Jump to content

linux_learner

OTW
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    892

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by linux_learner

  2. New Programs for Linux

    in Everything Linux

    Posted

    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.

    swannema

    Mar 12 2005, 04:12 AM

    Post #23| 

     

    Beta Code

     

    Group: Members

    Posts: 372

    Joined: 1-September 03

    From: Rhode Island

    Member No.: 838

     

    I know why I prefer Plextor.

    Btw I just installed Nero, I found my liscence after all.

    Funny thing,it gives you the choice to run as a demo.

     

    I just burned an ISO image and it worked fine, the cd booted as it should. Tried the same with K3B and works just the same. Nero is slightly faster, but does not check the image before it starts burning. This is one of the great features of K3B, it makes sure your file is not corruped before it starts burning.

    http://www.suseforums.net/index.php?showtopic=12634&st=20 post 23

  3. APT for MDK?

    in Everything Linux

    Posted

    just a quick observation here. adamw, you stated before that

    The big thing apt has that urpmi doesn't (that I'm aware of) is suggested dependencies. This would be a lot of work to implement in MDK, though - the problem isn't with writing the functionality into urpmi, but revising all the packages to take advantage of it.
    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. APT for MDK?

    in Everything Linux

    Posted

    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

    3.10 How to keep specific versions of packages installed (complex)

     

    You may have occasion to modify something in a package and don't have time or don't want to port those changes to a new version of the program. Or, for instance, you may have just upgraded your Debian distribution to 3.0, but want to continue with the version of a certain package from Debian 2.2. You can "pin" the version you have installed so that it will not be upgraded.

     

    Using this resource is simple. You just need to edit the file /etc/apt/preferences.

     

    The format is simple:

     

         Package: <package>

         Pin: <pin definition>

         Pin-Priority: <pin's priority>

     

    For example, to keep package sylpheed that I have modified to use "reply-to-list" at version 0.4.99, I add:

     

         Package: sylpheed

         Pin: version 0.4.99*

     

    Note that I used an * (asterisk). This is a "wildcard"; it say that I want that this "pin" to be valid for all versions beginning with 0.4.99. This is because Debian versions its packages with a "Debian revision" and I don't want to avoid the installation of these revisions. So, for instance, versions 0.4.99-1 and 0.4.99-10 will be installed as soon as they are made available. Note that if you modified the package you won't want to do things this way.

     

    The pin priority helps determine whether a package matching the "Packages:" and "Pin:" lines will be installed, with higher priorities making it more likely that a matching package will be installed. You can read apt_preferences(7) for a thorough discussion of priorities, but a few examples should give the basic idea. The following describes the effect of setting the priority field to different values in the sylpheed example above.

     

    1001

    Sylpheed version 0.4.99 will never be replaced by apt. If available, apt will install version 0.4.99 even if it would replace an installed package with a higher version. Only packages of priority greater than 1000 will ever downgrade an existing package.

    1000

    The effect is the same as priority 1001, except that apt will refuse to downgrade an installed version to 0.4.99

    990

    Version 0.4.99 will be replaced only by a higher version available from a release designated as preferred using the "APT::Default-Release" variable (see How to keep a mixed system, Section 3.8, above).

    500

    Any version higher than 0.4.99 of sylpheed which is available from any release will take preference over version 0.4.99, but 0.4.99 will still be preferred to a lower version.

    100

    Higher versions of sylpheed available from any release will take preference over version 0.4.99, as will any installed higher version of slypheed; so 0.4.99 will be installed only if no version is installed already. This is the priority of installed packages.

    -1

    Negative priorities are allowed as well, and prevent 0.4.99 from ever being installed.

     

    A pin can be specified on a package's version, release or origin.

     

    Pinning on a version, as we have seen, supports literal version numbers as well as wildcards to specify several versions at one time.

     

    Option release depends on the Release file from an APT repository or from a CD. This option may be of no use at all if you're using package repositories that don't provide this file. You may see the contents of the Release files that you have on /var/lib/apt/lists/. The parameters for a release are: a (archive), c (components), v (version), o (origin) and l (label).

     

    An example:

     

         Package: *

         Pin: release v=2.2*,a=stable,c=main,o=Debian,l=Debian

         Pin-Priority: 1001

     

    In this example, we chose version 2.2* of Debian (which can be 2.2r2, 2.2r3 -- this accommodates "point releases" that typically include security fixes and other very important updates), the stable repository, section main (as opposed to contrib or non-free) and origin and label Debian. Origin (o=) defines who produced that Release file, the label (l=) defines the name of the distribution: Debian for Debian itself and Progeny for Progeny, for example. A sample Release file:

     

         $ cat /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.debian.org.br_debian_dists_potato_main_binary-i386_Release

         Archive: stable

         Version: 2.2r3

         Component: main

         Origin: Debian

         Label: Debian

         Architecture: i386

    chapter 3 has some cool stuff.

    3.8 How to keep a mixed system

     

    3.9 How to upgrade packages from specific versions of Debian

    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

    If you want to build from source RPMs, also add the following line:

    rpm-src ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/suse/apt/ SuSE/9.2-i386 suser-guru

    (note: replace "9.2-i386" by "9.1-i386", "9.0-i386" or "8.2-i386" if you're using SuSE 9.1, 9.0 or 8.2 respectively)

  5. New Programs for Linux

    in Everything Linux

    Posted

    I've heard that a lot of folks prefer K3B over Nero/Win (and of course some just see it as a Nero clone), so I'll be watching with interest to see how Nero/Linux squares up.

     

    (By the way, I'm in that first camp. K3B is one of the BEST things about Linux for my money ... or lack of...)

     

    Pixel32 sure looks hot, not to mention the interface looks just slightly familiar ... but that's enough about cloning ;) - anyone tried it?

     

     

    this is what i've heard to. apparently nero doesnt check md5sum. http://www.suseforums.net/index.php?showto...=20entry71429

  7. APT for MDK?

    in Everything Linux

  9. APT for MDK?

    in Everything Linux

    Posted

    So you mess up your system by using rpm -Uvh which cannot do dependency resolution (you messed up, not the system), and apt helped clean up the mess.

     

    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.

     

    But with proper use (urpmi, yast, etc) you would never have ended up with the problem in the first place.
    that output just proved you wrong there.

  10. AMD64 X.org 6.8.2 bug

    in Tips and Tricks

    Posted

    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

     

    I recently emerged X.org 6.8.2 in my Gentoo box... and in doing so, I messed up my libs. Something changed, and all of a sudden, Firefox-bin (32-bit, for Flash compatibility) didn't work. So I posted at the Gentoo Forums.

     

    http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-306394.html

     

     

     

    andrew@StubbornAesthetics andrew $ firefox-bin
/opt/firefox/mozilla-xremote-client: Error: Failed to find a running server.
No running windows found

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: locale not supported by Xlib

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: can not set locale modifiers

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported
/etc/host.conf: line 24: bad command `mdns off'

(firefox-bin:12304): Gtk-WARNING **: Unable to locate theme engine in module_path: "mist",

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported
LoadPlugin: failed to initialize shared library /opt/netscape/plugins/mplayerplug-in.so [/opt/netscape/plugins/mplayerplug-in.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory]
LoadPlugin: failed to initialize shared library /usr/lib/nsbrowser/plugins/libmozsvgdec.so [/usr/lib/nsbrowser/plugins/libmozsvgdec.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory]
LoadPlugin: failed to initialize shared library /opt/blackdown-jdk-1.4.2.01/jre/plugin/amd64/mozilla/libjavaplugin_oji.so [/opt/blackdown-jdk-1.4.2.01/jre/plugin/amd64/mozilla/libjavaplugin_oji.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory]

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

(firefox-bin:12304): Gdk-WARNING **: Error converting from UTF-8 to STRING: Conversion from character set 'UTF-8' to 'ISO-8859-1' is not supported

** (firefox-bin:12304): WARNING **: /usr/lib32/pango/1.4.0/modules/pango-basic-fc.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Failed to load Pango module for id: 'BasicScriptEngineFc'
** (firefox-bin:12304): WARNING **: /usr/lib32/pango/1.4.0/modules/pango-basic-fc.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Failed to load Pango module for id: 'BasicScriptEngineFc'
** (firefox-bin:12304): WARNING **: /usr/lib32/pango/1.4.0/modules/pango-basic-fc.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Failed to load Pango module for id: 'BasicScriptEngineFc'
** (firefox-bin:12304): WARNING **: /usr/lib32/pango/1.4.0/modules/pango-basic-fc.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Failed to load Pango module for id: 'BasicScriptEngineFc'
** (firefox-bin:12304): WARNING **: /usr/lib32/pango/1.4.0/modules/pango-basic-fc.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Failed to load Pango module for id: 'BasicScriptEngineFc'
** (firefox-bin:12304): WARNING **: /usr/lib32/pango/1.4.0/modules/pango-basic-fc.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Failed to load Pango module for id: 'BasicScriptEngineFc'
** (firefox-bin:12304): WARNING **: /usr/lib32/pango/1.4.0/modules/pango-basic-fc.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Failed to load Pango module for id: 'BasicScriptEngineFc'
** (firefox-bin:12304): WARNING **: /usr/lib32/pango/1.4.0/modules/pango-basic-fc.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Failed to load Pango module for id: 'BasicScriptEngineFc'
** (firefox-bin:12304): WARNING **: /usr/lib32/pango/1.4.0/modules/pango-basic-fc.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Failed to load Pango module for id: 'BasicScriptEngineFc'
** (firefox-bin:12304): WARNING **: /usr/lib32/pango/1.4.0/modules/pango-basic-fc.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Failed to load Pango module for id: 'BasicScriptEngineFc'
** (firefox-bin:12304): WARNING **: /usr/lib32/pango/1.4.0/modules/pango-basic-fc.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Failed to load Pango module for id: 'BasicScriptEngineFc'
** (firefox-bin:12304): WARNING **: /usr/lib32/pango/1.4.0/modules/pango-basic-fc.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Failed to load Pango module for id: 'BasicScriptEngineFc'
** (firefox-bin:12304): WARNING **: /usr/lib32/pango/1.4.0/modules/pango-basic-fc.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Failed to load Pango module for id: 'BasicScriptEngineFc'
(firefox-bin:12304): GLib-GObject-CRITICAL **: file gobject.c: line 1561 (g_object_ref): assertion `G_IS_OBJECT (object)' failed

** (firefox-bin:12304): CRITICAL **: file pango-engine.c: line 68 (_pango_engine_shape_shape): assertion `PANGO_IS_FONT (font)' failed

** ERROR **: file shape.c: line 75 (pango_shape): assertion failed: (glyphs->num_glyphs > 0)
aborting...
/usr/bin/firefox-bin: line 415: 12304 Aborted                 $mozbin "$@"
Warning: locale not supported by Xlib, locale set to C
Warning: X locale modifiers not supported, using default

     

     

     

    I started searching around bugs.gentoo.org and the forums, and found a couple things.

     

    This was my first find... something similar.

     

    http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-299087.html

     

    But it wasn't perfect... my /usr/lib files were untouched before and after the install.

     

    The first one came from http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83894 , got me Firefox working again.

     

    rm /usr/lib32

    ln -s ../../emul/linux/x86/usr/lib /usr/lib32

     

    But it sill complained about Pango, so at http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80720, I learned that I needed to do

     

    # cd /usr/lib32

    # ln -s /emul/linux/x86/usr/lib/pango pango

     

    And that helped Firefox run a bit faster.

     

    Thanks to donjuan at the Gentoo forums for his help. Yes, this is an AMD64 ONLY bug. Those not running 64-bit SuSE/Gentoo/Whatever will not be affected.

     

     

    Deffinitely is a lib problem. I ran into it before and used a dirty hack to get around the problem, and of course it's coming back to haunt me because it wasn't a real fix. There is a bug report about the problem, way old though (a month), and never resolved: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80720

     

     

    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. APT for MDK?

    in Everything Linux

    Posted

    Once you start using apt4get on mandrake and/or rpm --force etc then you are breaking the system...

     

    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. APT for MDK?

    in Everything Linux

    Posted

    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. APT for MDK?

    in Everything Linux

    Posted

    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 for MDK?

    in Everything Linux

    Posted

    apt-get upgrade... i stand corrected.

    Upgrading packages

     

    Package upgrades are a great success of the APT system. They can be achieved with a single command: apt-get upgrade. You can use this command to upgrade packages within the same distribution, as well as to upgrade to a new distribution, although for the latter the command apt-get dist-upgrade is preferred; see section Upgrading to a new release, Section 3.5 for more details.

     

    It's useful to run this command with the -u option. This option causes APT to show the complete list of packages which will be upgraded. Without it, you'll be upgrading blindly. APT will download the latest versions of each package and will install them in the proper order. It's important to always run apt-get update before you try this. See section Updating the list of available packages, Section 3.1. Look at this example:

     

         # apt-get -u upgrade

         Reading Package Lists... Done

         Building Dependency Tree... Done

         The following packages have been kept back

           cpp gcc lilo

         The following packages will be upgraded

           adduser ae apt autoconf debhelper dpkg-dev esound esound-common ftp indent

           ipchains isapnptools libaudiofile-dev libaudiofile0 libesd0 libesd0-dev

           libgtk1.2 libgtk1.2-dev liblockfile1 libnewt0 liborbit-dev liborbit0

           libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2 libtiff3g libtiff3g-dev modconf orbit procps psmisc

         29 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 3 not upgraded.

         Need to get 5055B/5055kB of archives. After unpacking 1161kB will be used.

         Do you want to continue? [Y/n]

     

    The process is very simple. Note that in the first few lines, apt-get says that some packages were kept back. This means that there are new versions of these packages which will not be installed for some reason. Possible reasons are broken dependencies (a package on which it depends doesn't have a version available for download) or new dependencies (the package has come to depend on new packages since the last version).

     

    There's no clean solution for this first case. For the second case, it's sufficient to run apt-get install for the specific package in question, as this will download the dependencies. An even cleaner solution is to use dist-upgrade. See section Upgrading to a new release, Section 3.5.

     

    the apt-get clean does rm -rf /var/cache/apt/archives i have done this.

     

    take note what this says

    3.6 Removing unused package files: apt-get clean and autoclean

     

    When you install a package APT retrieves the needed files from the hosts listed in /etc/apt/sources.list, stores them in a local repository (/var/cache/apt/archives/), and then proceeds with installation, see Installing packages, Section 3.2.

     

    In time the local repository can grow and occupy a lot of disk space. Fortunately, APT provides tools for managing its local repository: apt-get's clean and autoclean methods.

     

    apt-get clean removes everything except lock files from /var/cache/apt/archives/ and /var/cache/apt/archives/partial/. Thus, if you need to reinstall a package APT should retrieve it again.

     

    apt-get autoclean removes only package files that can no longer be downloaded.

     

    The following example show how apt-get autoclean works:

     

         # ls /var/cache/apt/archives/logrotate* /var/cache/apt/archives/gpm*

         logrotate_3.5.9-7_i386.deb

         logrotate_3.5.9-8_i386.deb

         gpm_1.19.6-11_i386.deb

     

    In /var/cache/apt/archives there are two files for the package logrotate and one for the package gpm.

     

         # apt-show-versions -p logrotate

         logrotate/stable uptodate 3.5.9-8

         # apt-show-versions -p gpm

         gpm/stable upgradeable from 1.19.6-11 to 1.19.6-12

     

    apt-show-versions shows that logrotate_3.5.9-8_i386.deb provides the up to date version of logrotate, so logrotate_3.5.9-7_i386.deb is useless. Also gpm_1.19.6-11_i386.deb is useless because a more recent version of the package can be retrieved.

     

         # apt-get autoclean

         Reading Package Lists... Done

         Building Dependency Tree... Done

         Del gpm 1.19.6-11 [145kB]

         Del logrotate 3.5.9-7 [26.5kB]

     

    Finally, apt-get autoclean removes only the old files. See How to upgrade packages from specific versions of Debian, Section 3.9 for more information on apt-show-versions.

     

    the local repository is your hard drive.

  15. APT for MDK?

    in Everything Linux

    Posted

    urpmi doesn't have dependency verification options, AFAIK, because rpm does. I'm not running Linux ATM so I can't check, but rpm has functionality to verify that a package is correctly installed and also to test whether its dependencies are.

     

    rpm -i does not work the way linux_learner suggested. rpm -i attempts to install the package you specify without upgrading any previous package. Take his example; if you have gaim-0.7.9 installed and you attempt to install a gaim-1.1.4 package with rpm -i, it will attempt to install the two packages alongside each other. This probably won't work, although there's no intrinsic reason why not, most packages just aren't built to allow this. rpm -U replaces the old package with the new one, which is what you actually want to do in almost all cases.

     

    urpmi almost always does the same thing as rpm -U. It can, however, do the same thing as rpm -i. This, for instance, is what it does with kernel packages, which are written to be parallel-installable. Packages that are to be handled this way are listed in /etc/urpmi/inst.list .

     

    As for something urpmi can do that apt can't, take a look at the bottom of the screenshot bvc posted above, about urpmi --parallel - parallel execution of urpmi across an unlimited number of machines. Sure makes updating packages on a large network simple. I don't think apt can do that, yet.

     

     

    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

     

    Take his example; if you have gaim-0.7.9 installed and you attempt to install a gaim-1.1.4 package with rpm -i, it will attempt to install the two packages alongside each other.

     

    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.

     

    No, "we all know" is at most all except me. This has never happened to me with consistent use of urpmi. I take it comments from Gowator imply that he too disagrees with the 'we all know' statement. Don't put words in my mouth.

     

    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.

     

    Naturally, on mdk you can install srpm's by using rpm --rebuild, so that wouldn't necessarily make a urpmi based system (mdk and derivatives) lacking in features, just different.

     

    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.

    If you want to build from source RPMs, also add the following line:

    rpm-src ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/suse/apt/ SuSE/9.2-i386 suser-guru

    (note: replace "9.2-i386" by "9.1-i386", "9.0-i386" or "8.2-i386" if you're using SuSE 9.1, 9.0 or 8.2 respectively)

    http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/article/install_apt4rpm.php

     

    Next, how can you know that the cases where urpmi / yast couldn't manage to install a package are equal to the cases where apt first couldn't, but with the -f switch suddenly could?
    a fair question. simple. after the install with yast, urpmi, what not, apt detected it as broken, i then had apt fix it.

     

    You're the one with the fixation on different options impying more powerful

     

    lol. nahhh. i just like playing with package managers. if i could get emerge on suse, i would.

  16. APT for MDK?

    in Everything Linux

    Posted

    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. APT for MDK?

    in Everything Linux

    Posted

    thank you bvc.

     

    Just put #urpmi in your konqueror location field and you'll see.
    no i wont. i dont have mdk.

     

    I doubt seriously that in the cases where urpmi could not manage, apt can manage
    of course you doubt. you havent tried it. i have. i do know. i have seen it.

     

    No, you stated as a matter of fact that apt is more powerful and has more options
    more options is more powerfull, at least in my book. apt can do things urpmi can not.

     

    I agree that there may be some things that apt can do that urpmi can't
    ok. thats my point, and by that consession, i win. that was my point. the rest has been a misunderstanding.

     

    but this is also true vice versa
    i have never seen urpmi do something apt cant. i used to use urpmi everyday.

     

    Can you tell me why I should do that?

    I believe it's the equivalent of urpmi. Which works fine for me, so I see no point in finding out for myself. I can tell from what I've seen on friends' machines and from the manpage that it's a great tool.

     

    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.

     

    No, you need to back up your statement about apt being more powerful with some good evidence.
    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.

     

    I never made any statement that I haven't backed up. You did.
    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.

     

    Then you quote a 2002 urpmi page, sorry, it's 2005 and the thing was potentially not even up to date at that time - documentation gets written after the code.
    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.

     

    It's up to you to substanciate your claims, not up to me to find out if they are true or not - I never claimed anything about apt.
    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. APT for MDK?

    in Everything Linux

    Posted

    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 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.

     

    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

    As *I* understand things, the default behavior of urpmi is like 'rpm -U' in that it updates only the necessary files in a package, those that are identical are untouched. The difference with rpm vs urpmi is urpmi also takes care of resolving any resulting dependencies. This is also the default behavior of apt. 'apt-get upgrade' is just like 'urpmi --upgrade'.

     

    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.

     

    As for 'apt-get -f', it didn't seem to be particularly useful. I don't have a Debian install now, but if I remember right it just tries to reinstall the package and if that fails, then uninstall/reinstall again. Nothing really trick, no magic 'fix'.

     

    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. APT for MDK?

    in Everything Linux

    Posted

    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.

  22. APT for MDK?

    in Everything Linux

    Posted · Edited by linux_learner

    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. APT for MDK?

    in Everything Linux

    Posted

    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. APT for MDK?

    in Everything Linux

    Posted

    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

     

    SEE ALSO

     

     

    apt-cache(8), apt-cdrom(8), dpkg(8), dselect(8), sources.list(5), apt.conf(5), apt-config(8), The APT User's guide in /usr/share/doc/apt/, apt_preferences(5), the APT Howto.

     

    urpmi http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/urpmi.php3

     

    SEE ALSO

          urpmi.addmedia(8),  urpmi.update(8), urpmi.removemedia(8), autoirpm(8),

          gurpmi(8), urpmf(8), urpmq(8), rpmdrake(8)

  25. APT for MDK?

    in Everything Linux

    Posted

    dont rtfm me. try this out.

    before asking a question, make sure you have done the following; 1)searched the forum. chances are someone else has already asked and it has been answered. 2) searched google. if you answer no to this question, then its time to hit google. you'll find an overwhelming amount of information from google. 3) news lists. this is similar to the forum, just unregulated. 4) the documentation that comes with your linux distro (man pages, info pages, the html help files, the pdf help files, etc...).

     

    if you answered no to any of those, then stop, and take a look at all those. if you still cant find your answer then ask.

     

    if you need help interperting helps and howto's, ask. if you need help figuring out what search string to use in google, ask.

     

    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...