Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.raspberry-pi > #9717 > unrolled thread

Raspbian Jessie is here

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.raspberry-pi

Contents

  Raspbian Jessie is here Dave Farrance <DaveFarrance@OMiTTHiSyahooANDTHiS.co.uk> - 2015-09-29 18:03 +0100
    Re: Raspbian Jessie is here druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2015-09-29 21:44 +0100
    Re: Raspbian Jessie is here cl@isbd.net - 2015-09-29 22:50 +0100
      Re: Raspbian Jessie is here The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-29 23:45 +0100
        Re: Raspbian Jessie is here cl@isbd.net - 2015-09-30 11:46 +0100
          Re: Raspbian Jessie is here Roger Bell_West <roger+csrp201509@nospam.firedrake.org> - 2015-09-30 11:03 +0000
          Re: Raspbian Jessie is here I R A Darth Aggie <n0b0dy@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-30 15:46 +0000
          Re: Raspbian Jessie is here ajw99uk <ajw99uk@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-10-02 05:08 -0700
      Re: Raspbian Jessie is here "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2015-09-30 07:20 +0200
        Re: Raspbian Jessie is here cl@isbd.net - 2015-09-30 11:48 +0100
      Re: Raspbian Jessie is here ray carter <ray@zianet.com> - 2015-09-30 17:20 +0000
        Re: Raspbian Jessie is here Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2015-09-30 18:30 +0100
          Re: Raspbian Jessie is here cl@isbd.net - 2015-10-01 12:54 +0100
            Re: Raspbian Jessie is here ray carter <ray@zianet.com> - 2015-10-01 15:05 +0000
            Re: Raspbian Jessie is here Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2015-10-02 03:56 +0100
        Re: Raspbian Jessie is here armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) - 2015-10-01 13:36 +0100
          Re: Raspbian Jessie is here Another Dave <dmarsden@nospam.com> - 2015-10-01 20:11 +0100
      Re: Raspbian Jessie is here druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2015-09-30 20:55 +0100
    Re: Raspbian Jessie is here Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-10-01 20:16 +0000
      Re: Raspbian Jessie is here I R A Darth Aggie <n0b0dy@invalid.invalid> - 2015-10-01 22:34 +0000
        Re: Raspbian Jessie is here Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-10-02 00:01 +0000
          Re: Raspbian Jessie is here ray carter <ray@zianet.com> - 2015-10-02 00:37 +0000
            Re: Raspbian Jessie is here "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2015-10-02 07:32 +0200
              Re: Raspbian Jessie is here Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-10-02 10:17 +0000
          Re: Raspbian Jessie is here cl@isbd.net - 2015-10-02 10:33 +0100
            Re: Raspbian Jessie is here rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 13:37 -0400
              Re: Raspbian Jessie is here ray carter <ray@zianet.com> - 2015-10-02 19:10 +0000
                Re: Raspbian Jessie is here rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 15:19 -0400
                  Re: Raspbian Jessie is here Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2015-10-02 20:56 +0100
                    Re: Raspbian Jessie is here rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 16:26 -0400
                  Re: Raspbian Jessie is here ray carter <ray@zianet.com> - 2015-10-02 20:24 +0000
              Re: Raspbian Jessie is here The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-10-03 08:53 +0100
                Re: Raspbian Jessie is here rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 06:21 -0400
                  Re: Raspbian Jessie is here The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-10-03 11:39 +0100
      Re: Raspbian Jessie is here Dom <domafp@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2015-10-02 05:12 +0100
        Re: Raspbian Jessie is here Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-10-02 10:22 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#9741

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 22:34:12 +0000, I R A Darth Aggie wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 20:16:01 +0000 (UTC),
> Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid>, in
> <muk4a0$chh$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
>>  On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:03:54 +0100, Dave Farrance wrote:
>> 
>> > https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/raspbian-jessie-is-here/
>> 
>>  Thanks for that.
>> 
>>  I've just done an in-situ upgrade of wheezy->jessie(steps 1-5 followed
>>  by a reboot and installation of rc-gui alacarte, all other stuff
>>  ignored since I almost never use anything except a command line via
>>  SSH to drive it) and all is good apart from a couple of small points:
>> 
>>  - The upgrade clouted .profile in root (easily fixed by copying the
>>  one
>>    in my usual user and replacing all escaped '\$' ocurrences in the
>>    PS1 strings with '\#'. I much prefer the prompt to be just '$ ' or
>>    '# ' depending on who I'm logged in as and with the current
>>    directory shown in the console's title bar.
>> 
>>  - /etc/sudoers had changed.
>> 
>>  Anyway, after fixing those points I rebooted again and ran my usual
>>  upgrade script, which does this:
>> 
>>    apt-get autoclean apt-get dist-upgrade apt-get update apt-get
>>    upgrade
> 
> Did you do that in that order? in straight debian, I would "update",
> "upgrade", then "dist-upgrade". I rarely do autoclean, but that's not a
> bad ideal. If you don't need many locales, you may want the localepurge
> package to purge non-used locale files from your system.
>
Background: I'm really a Fedora person: I've been running RedHat distros 
since RH 6.2 and Fedora from 1 to 22, though with a few skipped along the 
way. Both my bigger boxes use Fedora and in consequence I find using apt-
get less straight-forward than yum (and now dnf since F21).

Initially I was just using update, upgrade in that order. Then I decided 
that dist-upgrade would be useful, and read the manpage which doens't 
give a preferred order (why not fer chrissakes?) but seemed to be hinting 
that that it should preceed update, so that's where it is run.

About a year back I discovered autoclean and put it first on the grounds 
that its nice to clean house before getting in more stuff. In fact I 
don't think it matters whether its first or last because, with the 
sequence being run about once a week, it is always run after the last 
upgrade in the cycle. I think the same argument applies to dist-upgrade.
BTW, one of my first action was to disable auto-update because I like to 
do a backup before an update/upgrade sequence. Similarly, I've used the 
same manual backup+update sequence for years on the Fedora boxes.

>>  It ran as expected, i.e. didn't get anything new, but the initial
>>  autocleam did throw away a shedload of old packages which reclaimed a
>>  good 0.8 GB of storage space.
> 
> That's an astounding amount of stuff!
>
Yes, I thought so. This RPi was one of the first batch of 512MB B models 
and its been updated roughly weekly since then. Cruft has accumulated, 
even with the last year's inclusion of autoclean in the upodate cycle. It 
had steadily grown: when first installed df showed about 2.2 GB of stuff 
on the SD card and, up to last week that had steadily grown to 3.2 GB. 
Somewhere along the line my original 4GB card got replaced with an 8GB 
one. Anyway, I noticed that after jessie had been installed the card had 
about 3.5 3.6 GB of stuff on it and that running my update sequence 
reported a lot of package deletions, so was pleasantly surprised to see 
that post autoclean df is reporting that 2.8GB of the card is used.

>>  One oddity that I've noticed is that after a a shutdown via 'sudo
>>  halt' the now RPi stops with the yellow,green,green,red LEDs on and
>>  only the green activity LED off. All the LEDs are steady except that
>>  the green alongside the yellow blinks once every 7 or 8 seconds.
>>  Before the upgrade it used to stop with just the red LED lit.
>> 
>>  This is an RPi 2B. Has anybody else seen this different halting
>>  behaviour post upgrade?
> 
> halt's behaviour seems to have changed. It used to go to a poweroff
> state, but now seems to go to everything is stopped but not powered
> down.
>
Thanks for that.
 
> There are some other commands worth looking at:
> 
> poweroff reboot shutdown
> 
> Depending on the arguments one feeds shutdown, it can power off, halt or
> reboot the system. But they're legacy commands for compatibility. Looks
> like systemctl is doing the actual work. This is for a systemd
> configured Debian, so that may not apply to your Raspbian.
>
Yes, manual Fedora shutdowns usually take the form "sudo shutdown -h NOW" 
but I normally (lazily) shut down with the button on the login screen and 
I haven't tried to find out what command it uses for reboot or halt.

I've always just assumed that reboot, halt and poweroff were just 
convenience wrappers for shutdown. If fact I'd never run across them 
until I got the RPi: all the Unices I've used and early Redhat Linux 
tended to assume that you would just user shutdown.


-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9742

On the Debian site, you'll find that the proper order (after having 
changed the sources.list file) is:

update		
upgrade
dist-upgrade

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9745

On 02-10-15 02:37, ray carter wrote:
> On the Debian site, you'll find that the proper order (after having
> changed the sources.list file) is:
>
> update		
> upgrade
> dist-upgrade

It's only logical. Then *afterwards*,

autoremove
clean

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9747

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 07:32:15 +0200, A. Dumas wrote:

> On 02-10-15 02:37, ray carter wrote:
>> On the Debian site, you'll find that the proper order (after having
>> changed the sources.list file) is:
>>
>> update upgrade dist-upgrade
> 
> It's only logical. Then *afterwards*,
> 
> autoremove clean

Thanks. I've revised the script to do 
update
upgrade
dist-upgrade
autoremove
autoclean 

in that order.



-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9746

Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
> About a year back I discovered autoclean and put it first on the grounds 
> that its nice to clean house before getting in more stuff. In fact I 
> don't think it matters whether its first or last because, with the 
> sequence being run about once a week, it is always run after the last 
> upgrade in the cycle. I think the same argument applies to dist-upgrade.

As I understand it autoclean removes the downloaded installation files
so doing it *after* update and upgrade might get rid of a few more
files.

Don't you ever do an 'apt-get autoremove'?  That removes packages
which are no longer needed.  I.e. if you installed package X that
depends on package Y and then decide you don't need package X and
remove it 'apt-get autoremove' will see that package Y is no
longer needed (assuming nothing else depends on it) and remove that
for you.  (Sorry about the horribly long sentence!)

-- 
Chris Green
·

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9750

On 10/2/2015 5:33 AM, cl@isbd.net wrote:
> Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
>> About a year back I discovered autoclean and put it first on the grounds
>> that its nice to clean house before getting in more stuff. In fact I
>> don't think it matters whether its first or last because, with the
>> sequence being run about once a week, it is always run after the last
>> upgrade in the cycle. I think the same argument applies to dist-upgrade.
>
> As I understand it autoclean removes the downloaded installation files
> so doing it *after* update and upgrade might get rid of a few more
> files.
>
> Don't you ever do an 'apt-get autoremove'?  That removes packages
> which are no longer needed.  I.e. if you installed package X that
> depends on package Y and then decide you don't need package X and
> remove it 'apt-get autoremove' will see that package Y is no
> longer needed (assuming nothing else depends on it) and remove that
> for you.  (Sorry about the horribly long sentence!)

If you don't remove package X, how does the autoremove tool know that 
package X is needed?  Does something keep track of the packages that are 
installed because you asked for them and which were installed 
automatically?

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9751

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 13:37:17 -0400, rickman wrote:

> On 10/2/2015 5:33 AM, cl@isbd.net wrote:
>> Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
>>> About a year back I discovered autoclean and put it first on the
>>> grounds that its nice to clean house before getting in more stuff. In
>>> fact I don't think it matters whether its first or last because, with
>>> the sequence being run about once a week, it is always run after the
>>> last upgrade in the cycle. I think the same argument applies to
>>> dist-upgrade.
>>
>> As I understand it autoclean removes the downloaded installation files
>> so doing it *after* update and upgrade might get rid of a few more
>> files.
>>
>> Don't you ever do an 'apt-get autoremove'?  That removes packages which
>> are no longer needed.  I.e. if you installed package X that depends on
>> package Y and then decide you don't need package X and remove it
>> 'apt-get autoremove' will see that package Y is no longer needed
>> (assuming nothing else depends on it) and remove that for you.  (Sorry
>> about the horribly long sentence!)
> 
> If you don't remove package X, how does the autoremove tool know that
> package X is needed?  Does something keep track of the packages that are
> installed because you asked for them and which were installed
> automatically?

The package manager keeps track of what is installed. See 'man dpkg' and 
'man dpkg-query' for available options.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9752

On 10/2/2015 3:10 PM, ray carter wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 13:37:17 -0400, rickman wrote:
>
>> On 10/2/2015 5:33 AM, cl@isbd.net wrote:
>>> Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
>>>> About a year back I discovered autoclean and put it first on the
>>>> grounds that its nice to clean house before getting in more stuff. In
>>>> fact I don't think it matters whether its first or last because, with
>>>> the sequence being run about once a week, it is always run after the
>>>> last upgrade in the cycle. I think the same argument applies to
>>>> dist-upgrade.
>>>
>>> As I understand it autoclean removes the downloaded installation files
>>> so doing it *after* update and upgrade might get rid of a few more
>>> files.
>>>
>>> Don't you ever do an 'apt-get autoremove'?  That removes packages which
>>> are no longer needed.  I.e. if you installed package X that depends on
>>> package Y and then decide you don't need package X and remove it
>>> 'apt-get autoremove' will see that package Y is no longer needed
>>> (assuming nothing else depends on it) and remove that for you.  (Sorry
>>> about the horribly long sentence!)
>>
>> If you don't remove package X, how does the autoremove tool know that
>> package X is needed?  Does something keep track of the packages that are
>> installed because you asked for them and which were installed
>> automatically?
>
> The package manager keeps track of what is installed. See 'man dpkg' and
> 'man dpkg-query' for available options.

That's not what I asked.  I am asking what the autoremove tool uses to 
decide to remove a package?

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9753

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 15:19:27 -0400
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/2/2015 3:10 PM, ray carter wrote:
> > On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 13:37:17 -0400, rickman wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/2/2015 5:33 AM, cl@isbd.net wrote:
> >>> Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> About a year back I discovered autoclean and put it first on the
> >>>> grounds that its nice to clean house before getting in more stuff. In
> >>>> fact I don't think it matters whether its first or last because, with
> >>>> the sequence being run about once a week, it is always run after the
> >>>> last upgrade in the cycle. I think the same argument applies to
> >>>> dist-upgrade.
> >>>
> >>> As I understand it autoclean removes the downloaded installation files
> >>> so doing it *after* update and upgrade might get rid of a few more
> >>> files.
> >>>
> >>> Don't you ever do an 'apt-get autoremove'?  That removes packages which
> >>> are no longer needed.  I.e. if you installed package X that depends on
> >>> package Y and then decide you don't need package X and remove it
> >>> 'apt-get autoremove' will see that package Y is no longer needed
> >>> (assuming nothing else depends on it) and remove that for you.  (Sorry
> >>> about the horribly long sentence!)
> >>
> >> If you don't remove package X, how does the autoremove tool know that
> >> package X is needed?  Does something keep track of the packages that are
> >> installed because you asked for them and which were installed
> >> automatically?
> >
> > The package manager keeps track of what is installed. See 'man dpkg' and
> > 'man dpkg-query' for available options.
> 
> That's not what I asked.  I am asking what the autoremove tool uses to 
> decide to remove a package?
 
The package manager knows the difference between what has been specifically
installed and what it then has pulled in as dependencies. It also knows if you
have installed -dev headers that it must not automatically remove them (or the
associated runtime libraries) even if nothing seems to use them.

-- 
W J G

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9755

On 10/2/2015 3:56 PM, Folderol wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 15:19:27 -0400
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/2/2015 3:10 PM, ray carter wrote:
>>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 13:37:17 -0400, rickman wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/2/2015 5:33 AM, cl@isbd.net wrote:
>>>>> Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> About a year back I discovered autoclean and put it first on the
>>>>>> grounds that its nice to clean house before getting in more stuff. In
>>>>>> fact I don't think it matters whether its first or last because, with
>>>>>> the sequence being run about once a week, it is always run after the
>>>>>> last upgrade in the cycle. I think the same argument applies to
>>>>>> dist-upgrade.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I understand it autoclean removes the downloaded installation files
>>>>> so doing it *after* update and upgrade might get rid of a few more
>>>>> files.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't you ever do an 'apt-get autoremove'?  That removes packages which
>>>>> are no longer needed.  I.e. if you installed package X that depends on
>>>>> package Y and then decide you don't need package X and remove it
>>>>> 'apt-get autoremove' will see that package Y is no longer needed
>>>>> (assuming nothing else depends on it) and remove that for you.  (Sorry
>>>>> about the horribly long sentence!)
>>>>
>>>> If you don't remove package X, how does the autoremove tool know that
>>>> package X is needed?  Does something keep track of the packages that are
>>>> installed because you asked for them and which were installed
>>>> automatically?
>>>
>>> The package manager keeps track of what is installed. See 'man dpkg' and
>>> 'man dpkg-query' for available options.
>>
>> That's not what I asked.  I am asking what the autoremove tool uses to
>> decide to remove a package?
>
> The package manager knows the difference between what has been specifically
> installed and what it then has pulled in as dependencies. It also knows if you
> have installed -dev headers that it must not automatically remove them (or the
> associated runtime libraries) even if nothing seems to use them.

That's what I was asking.  Thanks.  :)

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9754

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:19:27 -0400, rickman wrote:

> On 10/2/2015 3:10 PM, ray carter wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 13:37:17 -0400, rickman wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/2/2015 5:33 AM, cl@isbd.net wrote:
>>>> Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> About a year back I discovered autoclean and put it first on the
>>>>> grounds that its nice to clean house before getting in more stuff.
>>>>> In fact I don't think it matters whether its first or last because,
>>>>> with the sequence being run about once a week, it is always run
>>>>> after the last upgrade in the cycle. I think the same argument
>>>>> applies to dist-upgrade.
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it autoclean removes the downloaded installation
>>>> files so doing it *after* update and upgrade might get rid of a few
>>>> more files.
>>>>
>>>> Don't you ever do an 'apt-get autoremove'?  That removes packages
>>>> which are no longer needed.  I.e. if you installed package X that
>>>> depends on package Y and then decide you don't need package X and
>>>> remove it 'apt-get autoremove' will see that package Y is no longer
>>>> needed (assuming nothing else depends on it) and remove that for you.
>>>>  (Sorry about the horribly long sentence!)
>>>
>>> If you don't remove package X, how does the autoremove tool know that
>>> package X is needed?  Does something keep track of the packages that
>>> are installed because you asked for them and which were installed
>>> automatically?
>>
>> The package manager keeps track of what is installed. See 'man dpkg'
>> and 'man dpkg-query' for available options.
> 
> That's not what I asked.  I am asking what the autoremove tool uses to
> decide to remove a package?

It queries the same database.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9756

On 02/10/15 18:37, rickman wrote:
> On 10/2/2015 5:33 AM, cl@isbd.net wrote:
>> Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
>>> About a year back I discovered autoclean and put it first on the grounds
>>> that its nice to clean house before getting in more stuff. In fact I
>>> don't think it matters whether its first or last because, with the
>>> sequence being run about once a week, it is always run after the last
>>> upgrade in the cycle. I think the same argument applies to dist-upgrade.
>>
>> As I understand it autoclean removes the downloaded installation files
>> so doing it *after* update and upgrade might get rid of a few more
>> files.
>>
>> Don't you ever do an 'apt-get autoremove'?  That removes packages
>> which are no longer needed.  I.e. if you installed package X that
>> depends on package Y and then decide you don't need package X and
>> remove it 'apt-get autoremove' will see that package Y is no
>> longer needed (assuming nothing else depends on it) and remove that
>> for you.  (Sorry about the horribly long sentence!)
>
> If you don't remove package X, how does the autoremove tool know that
> package X is needed?  Does something keep track of the packages that are
> installed because you asked for them and which were installed
> automatically?
>

apt uses a system of dependencies like a Makefile does. If there are 
packages upon which nothing depends....


-- 
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the 
world it's not directly responsible for.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9757

On 10/3/2015 3:53 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 02/10/15 18:37, rickman wrote:
>> On 10/2/2015 5:33 AM, cl@isbd.net wrote:
>>> Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
>>>> About a year back I discovered autoclean and put it first on the
>>>> grounds
>>>> that its nice to clean house before getting in more stuff. In fact I
>>>> don't think it matters whether its first or last because, with the
>>>> sequence being run about once a week, it is always run after the last
>>>> upgrade in the cycle. I think the same argument applies to
>>>> dist-upgrade.
>>>
>>> As I understand it autoclean removes the downloaded installation files
>>> so doing it *after* update and upgrade might get rid of a few more
>>> files.
>>>
>>> Don't you ever do an 'apt-get autoremove'?  That removes packages
>>> which are no longer needed.  I.e. if you installed package X that
>>> depends on package Y and then decide you don't need package X and
>>> remove it 'apt-get autoremove' will see that package Y is no
>>> longer needed (assuming nothing else depends on it) and remove that
>>> for you.  (Sorry about the horribly long sentence!)
>>
>> If you don't remove package X, how does the autoremove tool know that
>> package X is needed?  Does something keep track of the packages that are
>> installed because you asked for them and which were installed
>> automatically?
>>
>
> apt uses a system of dependencies like a Makefile does. If there are
> packages upon which nothing depends....

Every end application fits that description.  Someone already said that 
the package manager keeps track of what was explicitly installed and 
what was installed because of dependencies.

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9758

On 03/10/15 11:21, rickman wrote:
> On 10/3/2015 3:53 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 02/10/15 18:37, rickman wrote:
>>> On 10/2/2015 5:33 AM, cl@isbd.net wrote:
>>>> Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> About a year back I discovered autoclean and put it first on the
>>>>> grounds
>>>>> that its nice to clean house before getting in more stuff. In fact I
>>>>> don't think it matters whether its first or last because, with the
>>>>> sequence being run about once a week, it is always run after the last
>>>>> upgrade in the cycle. I think the same argument applies to
>>>>> dist-upgrade.
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it autoclean removes the downloaded installation files
>>>> so doing it *after* update and upgrade might get rid of a few more
>>>> files.
>>>>
>>>> Don't you ever do an 'apt-get autoremove'?  That removes packages
>>>> which are no longer needed.  I.e. if you installed package X that
>>>> depends on package Y and then decide you don't need package X and
>>>> remove it 'apt-get autoremove' will see that package Y is no
>>>> longer needed (assuming nothing else depends on it) and remove that
>>>> for you.  (Sorry about the horribly long sentence!)
>>>
>>> If you don't remove package X, how does the autoremove tool know that
>>> package X is needed?  Does something keep track of the packages that are
>>> installed because you asked for them and which were installed
>>> automatically?
>>>
>>
>> apt uses a system of dependencies like a Makefile does. If there are
>> packages upon which nothing depends....
>
> Every end application fits that description.  Someone already said that
> the package manager keeps track of what was explicitly installed and
> what was installed because of dependencies.
>
well that should have read 'packages upon which nothing depends *that 
were not explicitly installed*'



-- 
Global warming is the new Margaret Thatcher. There is no ill in the 
world it's not directly responsible for.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9744

On 01/10/15 21:16, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:03:54 +0100, Dave Farrance wrote:
>
>> https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/raspbian-jessie-is-here/
>
> Thanks for that.
>
> I've just done an in-situ upgrade of wheezy->jessie(steps 1-5 followed by
> a reboot and installation of rc-gui alacarte, all other stuff ignored
> since I almost never use anything except a command line via SSH to drive
> it) and all is good apart from a couple of small points:
>
> One oddity that I've noticed is that after a a shutdown via 'sudo halt'
> the now RPi stops with the yellow,green,green,red LEDs on and only the
> green activity LED off. All the LEDs are steady except that the green
> alongside the yellow blinks once every 7 or 8 seconds. Before the upgrade
> it used to stop with just the red LED lit.
>
> This is an RPi 2B. Has anybody else seen this different halting behaviour
> post upgrade?

Yes, it's a Debian thing. I've had it on PCs too.

Apparently it's a bug fix. The "halt" command had been doing a poweroff 
shutdown instead of just a halt. That has been changed.

Now, on a PC it means the machine stops with "System Halted" displayed, 
but doesn't turn off the power.

I'm gradually getting into the habit of typing "poweoff" instead of 
"halt" now and in the early days of Jessie (well over a year now) I even 
set up an alias for "halt" that just gave a warning to use poweroff instead.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9748

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 05:12:05 +0100, Dom wrote:

> Yes, it's a Debian thing. I've had it on PCs too.
> 
> Apparently it's a bug fix. The "halt" command had been doing a poweroff
> shutdown instead of just a halt. That has been changed.
> 
> Now, on a PC it means the machine stops with "System Halted" displayed,
> but doesn't turn off the power.
>
That's it. Thanks. I've just shut down with poweroff and got back to one 
red LED.
 
> I'm gradually getting into the habit of typing "poweroff" instead of
> "halt" now and in the early days of Jessie (well over a year now) I even
> set up an alias for "halt" that just gave a warning to use poweroff
> instead.
>
Not a bad idea, though as I can't see a reason for using 'halt' instead 
of 'poweroff' since I have to go upstairs and power cycle to restart 
after either of them, I may just set up 'halt' as an alias for 'poweroff'.


-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.raspberry-pi

csiph-web