wrote:
> Hi, I'm wondering if there is a command I can run on a debian package that
> would test for whether all dependencies of that package are already installed
> on the system without actually installing the package if so. This mailing
> list thread http://lists.debian.org/debi
Paul Yeatman wrote:
> Hi, I'm wondering if there is a command I can run on a debian package
that would test for whether all dependencies of that package are already
installed on the system without actually installing the package if so.
This mailing list thread
http://lists.debian.org/debian-us
Hi, I'm wondering if there is a command I can run on a debian package that
would test for whether all dependencies of that package are already installed
on the system without actually installing the package if so. This mailing list
thread http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2006/09/msg00292.htm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 14:27 +1000, Keith Bates wrote:
>
>> The version of wine I'm trying to install is 1.0.0.
>> Debian version is testing.
>
> Aah, that's probably your problem. 1.0.0 is in unstable. 1.0rc2-1 is in
> testing
On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 14:27 +1000, Keith Bates wrote:
> The version of wine I'm trying to install is 1.0.0.
> Debian version is testing.
Aah, that's probably your problem. 1.0.0 is in unstable. 1.0rc2-1 is in
testing. Unstable does not play well with others: Don't try to pull
unstable sources
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:45:17 +0200
Sven Joachim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008-06-23 07:37 +0200, Keith Bates wrote:
>
> > apt-cache policy wine
> >
> > Installed: (none)
> > Candidate: 1.0.0~winehq0~debian~4.0-1
> > Version table:
> > 1.0.0~winehq0~debian~4.0-1 0
> > 500 h
On 2008-06-23 07:37 +0200, Keith Bates wrote:
> apt-cache policy wine
>
> Installed: (none)
> Candidate: 1.0.0~winehq0~debian~4.0-1
> Version table:
> 1.0.0~winehq0~debian~4.0-1 0
> 500 http://wine.budgetdedicated.com etch/main Packages
> 1.0-rc2-1 0
> 500 http://ftp.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:48:36 +0200
Sven Joachim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008-06-23 06:27 +0200, Keith Bates wrote:
>
> > Thanks Mike. I installed libwine-ldap fine. Then tried to install
> > wine:
> >
> > yariknow:/home/mrkeef# apt-get install wine
> > Reading package lists... Done
> > Bu
On 2008-06-23 06:27 +0200, Keith Bates wrote:
> Thanks Mike. I installed libwine-ldap fine. Then tried to install wine:
>
> yariknow:/home/mrkeef# apt-get install wine
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> Some packages could not be
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:27:19 +1000
Keith Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:07:29 -0700
> Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun June 22 2008 19:05:48 Keith Bates wrote:
> > > Is it possible to install wine on debian at the moment?
> > >
> > > Wine depends on lib
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:07:29 -0700
Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun June 22 2008 19:05:48 Keith Bates wrote:
> > Is it possible to install wine on debian at the moment?
> >
> > Wine depends on libldap2
> > libldap2 conflicts with libldap-2.4-2
> > libldap-2.4-2 is needed by about 100
On Sun June 22 2008 19:05:48 Keith Bates wrote:
> Is it possible to install wine on debian at the moment?
>
> Wine depends on libldap2
> libldap2 conflicts with libldap-2.4-2
> libldap-2.4-2 is needed by about 100 other programs including cups,
> evolution, samba, grip...
>
> Obviously I've missed
Is it possible to install wine on debian at the moment?
Wine depends on libldap2
libldap2 conflicts with libldap-2.4-2
libldap-2.4-2 is needed by about 100 other programs including cups,
evolution, samba, grip...
Obviously I've missed something basic here! Can somebody please
enlighten me?
Than
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 23:32:12 +, Dimitrios Daskalakis wrote:
> Florian Kulzer wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 22:41:11 +, Dimitrios Daskalakis wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I am trying to upgrade my distribution from sarge to
> > > etch.
[...]
> > > The following packages have unmet depend
Hello Florian. Thx for your reply. See underneath my
answers to your questions.
--- Florian Kulzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 22:41:11 +, Dimitrios
> Daskalakis wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I am trying to upgrade my distribution from sarge
> to
> > etch.
>
> Are you following
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 22:41:11 +, Dimitrios Daskalakis wrote:
> Hi,
> I am trying to upgrade my distribution from sarge to
> etch.
Are you following the upgrade procedure that is outlined in Etch's
release notes?
> Having upgraded successfully the 2.4 kernel to 2.6, I
> update my sources.li
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 10:41:11PM +, Dimitrios Daskalakis wrote:
> Hi,
> I am trying to upgrade my distribution from sarge to
> etch.
>
> Having upgraded successfully the 2.4 kernel to 2.6, I
> update my sources.list (change sarge to stable, so I
> get etch) and I run aptitude upgrade. Then .
Hi,
I am trying to upgrade my distribution from sarge to
etch.
Having upgraded successfully the 2.4 kernel to 2.6, I
update my sources.list (change sarge to stable, so I
get etch) and I run aptitude upgrade. Then ...
aptitude dist-upgrade
which unfortunately gives me these errors:
Reading Pac
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:22:14 -0800
Freddy Freeloader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tony Heal wrote:
> >
> > I have a problem. If you look below you will see that webalizer is
> > installed and has a dependency of either libgd2 or libgd2-noxpm. If
> > you look further down neither libgd2 nor libgd
rg
> Subject: Re: package dependencies
>
> Tony Heal wrote:
> >
> > I have a problem. If you look below you will see that webalizer is
> > installed and has a dependency of either libgd2 or libgd2-noxpm. If
> > you look further down neither libgd2 nor libgd2-xpm a
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 16:46:34 -0500, Tony Heal wrote:
>
> I have a problem. If you look below you will see that webalizer is
> installed and has a dependency of either libgd2 or libgd2-noxpm. If
> you look further down neither libgd2 nor libgd2-xpm are installed.
> Apt-get -f install shows no pa
Tony Heal wrote:
I have a problem. If you look below you will see that webalizer is
installed and has a dependency of either libgd2 or libgd2-noxpm. If
you look further down neither libgd2 nor libgd2-xpm are installed.
Apt-get –f install shows no packages in error. How can this be?
Tony
Pa
I have a problem. If you look below you will see that webalizer is installed
and has a dependency of either libgd2 or
libgd2-noxpm. If you look further down neither libgd2 nor libgd2-xpm are
installed. Apt-get -f install shows no packages
in error. How can this be?
Tony
Package: webali
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:11:13AM -0500, mutsuura wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> I'm brand new to Debian. I have some experience with package installtion
> on SOLARIS systems.
>
> On SOLARIS when I install a package w/ dependencies, the package installer
> auto-magically detects this and prompts me i
Attila writes:
> On SOLARIS when I install a package w/ dependencies, the package
> installer auto-magically detects this and prompts me if I want to install
> them as well.
Automatic handling of dependencies is a key feature of Debian. All of the
Apt front-ends (Apt-get, Synaptic, Aptitude) deal
Hello all.
I'm brand new to Debian. I have some experience with package installtion
on SOLARIS systems.
On SOLARIS when I install a package w/ dependencies, the package installer
auto-magically detects this and prompts me if I want to install them as
well.
Is there a similar capability in
I seem to have really broken a couple of packages and
I now I can't do anything with dselect/aptitude. None
of the dpkg commands, even using --force, is helping
me fix the problem packages. So, I'm looking for some
help on how to perform surgery on the package
database.
I compiled the 2.4.23 kerne
"Josh Guffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, is there a way to list only the packages with no dependencies?
> Or, some other useful way to find packages that got installed because
> of other packages that aren't there anymore?
If you install packages with aptitude, it will keep track of this f
* Lukas Ruf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030217 23:16]:
> Is there any way to get rid of package dependencies? The reason for
> this question: I have been using VIM ever since I am using Linux --
> and do not want to have emacs installed at all. However, packets like
> cxref have the ide
-> > > > This morning (CET) I run an update and performed an upgrade by
-> > > > dselect with sid. Ther, emacs was required.
-> > >
-> > > Don't worry your not going insane, the version of cxref you were trying to
-> > > install depends on emacsen-common.
-> > >
-> >
-> > well, why does cxref d
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 03:09:46PM +0100, Lukas Ruf wrote:
> * Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-02-18 14:03]:
> > http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting
>
> thanks. "bug" submitted.
Cool (although actually you sent a followup to an existing bug). Try to
avoid doing "Subject: Depends: libc6
* Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-02-18 14:03]:
>
> > - "filing a bug" -- how? bugreport
>
> http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting
>
thanks. "bug" submitted.
wbr,
Lukas
--
Lukas Ruf
http://www.lpr.ch
Wanna know anything about raw ip?
Join [EMAIL PROTECTED] on http://www.rawip.org
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 01:04:30PM +0100, Lukas Ruf wrote:
> * Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-02-18 13:00]:
> > Oh, I seem to be one version behind. See #180876. You might want to
> > consider filing a bug; if all else fails the .el stuff may have to be
> > split into a separate package. It
* Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-02-18 13:00]:
>
> Oh, I seem to be one version behind. See #180876. You might want to
> consider filing a bug; if all else fails the .el stuff may have to be
> split into a separate package. It would be nice if it could use emacs
> only if it's already inst
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 12:18:58PM +0100, Lukas Ruf wrote:
> * Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-02-18 11:57]:
> > Now, actually the changelog is not all that verbose here, but the gist
> > of it appears to be that cxref contains .el files which need the
> > framework in emacsen-common to be i
Colin,
* Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-02-18 11:57]:
>
> Now, actually the changelog is not all that verbose here, but the gist
> of it appears to be that cxref contains .el files which need the
> framework in emacsen-common to be installed correctly. emacsen-common
> consumes a whole 78
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 09:38:29AM +0100, Lukas Ruf wrote:
> * Nick Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-02-18 09:30]:
> > Don't worry your not going insane, the version of cxref you were trying to
> > install depends on emacsen-common.
>
> well, why does cxref depend on emacsen-common? Is there an
Hi again,
* Lukas Ruf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030218 17:52]:
> Hello Nick,
>
> * Nick Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-02-18 09:30]:
> >
> > >
> > > This morning (CET) I run an update and performed an upgrade by
> > > dselect with sid. Ther, emacs was required.
> >
> > Don't worry your not goi
Hello Nick,
* Nick Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-02-18 09:30]:
>
> >
> > This morning (CET) I run an update and performed an upgrade by
> > dselect with sid. Ther, emacs was required.
>
> Don't worry your not going insane, the version of cxref you were trying to
> install depends on emacs
Hi,
* Lukas Ruf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030218 16:52]:
>
> * nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-02-18 08:31]:
> > Lukas Ruf said:
> > > Is there any way to get rid of package dependencies? The reason for this
> > > question: I have been using VIM ever since
* nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-02-18 08:31]:
> Lukas Ruf said:
> > Is there any way to get rid of package dependencies? The reason for this
> > question: I have been using VIM ever since I am using Linux -- and do not
> > want to have emacs installed at all. Howev
Lukas Ruf said:
> Is there any way to get rid of package dependencies? The reason for this
> question: I have been using VIM ever since I am using Linux -- and do not
> want to have emacs installed at all. However, packets like cxref have the
> idea they would depend on emacs -- but
Is there any way to get rid of package dependencies? The reason for
this question: I have been using VIM ever since I am using Linux --
and do not want to have emacs installed at all. However, packets like
cxref have the idea they would depend on emacs -- but cxref, as an
example, can be used
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 09:22:42PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 03:38:34PM +0100, Jeff Elkins wrote:
> > How would one -uninstall- KDE in one fell swoop? Surely, you don't have to
> > apt-get remove each package?
>
> Easiest way is to either run debfoster, or purge Qt and
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:38:34 +0100,
Jeff Elkins wrote:
>
> On Friday 14 February 2003 4:21 pm, Michel Loos wrote:
> >The kde Package is a metapackage which allows you to install
> >all of kde with 1 apt-get. But KDE works fine without the
> >package kde.
>
> How would one -uninstall- KDE in one f
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 03:38:34PM +0100, Jeff Elkins wrote:
> How would one -uninstall- KDE in one fell swoop? Surely, you don't have to
> apt-get remove each package?
Easiest way is to either run debfoster, or purge Qt and then clean up
with deborphan -Pa
Also, kinda wondering why the default
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 03:08:03PM +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 11:45:10PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 03:38:34PM +0100, Jeff Elkins wrote:
> > > How would one -uninstall- KDE in one fell swoop?
> >
> > Remove the basic libraries and watch the d
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 11:45:10PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 03:38:34PM +0100, Jeff Elkins wrote:
> >
> > How would one -uninstall- KDE in one fell swoop?
>
> Remove the basic libraries and watch the dependencies sort it out?
Is there a case for introducing that kind o
On Saturday 15 February 2003 12:10 am, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
If apt is working properly, you should be able to remove a base package
that all of kde depends on. apt-get --purge remove kdebase
Thanks Mike!
Jeff Elkins
http://www.elkins.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wi
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 03:38:34PM +0100, Jeff Elkins wrote:
> On Friday 14 February 2003 4:21 pm, Michel Loos wrote:
> >The kde Package is a metapackage which allows you to install all of kde
> >with 1 apt-get. But KDE works fine without the package kde.
>
> How would one -uninstall- KDE in one f
On 14/02/03 Jeff Elkins did speaketh:
> How would one -uninstall- KDE in one fell swoop? Surely, you don't have to
> apt-get remove each package?
If apt is working properly, you should be able to remove a base package
that all of kde depends on.
apt-get --purge remove kdebase
somethin
Jeff Elkins writes:
> How would one -uninstall- KDE in one fell swoop? Surely, you don't have
> to apt-get remove each package?
Unfortunately, yes (though the dependency list in the KDE package will tell
you what to remove).
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwoo
On Friday 14 February 2003 4:21 pm, Michel Loos wrote:
>The kde Package is a metapackage which allows you to install all of kde
>with 1 apt-get. But KDE works fine without the package kde.
How would one -uninstall- KDE in one fell swoop? Surely, you don't have to
apt-get remove each package?
Jef
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:07:51 +
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 03:42:07PM +0100, Wim De Smet wrote:
> > recently I tried to remove some of the excess software on my system, so
> > I tried removing stuff like koffice, or kate, or kedit, ksysv, kcron,
> > everyt
Em Sex, 2003-02-14 às 12:42, Wim De Smet escreveu:
> hi,
>
> recently I tried to remove some of the excess software on my system, so
> I tried removing stuff like koffice, or kate, or kedit, ksysv, kcron,
> everything that doesn't look like it is needed for operating kde, even
> kde-base-doc. kde
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 03:42:07PM +0100, Wim De Smet wrote:
> recently I tried to remove some of the excess software on my system, so
> I tried removing stuff like koffice, or kate, or kedit, ksysv, kcron,
> everything that doesn't look like it is needed for operating kde, even
> kde-base-doc. kde
hi,
recently I tried to remove some of the excess software on my system, so
I tried removing stuff like koffice, or kate, or kedit, ksysv, kcron,
everything that doesn't look like it is needed for operating kde, even
kde-base-doc. kde is dependent on all of them. Is this a bug? I can't
believe tha
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 03:18:01PM +0100, willem wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I went thru the man pages but couldn't find what i was looking for.
> I run testing and unstable, with testing pinned as prime.
> Now i want to get something from unstable, licq, so checked
> the dependencies and it's quite a list.
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 03:18:01PM +0100, willem wrote:
> I went thru the man pages but couldn't find what i was looking for. I
> run testing and unstable, with testing pinned as prime. Now i want to
> get something from unstable, licq, so checked the dependencies and
> it's quite a list. But t
Hi,
I went thru the man pages but couldn't find what i was looking for.
I run testing and unstable, with testing pinned as prime.
Now i want to get something from unstable, licq, so checked
the dependencies and it's quite a list.
But the dependencies do not show to which release they belong...
eit
Good Morning All,
I've got Debian 3.0 / unstable installed on my laptop and I'm having
some difficulties with installing a package I need. I use Python 2.2
for a lot of small app development and a GUI toolkit for Python called
wxPython (which requires Python 2.2).
Python 2.1 was installed by
Joachim Trinkwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So apt wants to replace libesd-alsa0 with libesd0. But why?
> > Sure, xtux depends on `libesd0 (>= 0.2.14-0.2)' but `libesd-alsa
> > 0.2.17-7' which is installed provides `libesd0'. What is the
> > point in replacing `libesd-alsa 0.2.17-7' with `
Christoph Groth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So apt wants to replace libesd-alsa0 with libesd0. But why? Sure,
> xtux depends on `libesd0 (>= 0.2.14-0.2)' but `libesd-alsa 0.2.17-7'
> which is installed provides `libesd0'. What is the point in replacing
> `libesd-alsa 0.2.17-7' with `libesd0 0
>
> So apt wants to replace libesd-alsa0 with libesd0. But why? Sure,
> xtux depends on `libesd0 (>= 0.2.14-0.2)' but `libesd-alsa 0.2.17-7'
> which is installed provides `libesd0'. What is the point in replacing
> `libesd-alsa 0.2.17-7' with `libesd0 0.2.17-7'?
>
the problem lies in the fact
Hi,
My Linux box is running an up-to-date potato and everything seems to
work just fine, however there is one thing I don't understand:
My little brother wants some jump'n'run game so I would like to
install xtux.
`apt-get -s install xtux' says:
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency
On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 12:57:17AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
>
> Each shared library has a "soname", which consists of a name and a
> version number. For example, "libc6" is the soname for the current
> version of the libc standard C library. Sonames are used to
> distinguish between incompat
sponsibility of the package maintainer to make sure the
library dependencies are properly reflected in the package
dependencies. This way, installing the right packages so all package
dependencies are taken care of automatically ensures that the library
dependenceis are
Greetings!
I would like to know if an older version of a required library can be used
with those programs that require certain libraries to work without any
problems. i.e. I am currently using debian slink 2.1 with the icewm window
manager and I want to install sawmill but then sawmill require
Hi all,
I read a thread a little earlier where the postor (is it postER or
postOR?) wants to download all the required files to install X. He
wanted to know what files to download. That prompted me to search
for an answer.
I poked around, and the closest thing I could find that would give
the dep
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
