On 29/01/2025 19:16, Greg Wooledge wrote:
dbus-org.freedesktop.timesync1.service symlink is a service name alias
for systemd-timesyncd.service. I have no idea *why* this alias was
desired, but that's apparently what it is.
systemd.unit(5) explains that it is to start the service on demand in
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 02:18:23 -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> Some old programs use non-existent symlinks to store or persist state
> information rather than create a normal file. But I don't believe
> systemd uses the technique.
Not on purpose, but systemd does use symbolic links to store state
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 5:02 PM Patrice Duroux wrote:
>
> Of course, maybe I misspoke but my point wasn't about the configuration files
> remaining as expected just removing the package and not purging it. It is
> about
> the broken symlink to its service file which is for sure no more present
>
On 29/01/2025 01:39, Greg Wooledge wrote:
The question is about this dangling symlink:
hobbit:/etc/systemd/system$ ls -l dbus-org.freedesktop.timesync1.service
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 45 Feb 17 2024 dbus-org.freedesktop.timesync1.service
-> /lib/systemd/system/systemd-timesyncd.service
[...]
Le 28/01/2025 à 23:28, David Wright a écrit :
[...]
But would that not be /etc/systemd/system/…/systemd-timesyncd.service?
The dangling symlink is for ….timesync1.service, whatever that is.
Analogously, my systemd-networkd service has two symlinks:
/e/s/s/dbus-org.freedesktop.network1.service
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 3:30 PM didier gaumet wrote:
>
> Le 28/01/2025 à 20:42, didier gaumet a écrit :
> [...]
> > the installation of the package (seemly the default policy in Debian),
> [...]
>
> sorry for my poor english: please replace "seemly" by "apparently"
Don't apologize. Your English i
On Tue 28 Jan 2025 at 20:42:49 (+0100), didier gaumet wrote:
> Le 28/01/2025 à 19:39, Greg Wooledge a écrit :
> [...]
> > hobbit:/etc/systemd/system$ ls -l dbus-org.freedesktop.timesync1.service
> > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 45 Feb 17 2024
> > dbus-org.freedesktop.timesync1.service ->
> > /lib/syst
Le 28/01/2025 à 20:42, didier gaumet a écrit :
[...]
the installation of the package (seemly the default policy in Debian),
[...]
sorry for my poor english: please replace "seemly" by "apparently"
Le 28/01/2025 à 19:39, Greg Wooledge a écrit :
[...]
hobbit:/etc/systemd/system$ ls -l dbus-org.freedesktop.timesync1.service
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 45 Feb 17 2024 dbus-org.freedesktop.timesync1.service
-> /lib/systemd/system/systemd-timesyncd.service
[...]
I'm unclear on exactly how this sym
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 19:07:51 +0100, Patrice Duroux wrote:
> Of course, maybe I misspoke but my point wasn't about the configuration files
> remaining as expected just removing the package and not purging it. It is
> about
> the broken symlink to its service file which is for sure no more prese
Of course, maybe I misspoke but my point wasn't about the configuration files
remaining as expected just removing the package and not purging it. It is about
the broken symlink to its service file which is for sure no more present
whatever a removal or a purge. Or is such a symlink considered as
Le 27/01/2025 à 17:39, Patrice Duroux a écrit :
Hi,
I do not know if this is something already addressed (elsewhere or in
Trixie), a package issue or something more general.
On a bookworm system, removing systemd-timesyncd is leaving a broken
symlink (/etc/systemd/system/dbus-org.freedesktop.ti
Hi,
I do not know if this is something already addressed (elsewhere or in
Trixie), a package issue or something more general.
On a bookworm system, removing systemd-timesyncd is leaving a broken
symlink (/etc/systemd/system/dbus-org.freedesktop.timesync1.service).
On this system, systemd-timesyn
On 01/09/11 00:00, Bruno Martins wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Scott Ferguson
mailto:prettyfly.producti...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello mate.
Thanks for your quick response.
So, to avoid this dependency "problems" in the future, I should make a
clean installation of Debian, without
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:02:39 +0100, Bruno Martins wrote:
> Is there any way to avoid this? Imagine that I simply want to remove the
> evolution package.
(...)
This topic comes from time to time :-)
http://www.google.es/search?q=Form+wizard&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:es-ES:official&c
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Scott Ferguson <
prettyfly.producti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31/08/11 21:02, Bruno Martins wrote:
>
>> Hello guys.
>>
>> Is there any way to avoid this? Imagine that I simply want to remove the
>> evolution package.
>>
>> root@sputnik:/home/joe# apt-get remove ev
On 31/08/11 21:02, Bruno Martins wrote:
Hello guys.
Is there any way to avoid this? Imagine that I simply want to remove the
evolution package.
root@sputnik:/home/joe# apt-get remove evolution
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree��
Reading state information... Done
The fol
Hello guys.
Is there any way to avoid this? Imagine that I simply want to remove the
evolution package.
root@sputnik:/home/joe# apt-get remove evolution
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages were automatically installed and
On 2009-08-16 18:42, Florian Kulzer wrote:
[snip]
/var/lib/dpkg/info/adobe-flashplugin.prerm
Looking at the script you might be able to figure out what it is trying
to do; then you can search for a way to change your alternatives setup
to make that work or you can comment out the problematic co
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 14:50:53 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A couple of years ago, when there were some "issues" with the
> various Adobe Flash packages, I downloaded and installed
> adobe-flashplugin from Ubuntu. It installed perfectly, and I've
> been happy with it ever since.
>
> But
Hi,
A couple of years ago, when there were some "issues" with the
various Adobe Flash packages, I downloaded and installed
adobe-flashplugin from Ubuntu. It installed perfectly, and I've
been happy with it ever since.
But now I want to replace it with the up-to-date flashplayer-mozilla
fro
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 11:05:49AM -0400, BTP wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have been running mostly stable versions of software on my Debian system,
> and when I decided to do an
> apt-get install gxine
> I had to upgrade mozilla and install some other packages.
> (apt-get output is included below.)
Hello,
I have been running mostly stable versions of software on my Debian system, and when I decided to do an
apt-get install gxine
I had to upgrade mozilla and install some other packages.
(apt-get output is included below.)
My question is, if I want to undo what I have done, what would be
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 01:28:41PM +0100, John Stevenson wrote:
> >did you run dselect after this? isn't it that dselect re-resolved
> >package dependencies and set those packages that you changed to install
> >back to deinstall?
> >
> >i would try to deselect those new packages (those which selec
jano kupec wrote:
did you run dselect after this? isn't it that dselect re-resolved
package dependencies and set those packages that you changed to install
back to deinstall?
If you do:
dpkg --set-selections < file
Then you *will* have to do:
apt-get dselect-upgrade
before you then apt
--- John Stevenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> jano kupec wrote:
> >did you run dselect after this? isn't it that dselect re-resolved
> >package dependencies and set those packages that you changed to install
> >back to deinstall?
If you do:
dpkg --set-selections < file
Then you *will* have
jano kupec wrote:
I tried to change the package status by using dpkg:
dpkg --get-selections > package.list
This gave me a list of packages, 26 of which were set for
deinstall. I changed these to install and did:
dpkg --set-selections < package.list
This did not seem to make any difference. There
I am running debian unstable (dist-upgraded from the Sarge Installer)
and everything was working fine, until I decided to give aptitude a try.
I normally use apt-get to install single packages or dselect to add lots
of packages. After reading good comments I tried using Aptitude to
install a fe
Hi,
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Sebastiaan wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Chris Metzler wrote:
> > > For something to be removed, you have to answer "y" to the question
> > > of whether you want them to be. Presumably, you did.
> > >
> > true, and I was intending to reinstall it afte
Sebastiaan wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Chris Metzler wrote:
> > For something to be removed, you have to answer "y" to the question
> > of whether you want them to be. Presumably, you did.
> >
> true, and I was intending to reinstall it after the upgrade was complete.
>
> Problem is: apt doesn't
Hi,
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Chris Metzler wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 11:28:18 +0200 (METDST)
> Sebastiaan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > with the testing dist-upgrade I did last week, some packages were
> > removed. Usually I trust apt and Debian not to remove application
> > packages, but this
Hi,
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 11:28:18AM +0200, Sebastiaan wrote:
> > with the testing dist-upgrade I did last week, some packages were removed.
> > Usually I trust apt and Debian not to remove application packages, but
> > this time it removed xv.
>
> Don'
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 11:28:18 +0200 (METDST)
Sebastiaan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> with the testing dist-upgrade I did last week, some packages were
> removed. Usually I trust apt and Debian not to remove application
> packages, but this time it removed xv.
For something to be removed, you have
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 11:28:18AM +0200, Sebastiaan wrote:
> with the testing dist-upgrade I did last week, some packages were removed.
> Usually I trust apt and Debian not to remove application packages, but
> this time it removed xv.
Don't ever, ever run dist-upgrade without looking over the li
Hi,
with the testing dist-upgrade I did last week, some packages were removed.
Usually I trust apt and Debian not to remove application packages, but
this time it removed xv.
Now I can't find this package in the Debian tree anymore, neither did apt
give me a reason why this package has been obsol
> need command for removing a package
dpkg --purge
On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 07:19:55PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
>
> yes, how did you guess?
>
> it removes package but not its config files (I guess rationale is that
> if you'd reinstall packages you have your original config, in other
> words: package removal is easily
paul taylor writes:
> apt-get remove {package} is this the syntax for removal?
That's what the man page says, alright.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
g, in other
words: package removal is easily reversible while config removal is not)
use dkpg -purge to remove everything, incuding config files (or some
other purge, I forgot, check man dpkg and/opr man apt-get, man dselect
or man for your favourite dselect replacment)
erik
need command for removing a package
apt-get remove {package} is this the syntax for removal??
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Darxus wrote:
> Okay, I was getting this...
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-get -f install
> Updating package status cache...done
> Checking system integrity...dependency error
> Correcting dependencies...ok
> The following extra packages will be installed:
> tetex-base
> The
41 matches
Mail list logo
