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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #264076 > unrolled thread

packages listed vs. apt-rdepends --follow=Depends ...

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  packages listed vs. apt-rdepends --follow=Depends ... Albretch Mueller <lbrtchx@gmail.com> - 2023-12-02 03:10 +0100
    Re: packages listed vs. apt-rdepends --follow=Depends ... Tom Furie <tom@furie.org.uk> - 2023-12-02 03:30 +0100
      Re: packages listed vs. apt-rdepends --follow=Depends ... Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-12-02 04:00 +0100
        Re: packages listed vs. apt-rdepends --follow=Depends ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2023-12-02 05:10 +0100
          Re: packages listed vs. apt-rdepends --follow=Depends ... Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-12-02 05:30 +0100
            Re: packages listed vs. apt-rdepends --follow=Depends ... Albretch Mueller <lbrtchx@gmail.com> - 2023-12-02 07:20 +0100
              Re: packages listed vs. apt-rdepends --follow=Depends ... Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-12-02 15:20 +0100
            Re: packages listed vs. apt-rdepends --follow=Depends ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2023-12-03 05:30 +0100
              Re: packages listed vs. apt-rdepends --follow=Depends ... Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-12-03 05:50 +0100
                Re: packages listed vs. apt-rdepends --follow=Depends ... Albretch Mueller <lbrtchx@gmail.com> - 2023-12-07 00:10 +0100
                  Re: packages listed vs. apt-rdepends --follow=Depends ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2023-12-07 07:00 +0100
      Re: packages listed vs. apt-rdepends --follow=Depends ... Albretch Mueller <lbrtchx@gmail.com> - 2023-12-02 04:00 +0100
        Re: packages listed vs. apt-rdepends --follow=Depends ... <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-12-02 07:10 +0100
          Re: packages listed vs. apt-rdepends --follow=Depends ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2023-12-03 05:30 +0100
      Re: packages listed vs. apt-rdepends --follow=Depends ... Albretch Mueller <lbrtchx@gmail.com> - 2023-12-02 04:00 +0100
        Re: packages listed vs. apt-rdepends --follow=Depends ... Tom Furie <tom@furie.org.uk> - 2023-12-02 04:10 +0100

#264076 — packages listed vs. apt-rdepends --follow=Depends ...

https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/wget

shows 8 packages as "depends"

dep: libc6 (>= 2.28)
dep: libgnutls30 (>= 3.7.0)
dep: libidn2-0 (>= 0.6)
dep: libnettle8
dep: libpcre2-8-0 (>= 10.22)
dep: libpsl5 (>= 0.16.0)
dep: libuuid1 (>= 2.16)
dep: zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.4)
~
 vs. 17 using apt-rdepends --follow=Depends:

$ apt-rdepends --follow=Depends "wget" | grep --invert-match ^\
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading state information... Done
wget
libc6
libcrypt1
libgcc-s1
gcc-10-base
libgnutls30
libgmp10
libhogweed6
libnettle8
libidn2-0
libunistring2
libp11-kit0
libffi7
libtasn1-6
libpcre2-8-0
libpsl5
libuuid1
zlib1g
~
 these packages weren't listed on packages.debian.org:

libcrypt1
libgcc-s1
gcc-10-base
libgmp10
libhogweed6
libunistring2
libp11-kit0
libffi7
libtasn1-6
~
 why? and which list should one trust (more)?

 lbrtchx

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#264079

Albretch Mueller <lbrtchx@gmail.com> writes:

> https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/wget
>
> shows 8 packages as "depends"
>
> dep: libc6 (>= 2.28)
> dep: libgnutls30 (>= 3.7.0)
> dep: libidn2-0 (>= 0.6)
> dep: libnettle8
> dep: libpcre2-8-0 (>= 10.22)
> dep: libpsl5 (>= 0.16.0)
> dep: libuuid1 (>= 2.16)
> dep: zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.4)

These are direct dependencies.

>  vs. 17 using apt-rdepends --follow=Depends:
>
> $ apt-rdepends --follow=Depends "wget" | grep --invert-match ^\
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree... Done
> Reading state information... Done
> wget
> libc6
> libcrypt1
> libgcc-s1
> gcc-10-base
> libgnutls30
> libgmp10
> libhogweed6
> libnettle8
> libidn2-0
> libunistring2
> libp11-kit0
> libffi7
> libtasn1-6
> libpcre2-8-0
> libpsl5
> libuuid1
> zlib1g

This is a recursive search, also showing dependencies of dependencies,
etc.

Cheers,
Tom

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

#264081

On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 02:52:25AM +0000, Albretch Mueller wrote:
>  direct dependencies of packages which haven't been downloaded,
> install. I need to download those packages.
>  These should be a straightforward way to do that or an easy hack.

I'm still struggling to figure out what the X is in this gigantic X-Y
problem.

Do you have a .deb file, and you want to install it, along with all of
its dependencies?  If that's the X, then you do this:

    apt install ./myfile.deb

That's it.

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

#264086

On Fri 01 Dec 2023 at 21:55:42 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 02:52:25AM +0000, Albretch Mueller wrote:
> >  direct dependencies of packages which haven't been downloaded,
> > install. I need to download those packages.
> >  These should be a straightforward way to do that or an easy hack.
> 
> I'm still struggling to figure out what the X is in this gigantic X-Y
> problem.
> 
> Do you have a .deb file, and you want to install it, along with all of
> its dependencies?  If that's the X, then you do this:
> 
>     apt install ./myfile.deb
> 
> That's it.

[In view of the time of day:]

That requires you to be online, aka "exposed mode". The OP only
exposes a live USB to the outside world, not their "real" system.

I dimly recollect something called apt-move, but I never needed
to use it. Back in the days of dial-up, when I had a real job,
I would upgrade my desk's tower, copy the (uncleaned) archives/
directory onto a Zip drive, take it home and install the .debs
onto my home desktop, configured identically, with dpkg.

Cheers,
David.

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

#264087

On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 10:01:54PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 01 Dec 2023 at 21:55:42 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >     apt install ./myfile.deb
> 
> That requires you to be online, aka "exposed mode". The OP only
> exposes a live USB to the outside world, not their "real" system.
> 
> I dimly recollect something called apt-move, but I never needed
> to use it. Back in the days of dial-up, when I had a real job,
> I would upgrade my desk's tower, copy the (uncleaned) archives/
> directory onto a Zip drive, take it home and install the .debs
> onto my home desktop, configured identically, with dpkg.

In that case, use apt-get instead of apt.  That way the downloaded .deb
files will not be removed afterward.  Then you can just sweep 'em up
from /var/cache/apt/archives, copy them to a stack of floppies, put
the floppies in a box, tie the box to a trained ferret, send the ferret
across town....

If the OP doesn't have a same-release, same-architecture connected
system to use for this purpose, then I don't have an answer.  I don't
deal with this stone-age crap any longer, and I am unable to express
how *happy* I am that this is the case.

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

#264092

On 12/2/23, Tom Furie <tom@furie.org.uk> wrote:
> 'apt depends <package>' would list the direct dependencies without
> recursion.

 Thank you, I think I got what I needed (at least for now).

$ apt depends wget
wget
  Depends: libc6 (>= 2.28)
  Depends: libgnutls30 (>= 3.7.0)
  Depends: libidn2-0 (>= 0.6)
  Depends: libnettle8
  Depends: libpcre2-8-0 (>= 10.22)
  Depends: libpsl5 (>= 0.16.0)
  Depends: libuuid1 (>= 2.16)
  Depends: zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.4)
  Conflicts: <wget-ssl>
  Recommends: ca-certificates
$

$ apt depends wget 2>&1 | grep "  Depends: " | awk '{ print $2}'
libc6
libgnutls30
libidn2-0
libnettle8
libpcre2-8-0
libpsl5
libuuid1
zlib1g
$

On 12/2/23, Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 10:01:54PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
>> That requires you to be online, aka "exposed mode". The OP only
>> exposes a live USB to the outside world, not their "real" system.
>
> If the OP doesn't have a same-release, same-architecture connected
> system to use for this purpose, then I don't have an answer.  I don't
> deal with this stone-age crap any longer, and I am unable to express
> how *happy* I am that this is the case.

 At times *being* and *keeping moving* is entirely fine, you don't
have to be *happy* and I am not sure if I am living in the stone-age
or the brave new world in which we are living these days. One thing is
sure, I can't be naive about any of it.

 I do have the "same-release, same-architecture connected system" I
just want to make as sure (among other things meaning -on a hardware
level-), as I possibly could that, by simply rebooting a live DVD you
can "switch" (as it were) from one to the other.

 As a simple matter of economy (I use almost exclusively amd64 based
hardware), I am trying to streamline a way of:
 a) booting a live Deb Linux from a DVD (which, physically, you can't
write onto)
 b) running a short script with an array of utility packages which are
not part of §a's install base preferably from a pen drive or a
subdirectory of a hard drive you could mount
 then you would:
 1) boot up
 2) (from the USB pen drive) run §b's dpkg-based script
 3) install the extra stuff you need including Selenium-automation
versions of firefox (gecko) and brave (chromium)
~
 4) go into "exposed mode": setup networking, macchanger (I know in my
case it is silly, but I do it anyway), ...
 ...
 after going about the exposed-mode tests you need to and all
etceteras you had to check out online
~
 (n-2)) disconnect yourself from the internet (software + hardware by
removing the wifi USB dongle or cable) ...
 (n-1)) optionally, run script to check which files were changed
during your run and how
 n) shutdown

 Some of you have suggested using apt-clone and apt-move, but I think
this is a simpler way to solve what you see as an XY problem and it
doesn't really matter if you use a "different", "newer" version of Deb
Linux. Most probably all of this is plain nonsense to all of you, but
I have no other way to work. They are even using "AI" to mess with
people they target and it doesn't matter if they know well (which they
have actually told me) that you are not a criminally minded dude, a
threat to society, ... and they are quite literally
watching/monitoring you 24x7.

 lbrtchx

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

#264103

On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 06:15:17AM +0000, Albretch Mueller wrote:
> They are even using "AI" to mess with
> people they target and it doesn't matter if they know well (which they
> have actually told me) that you are not a criminally minded dude, a
> threat to society, ... and they are quite literally
> watching/monitoring you 24x7.

Yeeeeah, OK.

You do know that those emails you receive claiming you've been "hacked"
or that "I know what you did" are just phishing, right?

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

#264132

On Sat 02 Dec 2023 at 13:48:34 (+0000), Darac Marjal wrote:
> On 02/12/2023 04:22, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 10:01:54PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > > On Fri 01 Dec 2023 at 21:55:42 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > >      apt install ./myfile.deb
> > > That requires you to be online, aka "exposed mode". The OP only
> > > exposes a live USB to the outside world, not their "real" system.
> > > 
> > > I dimly recollect something called apt-move, but I never needed
> > > to use it. Back in the days of dial-up, when I had a real job,
> > > I would upgrade my desk's tower, copy the (uncleaned) archives/
> > > directory onto a Zip drive, take it home and install the .debs
> > > onto my home desktop, configured identically, with dpkg.
> > In that case, use apt-get instead of apt.  That way the downloaded .deb
> > files will not be removed afterward.  Then you can just sweep 'em up
> > from /var/cache/apt/archives, copy them to a stack of floppies, put
> > the floppies in a box, tie the box to a trained ferret, send the ferret
> > across town....
> 
> apt-get has the side effect of installing the packages on the
> connected system.

Not with the -d option. I think Greg may have suggested apt-get
because apt autocleans as a side effect, but that can be prevented
with a configuration option, IIRC it's APT::FtpArchive::Clean.

Cheers,
David.

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

#264133

On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 10:28:14PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Sat 02 Dec 2023 at 13:48:34 (+0000), Darac Marjal wrote:
> > On 02/12/2023 04:22, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > apt-get has the side effect of installing the packages on the
> > connected system.
> 
> Not with the -d option. I think Greg may have suggested apt-get
> because apt autocleans as a side effect, but that can be prevented
> with a configuration option, IIRC it's APT::FtpArchive::Clean.

Well, I initially suggested "apt install ./myfile.deb" because I
thought the goal was to install a .deb file and its dependencies.

Then it was mentioned that the procedure would need to be repeated on
a non-networked computer, so I changed it to "apt-get install ./myfile.deb"
which would leave the dependencies in /v/c/a/a so they could be copied
to the non-networked computer along with the initial .deb file.

After that, it was revealed that the whole project is based on some
paranoid fantasy.  The non-networked computer is non-networked only
because the OP believes that "they" (that's literally the word which
was used) are using "AI" to watch the OP "24/7".  This makes me less
inclined to take the project seriously.

Even with that revelation, however, I still feel the most obvious
way to proceed would be to have a networked computer which "mirrors"
the non-networked one.  When you need to install something on the
non-networked computer, you first do it on the networked one, then copy
everything over to the non-networked one.

It doesn't have to be a whole computer.  It could be a VM, or just a
simple chroot directory.

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

#264360

On 12/2/23, Albretch Mueller <lbrtchx@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/2/23, Tom Furie <tom@furie.org.uk> wrote:
>> 'apt depends <package>' would list the direct dependencies without
>> recursion.
> $ apt depends wget 2>&1 | grep "  Depends: " | awk '{ print $2}'

 that didn't work, dpkg would still demand dependencies, so I decided
to change the strategy to:
 1) using apt-get install ...
 2) save the install log into a file (apt-get install reports to you
the order of installation) from which you can then created a dpkg
based script
 3) move all packages from /var/cache/ ... to wherever is needed.
~
On 12/2/23, Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> wrote:
> There used to be "apt-zip" (no longer in Debian), which was
> built around the idea of using ZIP disks for transferring files.
> "apt-zip-list" would use the state of packages on the disconnected
> system to product a "want list" of files to be downloaded. This "want
> list" would be a shell script consisting of various wget or curl
> commands. The script would be taken over to the connected system and
> run, to pull the required packages onto a high-capacity removable medium
> (such as a USB drive or ZIP drive). Back at the disconnected system,
> "apt-zip-inst" would complete the process, installing the files from the
> removable medium.

 Hmm! ... and the apt-zip functionality doesn't exist anymore in the
same way that it rains and thunders when the Gods decide? When a
package is removed or discontinued, is there a formal explanation as
to why?

 I don't know why and I decided to change my approach, but I tried to use the:
 https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/noble/en/man8/apt-get.8.html
 -s, --simulate, --just-print, --dry-run, --recon, --no-act
 functionality, but it didn't work:
 "E: Command line option --dry-run is not understood in combination
with the other options"
 then I found confusing explanations about users being confused:
 https://serverfault.com/questions/1074702/apt-get-update-dry-run-command-does-not-work-anymore
~
On 12/3/23, Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> wrote:
> After that, it was revealed that the whole project is based on some
> paranoid fantasy.  The non-networked computer is non-networked only
> because the OP believes that "they" (that's literally the word which
> was used) are using "AI" to watch the OP "24/7".  This makes me less
> inclined to take the project seriously.

 Greg, quite honestly, I'd wish it would just be my "paranoid
fantasy", but, unfortunately, I will have disappoint you, with all the
streams of data "they" are collecting from everyone of us, "they" are
keeping a data Doppelgänger of everyone of us.

 lbrtchx

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

#264380

On Wed 06 Dec 2023 at 23:08:41 (+0000), Albretch Mueller wrote:
> On 12/2/23, Albretch Mueller <lbrtchx@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/2/23, Tom Furie <tom@furie.org.uk> wrote:
> >> 'apt depends <package>' would list the direct dependencies without
> >> recursion.
> > $ apt depends wget 2>&1 | grep "  Depends: " | awk '{ print $2}'
> 
>  that didn't work,

Tom said it wouldn't, and went on to give a recursive version.

> dpkg would still demand dependencies,

(dependencies of dependencies)

> so I decided
> to change the strategy to:
>  1) using apt-get install ...
>  2) save the install log into a file (apt-get install reports to you
> the order of installation) from which you can then created a dpkg
> based script
>  3) move all packages from /var/cache/ ... to wherever is needed.

I don't remember ever having to worry about the order. I would just
transfer the package cache from the connected PC (at work) to the
unconnected one (at home), and tell dpkg to install the lot, in one
gulp. At worst, the commands   dpkg --configure -a   and
apt-get -f install   would clear any logjams.

> On 12/2/23, Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> wrote:
> > There used to be "apt-zip" (no longer in Debian), which was
> > built around the idea of using ZIP disks for transferring files.
> > "apt-zip-list" would use the state of packages on the disconnected
> > system to product a "want list" of files to be downloaded. This "want
> > list" would be a shell script consisting of various wget or curl
> > commands. The script would be taken over to the connected system and
> > run, to pull the required packages onto a high-capacity removable medium
> > (such as a USB drive or ZIP drive). Back at the disconnected system,
> > "apt-zip-inst" would complete the process, installing the files from the
> > removable medium.
> 
>  Hmm! ... and the apt-zip functionality doesn't exist anymore in the
> same way that it rains and thunders when the Gods decide? When a
> package is removed or discontinued, is there a formal explanation as
> to why?

My guess would be that diminishing use with increasing broadband
availability led to no interest in maintaining it, particularly
through times when changes were made to APT.

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=815456

Have you looked at apt-offline?

>  I don't know why and I decided to change my approach, but I tried to use the:
>  https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/noble/en/man8/apt-get.8.html
>  -s, --simulate, --just-print, --dry-run, --recon, --no-act
>  functionality, but it didn't work:
>  "E: Command line option --dry-run is not understood in combination
> with the other options"
>  then I found confusing explanations about users being confused:
>  https://serverfault.com/questions/1074702/apt-get-update-dry-run-command-does-not-work-anymore
                                                     ↑↑↑↑↑↑
As the reference says, they were trying to use -s with update, but
update doesn't involve packages, only the packages index. Well,
you know update is going to get you—just read your sources.list—so
what's the point of -s.

Cheers,
David.

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

#264082

 direct dependencies of packages which haven't been downloaded,
install. I need to download those packages.
 These should be a straightforward way to do that or an easy hack.
 lbrtchx

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

#264091

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 02:52:25AM +0000, Albretch Mueller wrote:
>  direct dependencies of packages which haven't been downloaded,
> install. I need to download those packages.
>  These should be a straightforward way to do that or an easy hack.
>  lbrtchx

I /think/ this hack might involve iterations until you hit a fixed
point.

See -- package dependencies are listed in the package itself, so
you know your original package's direct dependencies. Off you go,
download those, look into those packages, find the dependencies...
and off you go, download the dependencies's dependencies.

Until you reach the fixed point.

There's one package, apt-cache, which can look at a pre-made complete
dependencies's network. But to update that database you have to be
online...

Sounds like quite the fun.

Cheers
-- 
t

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

#264130

On Sat 02 Dec 2023 at 07:06:37 (+0100), tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 02:52:25AM +0000, Albretch Mueller wrote:
> >  direct dependencies of packages which haven't been downloaded,
> > install. I need to download those packages.
> >  These should be a straightforward way to do that or an easy hack.
> >  lbrtchx
> 
> I /think/ this hack might involve iterations until you hit a fixed
> point.
> 
> See -- package dependencies are listed in the package itself, so
> you know your original package's direct dependencies. Off you go,
> download those, look into those packages, find the dependencies...
> and off you go, download the dependencies's dependencies.
> 
> Until you reach the fixed point.
> 
> There's one package, apt-cache, which can look at a pre-made complete
> dependencies's network. But to update that database you have to be
> online...
> 
> Sounds like quite the fun.

Would it not be more straightforward to download APT's lists, and copy
them to the unconnected machine. # apt-get update   will bitch and
moan about Release files, but still recreate the .bin caches, and
$ apt-get -s -d install foo   will list all the missing dependencies
(± --no-install-recommends to taste) in one fell swoop.

Cheers,
David.

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

#264083

On 12/2/23, Tom Furie <tom@furie.org.uk> wrote:
...
> This is a recursive search, also showing dependencies of dependencies,
> etc.

 How can you list just the direct dependencies? and how safe is it
downloading and installing only those via dpkg?

 lbrtchx

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

#264084

Albretch Mueller <lbrtchx@gmail.com> writes:

>  How can you list just the direct dependencies? and how safe is it
> downloading and installing only those via dpkg?

'apt depends <package>' would list the direct dependencies without
recursion.

Why do you want to download them individually and install directly with
dpkg when apt can handle it all cleanly? Whatever it is you're trying to
do, this feels like the wrong way to go about it...

Cheers,
Tom

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web