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


Groups > linux.debian.user > #210463

Re: Function similar to {apt-cache recurse ...}?

From Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net>
Newsgroups linux.debian.user
Subject Re: Function similar to {apt-cache recurse ...}?
Date 2019-06-28 16:30 +0200
Message-ID <ye030-4Lb-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <ydYNz-460-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <ydZzY-4mr-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <ydZzY-4mr-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On 06/28/2019 08:58 AM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 08:50:02AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
>> On Fri 28 Jun 2019 at 08:04:43 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote:
>>> "apt-get install" will report the size of the new files to be
>>> installed when it asks for confirmation.
>>>
>>> I'm looking for something similar which will base its calculation
>>> *ONLY* on the contents of /var/lib/apt/lists/ {ignoring what is
>>> already on the current system}.
>>
>> I thought it already did; I posted this here six days ago:
>>
>>    Calculating upgrade... Done
>>    The following packages will be upgraded:
>>      …   …   …   …
>>    9 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
>>    Need to get 52.5 MB/52.5 MB of archives.
>>    After this operation, 74.8 kB of additional disk space will be used.
>>                          ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑    ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
>>    Do you want to continue? [Y/n]
>>
>> If that's not what you mean, ask your question again avoiding words
>> like "similar" and "based on".
> 
> I read the OP's question as "the total installed size including
> dependencies" -- assuming none of those dependencies has been
> installed before (ex nihilo, so to speak).

Explicitly *YES*!
It's nice to have someone actually read what I write ;)

> 
> While that question sounds reasonable, it is not -- do you count
> the base system, for exampla? That means "installed size" is
> /always/ relative to some "base installation".
> 
> But perhaps my interpretation is wrong.

No. Perfectly correct.
I'm comparing possible approaches to a problem.
The "base install" is only loosely defined at this time.

> 
> Cheers
> -- tomás
> 

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Function similar to {apt-cache recurse ...}? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-06-28 15:10 +0200
  Re: Function similar to {apt-cache recurse ...}? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-06-28 16:00 +0200
    Re: Function similar to {apt-cache recurse ...}? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-06-28 16:30 +0200
      Re: Function similar to {apt-cache recurse ...}? Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-06-28 16:40 +0200
      Re: Function similar to {apt-cache recurse ...}? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-06-28 17:30 +0200
        Re: Function similar to {apt-cache recurse ...}? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-06-28 18:20 +0200
      Re: Function similar to {apt-cache recurse ...}? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-07-01 03:50 +0200
  Re: Function similar to {apt-cache recurse ...}? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-06-28 16:00 +0200
    Re: Function similar to {apt-cache recurse ...}? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-06-28 16:00 +0200
      Re: Function similar to {apt-cache recurse ...}? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-06-28 16:10 +0200

csiph-web