Jump to content

linux_learner

OTW
  • Content Count

    892
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by linux_learner

  1. i have suse 9.1 with an ho a800n pc. i am running kde 3.4. my fonts look blurry, even when changing resolution. i have tried anti-aliasing and with out the anti-aliasing, it makes no difference. what can i do to get this fixed?
  2. i havent tried nerolinux yet, as i dont have a windows copy of nero 6, so i dont have a serial number. from what i've read, it doesnt check md5sums. that seems to be at least one major draw back. http://www.suseforums.net/index.php?showtopic=12634&st=20 post 23
  3. just a quick observation here. adamw, you stated before that well, it cant be the mdk packages, or apt4rpm in mdk would have the same problem and it doesnt. so we can eliminate the packages. its that simple.
  4. yes urpmi can do that. what i'd like to know is can urpmi do this http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/apt-howt...t.en.html#s-pin chapter 3 has some cool stuff. i dont know if urpmi can do that. as i pointed out before, apt can do source. http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/article/install_apt4rpm.php
  5. this is what i've heard to. apparently nero doesnt check md5sum. http://www.suseforums.net/index.php?showto...=20entry71429
  6. who said i was blaiming suse. i just think apt does a better job. probably cause it holds alot more sources. http://www.suseforums.net/index.php?showtopic=5971 and it just takes care of things better.
  7. yes packman. packman is a packager for suse. kinda like the plf for mdk. you can add packman and guru to yast, which i have. i have ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/9.1 ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/suppleme...9.1/yast-source ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/suppleme...9.1/yast-source ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/suppleme...9.1/yast-source http://ftp.gwdg.de//pub/linux/misc/suser-guru/rpm/9.1 http://packman.iu-bremen.de/suse/9.1 not to mention my red-carpet and apt.
  8. beagle is new to. but you can add it to your current version manually if you want.
  9. i just did a series of updates via yast, which is like the gui for urpmi. i just checked apt, 17 broken packages. i have my sources set right, so thats not the problem. apt-get check reveals gnumeric: Depends: libgsf-gnome-1.so.1 gtkhtml: Depends: gnome-spell but it is not installed gxine: Depends: libxine1 (>= 1) but it is not installed kaffeine: Depends: libxine1 (>= 1) but it is not installed libstk: Depends: libxine1 but it is not installed libxine1-aa: Depends: libxine1 (= 1.0-0.pm.0) but it is not installed libxine1-directfb: Depends: libxine1 (= 1.0-0.pm.0) but it is not installed libxine1-dvb: Depends: libxine1 (= 1.0-0.pm.0) but it is not installed libxine1-dxr3: Depends: libxine1 (= 1.0-0.pm.0) but it is not installed libxine1-gnome-vfs: Depends: libxine1 (= 1.0-0.pm.0) but it is not installed libxine1-sdl: Depends: libxine1 (= 1.0-0.pm.0) but it is not installed libxine1-stk: Depends: libxine1 (= 1.0-0.pm.0) but it is not installed libxine1-syncfb: Depends: libxine1 (= 1.0-0.pm.0) but it is not installed libxine1-xvmc: Depends: libxine1 (= 1.0-0.pm.0) but it is not installed xine-browser-plugin: Depends: libxine1 (>= 0.2cvs) but it is not installed xine-ui: Depends: libxine1 (>= 1) but it is not installed xine-ui-aa: Depends: libxine1 (>= 1) but it is not installed so now i get to fix these. this is why i like apt. that output just proved you wrong there.
  10. as the title says. a friend found it when updating some programs and it updated xorg as well. http://www.suseforums.net/index.php?showtopic=12584 it has occured to me that perhaps some of you might think this is a gentoo related bug. it isnt. this is an xorg bug. i have seen users on other forums ask about this. so far this is limited to 64 bit architecture, but thats not to say it couldnt happen to 32 bit. the prob is that xorg redoes the sym links with /usr/lib32 and /usr/lib and /usr/lib64. this actaully breaks a few libs and as a result breaks a few programs. the solution andrew18 has provided is a rough work arround until xorg fixes the bug.
  11. that would be an incorrect assumption. using apt on mdk does not break the system. naturally you'd want to use only mdk sources. thats a given. the whole question of apt on mdk is just an option. i dont find that urpmi works perfectly. now then. i'm sure i will get someone trying to argue with that. trying to geuss what i might have done wrong. bottom line, i used mdk sources and plf and i dont force anything, so i did nothing wrong. i'd rather not install something if i have to force it. in my observation and experience, apt works better.
  12. thou dost assume to much. i never said i got urpmi on suse. although it does come in source code, and could be installed. i have used urpmi. where? gee, lets refresh your memory. umm, which distro uses urpmi? mdk? you got it. great job. i knew you could do it. now for the bonus round. which distro uses yast? suse? wow. your on a roll. great job. we already know i have used both. we also know i use/d apt. so whats so hard about grasping the concept here? yes i use the -f option. yes it works. as someone else said, and as the manpage says, often times its a dependancy issue. equivalent to forcing an rpm install. sometimes its maybe just maybe the rpm didnt install right. when this is the case, it is because something wasnt installed properly by either the rpm command or yast (for suse) or urpmi (for mdk). take for example the limewire instace i sited before. apt detected it as broken. i had installed that from the command line. rpm -Uvh <packagename>. the rpm installed fine according to the output from the rpm command. i know its not the package, as it works fine. its not the mirror, since again, the package works fine. now i have installed other packages via rpm -Uvh and their fine. so its not the rpm command. so no bugs with rpm. i already had java on the system, so that wasnt the problem. so then its a problem with apt right? hmm. see if you find any bug reports on this. nope. didnt think so. so its not apt. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=a...rts&btnG=Search
  13. Gowator, i like choices. i like package managers. when i first started with suse, i missed urpmi. let me put it another way, the main reason i stay with suse, is because it seems to be more stable (just my obvservation here). my two favorite distros are suse and mdk. as far as the repositories, i would hope you stick with your distros repos. thats why in this thread i have pointed to mdk repos for apt. i have been shown some improvements to urpmi that it didnt have when i used it. mdk needs to update their manpage :P even if i were to go back to mdk, i still think i'd use apt. but true to form, i'd be using apt out of curriosity and simply cause i like package managers. this debate wouldnt have gone this way if mdk had updated their manpage. i based the debate off of my experience and the mdk manpage. it sounds like urpmi really is comparable, although i do like the -f feature in apt.
  14. apt-get upgrade... i stand corrected. the apt-get clean does rm -rf /var/cache/apt/archives i have done this. take note what this says the local repository is your hard drive.
  15. iphitus pointed out to me that urpmi --upgrade <packagename> is the same as apt-get upgrade <packagename>. i never said rpm - <packagename> was an upgrade. i did say, that urpmi <packagename> is like rpm - <packagename>. umm, red-carpet (as far as i know. please correct me if i am wrong here) is a gui to apt. and can do just that. it would appear you can use apt to do like urpmi --parallel http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/apt-howt...kg-scanpackages its all a matter of configuration. howto keep a mixed system http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/apt-howt...default-version exactly right. you will end up with 2 versions of gaim. does urpmi do this? i never checked before. but urpmi is unattended rpm installer. the 'i' is for install. the --upgrade as iphitus pointed out to me in irc would be rpm -Uvh. i have had this happen a number of times with urpmi (thats how i ended up hosing mdk numerous times) and some in suse. just that i catch them in suse. i know of alot of others who have had this, so you and Gowator are the exception. from what i've read on gurus rpm site, it pertains to source rpms, and apt auto rebuilds them. so at least 1 less step. http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/article/install_apt4rpm.php a fair question. simple. after the install with yast, urpmi, what not, apt detected it as broken, i then had apt fix it. lol. nahhh. i just like playing with package managers. if i could get emerge on suse, i would.
  16. i do use the -f feature. saved me a lot of grief many times. maybe i explain it poorly, but i do use it. for example, i had installed limewire on my own (in rpm form). apt said it was broken. is limewire a dep? then i rest my case on that. by the way, i did already have j2re installed. so see, it wasnt a dep, it was a package. limewire is now fixed. again. last time. all i was ever saying, more features equals more powerfull. i do realize your point iphitus. that more features isnt always better, but then that isnt the case with apt. i wont disagree my experience is out of date with urpmi. i enjoyed it when i used it. perhaps its improved since i have been with suse. i never said urpmi wasnt an equivalent. i just said i think apt is better because it has more features, so its more powerfull. follow me now? actually, there is a way to allow broken dependencies, allow --no-deps. apt-get -f install <packagename> heres an example # apt-get -s install acpi warning: cannot get exclusive lock on /var/lib/rpm/Packages Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these: The following packages have unmet dependencies: skype_qt3_1: Depends: qt3 (>= 3.1) but it is not installable this is just an example. now me personally. i'd never force an install. something i learned along time ago. i got that example off a usenet post.
  17. thank you bvc. no i wont. i dont have mdk. of course you doubt. you havent tried it. i have. i do know. i have seen it. more options is more powerfull, at least in my book. apt can do things urpmi can not. ok. thats my point, and by that consession, i win. that was my point. the rest has been a misunderstanding. i have never seen urpmi do something apt cant. i used to use urpmi everyday. how will you know until you try it. your running on theory. i've used both. i'm talking from experience. yet you argue with me. try it. it is a great tool. maybe you'll like it. maybe you wont. but at least you will have tried it. then you will know from experience, instead of scholastically and in theory. nope. theres nothing i can say that will make you listen. you have read the man pages and faq's. the man pages are the best proof, except experience itself. so i have backed it up, you refuse to accept it and ackowledge it. i have even told you that i have used the -f feature and that it works. you still dont get it. wrong. i have backed it up. you refuse to accept it. there is a difference. i have sited web sites and my experiences. you just wont listen. i never intended this to be a debate. merely a recomendation. you twisted what was said into your own personal campaing. my first post in this thread was merely a link to the mdk apt4rpm. so your wrong again. when the debate ensued, i posted links to sites where the info could be found. i dont feel its nesissary for me to quote sites. you obviously think i do. i thought the web sites addressed all the issues, nothing more needed to be said. yet you responded with rtfm. if you had taken your own advise, we would not be having this debate. period. you havent paid attention. how many times have i said i dont run mdk anymore? so the only documentation i have is where? thats right. the mdk site. on the contrary, you refuted the claim, which is to discredit. why do you think i have repeatedly said its about choice and preference? a point you repeatedly ignore. remember, you said that apt can do more things than urpmi. you agreed there. thats more power. to say something can do something that another tool can not, is to rate that tool (when its for the same purpose/function) superior. ultimately, is it noticably better? hmm, i guess that personal preference. which i have said all the way through this debate. you just ignore it, that all.
  18. first, you wrongly assume that i am spouting off what i have heard. you have seen what i use apt for. on the urpmi man page http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/urpmi.php3 i dont see --clean anywhere. when i read, and reread, and read the man page again, i thought perhaps urpmi automatically cleaned itself. but since i have no proof of this, i was not about to assert that. show me the proof for the --clean option. occasionally i have done an install where either with yast, synaptic, apt-get, urpmi (doesnt matter which) and 1 package will not install correctly. what causes that? i dunno. its not the mirror. its not the developer. yast doesnt detect it. rpmdrake doesnt detect it. urpmi doesnt detect it. apt-get does. not only detect it, but actually fixes it. notice i did not include synaptic in the list of what doesnt detect broken packages. why? because synaptic is the gui to apt-get. does apt recover cleanly from that senario? yep. i've done it. i've seen where i have multiple packages that are broken, and apt fixes them. so yes. aRTee pay attention here. i will quote my last post here i said apt can do things urpmi cant. i have proven that. the rest is a matter of preference. this is one thing i like about linux. choice. thats what this is all about. yes apt can do things urpmi cant. does that mean mdk should stop urpmi. not in my book. i never meantion source install, because i've never done it. i'm not sure if it means tar.gz/tar.bz2 or if it means srpm. either would be benificial. if it does both, that'd be freggin awesome. but since i've never tried it, i dont feel qualified to talk on it. make sence? good. aRTee, i would recomend trying out apt yourself. read the howtos, the man pages, the info pages, the faq's and play with it. try it out and see what you think. going over this point by point wont help except in the scholasyic and theoretical concept. you need to see this in practicality. you've never tried apt, and only read arguements for/against it. you hadnt even read its features or documentation. yes i understand your quite happy with urpmi. great. i was to. i have no beef against urpmi. but for you to argue against something where you havent read up on it, and havent tried it out, thats just plain bad debate form. reading the faq's isnt enough. not even close. it barely gives an over view. dig deeper. try it. then make up your mind. i'm not evangelizing apt. i'm not trying to sell it. its just another choice a user has. i'd have a real problem if every distro went to apt, or emerge or urpmi or what not. emerge maybe one of the best package managers out there, but i wouldnt want it to be the only one. you follow me on this? cause so far it doesnt look like you are. crashdamage actually urpmi is like rpm -i. let say you have gaim-0.74 and you upgrade to gaim-1.1.4. you can download it and execute rpm -i gaim-1.1.4. the "i" in urpmi is install. aRTee's urpmi --update [packagename] would be closer. you kinda got it. that is how it finctions, but it does so with out affecting the other packages involved. you cant do that with urpmi. i'm not talking about the debian apt, as it is not relavent to this subject, but apt4rpm, the port. debian uses a whole nother package concept, perhaps better, but thats not what we're debating here. we're talking about the apt package manager with rpms. we are still dealing with the rpm system. in that sence, since i do use apt regularly on suse, i am of reasonable authority to speak on this. for a debian system? hell no!!
  19. the apt-get upgrade <packagename> is like rpm -Uvh as apposed to rpm -i <packagename>. the urpmi --upgrade upgrades all the packages, kinda like a distro upgrade. apt-get upgrade <packagename> just upgrades that package and any deps with it. yeah i know urpmi will install the latest package, so will apt-get. yes you misunderstand. yes any of us could do rm -rf /var/...... where ever the packages are located. but apt-get clean and autoclean is just easier. right, aRTee. sure. you've only had broken mirrors. ok. sometimes it is the mirrors fault. sometimes its just a package. i've downloaded a whole set of packages and installed them via urpmi and apt, and seen one package, just one, get hosed on the install. what your talking about with the mirror would affect the whole set. what i am talking about is not. so urpmi can not compete here. i cant say whether mdk should go to apt or not. i still think you misunderstand what i'm getting at. apt is a great tool, and great to have. the mdk developers could add certain features to urpmi to make it do things that apt does and that urpmi doesnt. i think its great to just have a choice. do i think apt is better? yep. would i force it on a distro? no. i would recomend apt as an alternative.
  20. you seem to be mistaken about urpmi caching. http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/urpmi.php3
  21. apt-get -f fixes broken packages. we all know some times durring installation a package will not install right (break). this does occur in urpmi. apt has a way to fix it. dselect-upgrade is for example, the removal of old and the installation of new packages. dselect-upgrade seems to be like urpmi --auto-select but yet different. http://www.annodex.net/cgi-bin/man/man2html?8+dselect
  22. now thats a fair rebuttal aRTee. i actually use apt4rpm just like urpmi. i am aware of apt's potential, but have never had the opportunity to put it to use. its like having a ferrari on a highway in the US with a cop on your tail. if ya know me at all (which ya dont, obviously), i am not against urpmi. when i first switched over to suse, i missed urpmi. since i am aware of the possibilities of apt, and knowledgable of urpmi, apt has more options. do i use them? hehehe. no. i did use all of urpmi. that in and of itself says something. i dont post all the options and such as it would be a really long post. in this case a link is better. you can see for yourself what apt (from the apt man pages) can do and compare it for yourself. i say it is superior as it can do things urpmi cannot. have i used them? not yet. will i? only if i want to play arround. i say apt is superior cause i learned urpmi in a very short time, and utilized all its features. apt, i'm still learning. there are 2 distros i know really well, mdk and suse. i pretty much started on mdk, then at 10.0 beta2 switched to suse 9.0. i started using mdk in 8.0. i used mdk every day all day till 10.0 beta2. it was all i did. it was what i knew. now all i use is suse. i use suse every day, all day, and have since suse 9.0. i really do know urpmi, and apt. so because of my experience and knowledge of both systems and apps, i feel i can speak on this. apt-get update = urpmi.update (if i remember my urpmi syntax right) apt-get install <packagename> = urpmi <packagename> apt-get remove <packagename> = urpme <packagename> apt-get upgrade <packagename> = urpmi doesnt seem to have this apt-get dist-upgrade = urpmi --auto-select apt-get dselect-upgrade ? urpmi --auto-select (maybe?) apt-get clean = ? urpmi doesnt seem to have this apt-get autoclean (a variation of clean) apt-get -f = ? urpmi doesnt seem to have a fix feature really, go through and read the pages http://www.die.net/doc/linux/man/man8/apt-get.8.html just in a few lines i've shown how urpmi cant do all what apt does, and yes all these work on rpm distros. i've used all those features.
  23. yes they do iphitus. they both do their jobs quite well. i think that apt has more options. i've already illustrated that with the afore mentioned man pages and howtos and such. it really is a matter of preference. i run suse, and i would love to add urpmi and emerge to my system, but then i love tinkering arround.
  24. yes aRTee has made some good points, to which i have not refuted. i was perfectly calm when typing that last post (i am not in such a good mood now, but thats not because of this discussion). i am simply saying aRTee has misunderstood what i have been saying. you look at this and tell me what apt can do that urpmi cant. http://www.die.net/doc/linux/man/man8/apt-get.8.html urpmi http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/urpmi.php3
  25. dont rtfm me. try this out. my sig on suse forums. i know urpmi. i have not just read the man pages, but read the howto and the mini-howto. i have also read the apt man pages and howtos. aRTee, you simply misunderstood what i was communicating. you thought i was comparing apt to rpm and i wasnt. i was comparing apt to urpmi, and i still am. try again ol' boy.
×
×
  • Create New...