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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #162023 > unrolled thread

removing TexLive Docs packages

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

Contents

  removing TexLive Docs packages Sivaram Neelakantan <nsivaram.net@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 07:50 +0100
    Re: removing TexLive Docs packages Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 16:00 +0100
      Re: removing TexLive Docs packages The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-12-23 16:40 +0100
        Re: removing TexLive Docs packages Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> - 2015-12-23 17:20 +0100
        Re: removing TexLive Docs packages Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> - 2015-12-23 17:20 +0100
        Re: removing TexLive Docs packages Sivaram Neelakantan <nsivaram.net@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 13:50 +0100
          OT: signatures (was Re: removing TexLive Docs packages) The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-12-24 16:00 +0100
            Re: OT: signatures (was Re: removing TexLive Docs packages) Anthony Mapes <anthonym7009@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 16:40 +0100
              Re: OT: signatures (was Re: removing TexLive Docs packages) Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-12-26 08:40 +0100
              Re: OT: signatures (was Re: removing TexLive Docs packages) Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-12-27 01:00 +0100
              Digital signatures Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2015-12-27 09:10 +0100
                Re: Digital signatures Anthony Mapes <anthonym7009@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 15:10 +0100
                  Re: Digital signatures Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2015-12-27 16:10 +0100
            Re: OT: signatures (was Re: removing TexLive Docs packages) Sivaram Neelakantan <nsivaram.net@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 07:40 +0100
      Re: removing TexLive Docs packages Sivaram Neelakantan <nsivaram.net@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 13:40 +0100
    Re: removing TexLive Docs packages Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2015-12-23 22:50 +0100
      Re: removing TexLive Docs packages The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-12-24 03:20 +0100
        Re: removing TexLive Docs packages Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 05:20 +0100

#162023 — removing TexLive Docs packages

I installed TexLive recently and during one of the upgrades, the
entire texdoc package got installed too.  that is humoungous and I'd
like to remove the doc packages alone and also stop future installs
of the same type whenever I Upgrade TexLive.

Could someone please suggest a way?  I'm on debian test release, if
that is of any help.

 sivaram
 -- 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#162044

On 12/23/2015 12:15 PM, Sivaram Neelakantan wrote:
>
> I installed TexLive recently and during one of the upgrades, the
> entire texdoc package got installed too.  that is humoungous and I'd
> like to remove the doc packages alone and also stop future installs of
> the same type whenever I Upgrade TexLive.

  An appreciable problem.

  # To remove all installed packages with `texlive' and `doc' in their
  # names:
  # aptitude remove '~i~ntexlive~ndoc'

  # To prevent these packages from getting installed later:
  # aptitude hold '~ntexlive~ndoc'

> Could someone please suggest a way?  I'm on debian test release, if
> that is of any help.

  I hope the above helps.

>  sivaram
>  --

  Minor note: I do not recall seeing signatures like yours.

-- 
Udyant Wig
Software projects: https://github.com/udyant

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

#162047

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

On 2015-12-23 at 09:55, Udyant Wig wrote:

> On 12/23/2015 12:15 PM, Sivaram Neelakantan wrote:
> 
>> I installed TexLive recently and during one of the upgrades, the 
>> entire texdoc package got installed too.  that is humoungous and
>> I'd like to remove the doc packages alone and also stop future
>> installs of the same type whenever I Upgrade TexLive.
> 
>   An appreciable problem.
> 
>   # To remove all installed packages with `texlive' and `doc' in their
>   # names:
>   # aptitude remove '~i~ntexlive~ndoc'
> 
>   # To prevent these packages from getting installed later:
>   # aptitude hold '~ntexlive~ndoc'

Does this latter actually work?

I would expect it to use the same hold mechanism as 'apt-mark hold' or
'echo "packagename hold" | dpkg --set-selections', and in my experience
holding a package as not installed does not work; it doesn't even get
recorded in the package-selection state, and certainly doesn't get
respected later when another package Depends or Recommends that package.

If that's been changed, or if there's a mechanism which avoids it and
does work, I'd be very interested.

>>  sivaram
>>  --
> 
>   Minor note: I do not recall seeing signatures like yours.

The standard for signature delimiters is a line consisting of '-- ', as
the first line of the signature block. Software which knows what it's
doing will see this line and treat whatever comes after it specially -
for example, leave it out when quoting a message for reply.

If what he(?) really wants to do is treat his name as part of the post
and any (un-snipped? bottom-quoted?) text below that as special, then
his current signature delimiter is _almost_ correct - the "almost" being
because he has a space before the '--' as well as after, so the
delimiter won't be recognized by most software.

If he's aiming for a normal signature delimiter, however, he does indeed
have it slightly wrong.
-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

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

#162048

Hi,

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 10:27:25AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2015-12-23 at 09:55, Udyant Wig wrote:
> 
> > On 12/23/2015 12:15 PM, Sivaram Neelakantan wrote:
> > 
> >> I installed TexLive recently and during one of the upgrades, the 
> >> entire texdoc package got installed too.  that is humoungous and
> >> I'd like to remove the doc packages alone and also stop future
> >> installs of the same type whenever I Upgrade TexLive.
> > 
> >   An appreciable problem.

I used to worry this when I were on P5 system etc.
Now disk is cheap, so I do not care much. But ...

> >   # To prevent these packages from getting installed later:
> >   # aptitude hold '~ntexlive~ndoc'
> 
> Does this latter actually work?
> 
> I would expect it to use the same hold mechanism as 'apt-mark hold' or
> 'echo "packagename hold" | dpkg --set-selections', and in my experience
> holding a package as not installed does not work; it doesn't even get
> recorded in the package-selection state, and certainly doesn't get
> respected later when another package Depends or Recommends that package.
> 
> If that's been changed, or if there's a mechanism which avoids it and
> does work, I'd be very interested.

I agree.  I tested "hold" on an uninstalled package with aptitude,
nothing happened.

So your option is to use /etc/apt/preferences as described in
apt_preferences(5) where new glob(7) syntax for package is described.

This is not tested but it should be like:

           Package: /^texlive-.*-doc$/
           Pin: release a=*
           Pin-Priority: 10

This glob feature is available from apt (0.8.14)  Apr 2011.

Osamu

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

#162049

Hi,

This fixes error in my previous post.

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 10:27:25AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2015-12-23 at 09:55, Udyant Wig wrote:
> >   # To prevent these packages from getting installed later:
...
> If that's been changed, or if there's a mechanism which avoids it and
> does work, I'd be very interested.

>From root account:
 # cat >/etc/apt/preferences.d/block-texlive << EOF
Package: /^texlive-.*-doc$/
Pin: release a=*
Pin-Priority: -1
EOF

This worked.  (Priority 10 was not small enough.)

Osamu

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

#162088

On Wed, Dec 23 2015,The Wanderer wrote:


[snipped 32 lines]

>>   Minor note: I do not recall seeing signatures like yours.
>
> The standard for signature delimiters is a line consisting of '-- ', as
> the first line of the signature block. Software which knows what it's
> doing will see this line and treat whatever comes after it specially -
> for example, leave it out when quoting a message for reply.
>
> If what he(?) really wants to do is treat his name as part of the post
> and any (un-snipped? bottom-quoted?) text below that as special, then
> his current signature delimiter is _almost_ correct - the "almost" being
> because he has a space before the '--' as well as after, so the
> delimiter won't be recognized by most software.

That's true.  I've never got around to correcting my siggy in my gnus
init file, the initial blank space needs to be removed.

>
> If he's aiming for a normal signature delimiter, however, he does indeed
> have it slightly wrong.

you mean, having my name after the signature with the above
correction, right?

 sivaram
 -- 

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

#162094 — OT: signatures (was Re: removing TexLive Docs packages)

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

On 2015-12-24 at 07:37, Sivaram Neelakantan wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 23 2015,The Wanderer wrote:
> 
> [snipped 32 lines]

This is standard practice; you don't usually need to indicate that
you've snipped at all (except maybe by leaving a blank line in between
the quoted bits where the snip was), much less the number of snipped
lines.

>> The standard for signature delimiters is a line consisting of
>> '-- ', as the first line of the signature block. Software which
>> knows what it's doing will see this line and treat whatever comes
>> after it specially - for example, leave it out when quoting a
>> message for reply.
>> 
>> If what he(?) really wants to do is treat his name as part of the
>> post and any (un-snipped? bottom-quoted?) text below that as
>> special, then his current signature delimiter is _almost_ correct -
>> the "almost" being because he has a space before the '--' as well
>> as after, so the delimiter won't be recognized by most software.
> 
> That's true.  I've never got around to correcting my siggy in my
> gnus init file, the initial blank space needs to be removed.
> 
>> If he's aiming for a normal signature delimiter, however, he does
>> indeed have it slightly wrong.
> 
> you mean, having my name after the signature with the above 
> correction, right?

Not quite; as you've written it, your name _is_ the signature.

The '-- ' is not technically part of the signature; it's the signature
_delimiter_, i.e., the thing which sits between the signature and the
rest of the message. As such, it has to be the very first line of the
signature block. (In practice it will usually be included in the
signature file, but that's an implementation detail.)

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

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

#162095 — Re: OT: signatures (was Re: removing TexLive Docs packages)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

While we're on the topic of signatures, what do you consider to be good
and bad to include in signatures?  I've seen a lot of conflicting
opinions online, particularly surrounding whether or not to include your
email address.  (Are there email clients out there that don't display
who the sender was?)

- -- 
Anthony Mapes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=Xpik
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#162117 — Re: OT: signatures (was Re: removing TexLive Docs packages)

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:38:28 -0500, Anthony Mapes
<anthonym7009@gmail.com> wrote:

> (Are there email clients out there that don't display who the sender
> was?)

If such a mail client exists, its users should not be forgiven.

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

#162125 — Re: OT: signatures (was Re: removing TexLive Docs packages)

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 10:38:28AM -0500, Anthony Mapes wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> While we're on the topic of signatures, what do you consider to be good
> and bad to include in signatures? 

Very amusing! You've made my day. :)

> - -- 
> Anthony Mapes
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
> 
> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWfBFxAAoJEBNsAHU6OFR7ZtoP/i+2CtH4eRqik5CgPoFK9rAx
> FuXMVmWxFnEFJQ21XgCAyRQSvze1OuvqACaPlm+WA4P2q04M2CtgxapsKQeZNiKV
> 4ChP3I/sv7sBD71zPF2IxYG2MtC0W/WoAnfdesgbBCg7rabH9v2HXpQwTv4WI+lb
> n50/ozWEaeU6h3b0VYz2A39noBOpdizuG7lBgHrh/6rytt0SJaoQ+nzoGeEAwRY0
> FoagLwYwNVTG+L2Gl0N0tUqW0x270k8vtXHkIAc3afM0vNlogkLe9dZc755zSspW
> dM0vkjBXXIzvLGRpLyIS5xUnaPfXh0XO/qM7pZWjb0FhKAZQcal6xtLt56U55L/7
> w0qFrMJ9shkjAoVRVH5hil0mIX6prpFrDInCyI42JhNRrWOgkpO/wYX7ZaHB8v/8
> crWRoTr/UVE3QDGtLtjpgNNCF6vGYAcJBc/Hnq8LczfCiBpPMswoGF+7YyjtscDt
> o6dE1247/nw0AAkBiDNEjzCzHqBqI6bFkdWYHh8XHSVG52mt2wciW9ztI3apNrOd
> Ld3dAihhIaOckr5+bk5XCGEkNIPyfNre9P0lr7+kzZMTXoXROEFABuqS9Kph1yXo
> vI6yR5nN7jvI5OgI8jBqpY1mET43Eks//J926zXCPTCDHjwESXA1jQ8a+lPTlE6S
> rEJNy/BiBi8G0NX5twIw
> =Xpik
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

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

#162126 — Digital signatures

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

Anthony Mapes [2015-12-24 10:38:28-05] wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> While we're on the topic of signatures, what do you consider to be
> good and bad to include in signatures?

If we change the subject to digital signatures I think that having the
signature in a separate MIME part is the modern way. You had the PGP
signature in the body of the message (and it's fine with me and my mail
client) but separate MIME parts allow clients to display and save
different parts correctly. Raw message data looks like this:

    From: [...]
    To: [...]
    Subject: [...]
    Date: [...]
    Mime-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
        micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"

    --=-=-=
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    Here's the message body.

    --=-=-=
    Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v2

    [...]
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    --=-=-=--

-- 
/// Teemu Likonen   - .-..   <https://github.com/tlikonen> //
// PGP: 4E10 55DC 84E9 DFF6 13D7 8557 719D 69D3 2453 9450 ///

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

#162131 — Re: Digital signatures

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

On 12/27/2015 02:59 AM, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> 
> If we change the subject to digital signatures I think that having the
> signature in a separate MIME part is the modern way. You had the PGP
> signature in the body of the message (and it's fine with me and my mail
> client) but separate MIME parts allow clients to display and save
> different parts correctly.

OK.  I use Engimail with Icedove/Thunderbird, and it warned me that some
mail clients don't properly handle PGP/MIME, but that all clients should
handle inline PGP.  I wasn't sure how many clients out there didn't
accept the MIME version, so I went with inline to be safe.

I do have one question about the MIME version, though.  I've seen
mailing lists that add a footer to each message (in the form of a
signature).  With inline PGP, this footer gets appended after the
signature block, and everything is wonderful.  Would MIME work properly
with that, since it doesn't seem to explicitly define the start and end
of the signed message?

-- 
Anthony Mapes

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

#162135 — Re: Digital signatures

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

Anthony Mapes [2015-12-27 09:03:22-05] wrote:

> I do have one question about the MIME version, though. I've seen
> mailing lists that add a footer to each message (in the form of a
> signature). With inline PGP, this footer gets appended after the
> signature block, and everything is wonderful. Would MIME work properly
> with that, since it doesn't seem to explicitly define the start and
> end of the signed message?

I didn't know the answer but I just checked one Mailman-managed mailing
list which adds a footer. In PGP/MIME messages (and probably any MIME
multipart messages) it adds another MIME layer (multipart/mixed). The
original multipart/signed is inside the first part and the mailing list
footer is the second part. At least Gnus and Mutt understand it and give
a "good signature". But I'm sure that old unmaintained mail clients
won't show it nicely.

Below is an example. See the different boundary strings for two
different layers.


    From:
    To:
    Date
    Subject:
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
        boundary="===============1041589328404701819=="

    --===============1041589328404701819==
    Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
        micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"

    --=-=-=
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    The original message body here.

    --=-=-=
    Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1

    [...]
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    --=-=-=--

    --===============1041589328404701819==
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    Content-Disposition: inline

    Mailing list footer here.

    --===============1041589328404701819==--

-- 
/// Teemu Likonen   - .-..   <https://github.com/tlikonen> //
// PGP: 4E10 55DC 84E9 DFF6 13D7 8557 719D 69D3 2453 9450 ///

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

#162103 — Re: OT: signatures (was Re: removing TexLive Docs packages)

On Thu, Dec 24 2015,The Wanderer wrote:

> On 2015-12-24 at 07:37, Sivaram Neelakantan wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 23 2015,The Wanderer wrote:
>> 
>> [snipped 32 lines]
>
> This is standard practice; you don't usually need to indicate that
> you've snipped at all (except maybe by leaving a blank line in between
> the quoted bits where the snip was), much less the number of snipped
> lines.

oh, that's a feature of Gnus mail client that I enabled,nothing else.
I believe the custom was to use something like [...]

[snipped 19 lines]

>> you mean, having my name after the signature with the above 
>> correction, right?
>
> Not quite; as you've written it, your name _is_ the signature.
>
> The '-- ' is not technically part of the signature; it's the signature
> _delimiter_, i.e., the thing which sits between the signature and the
> rest of the message. As such, it has to be the very first line of the
> signature block. (In practice it will usually be included in the
> signature file, but that's an implementation detail.)

Right, thanks for that.

sivaram
-- 

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

#162087

On Wed, Dec 23 2015,Udyant Wig wrote:

> On 12/23/2015 12:15 PM, Sivaram Neelakantan wrote:
>>
>> I installed TexLive recently and during one of the upgrades, the
>> entire texdoc package got installed too.  that is humoungous and I'd
>> like to remove the doc packages alone and also stop future installs of
>> the same type whenever I Upgrade TexLive.
>
>   An appreciable problem.
>
>   # To remove all installed packages with `texlive' and `doc' in their
>   # names:
>   # aptitude remove '~i~ntexlive~ndoc'
>
>   # To prevent these packages from getting installed later:
>   # aptitude hold '~ntexlive~ndoc'

Thanks for that.  I shall try it out and report my progress on the same


[snipped 6 lines]

>>  sivaram
>>  --
>
>   Minor note: I do not recall seeing signatures like yours.
>

That's true because I'm using Gnus and I've not got around to
correcting the initial blank in the config file


 sivaram
 -- 

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

#162065

On 12/23/2015 01:45 AM, Sivaram Neelakantan wrote:
> I installed TexLive recently and during one of the upgrades, the
> entire texdoc package got installed too.  that is humoungous and I'd
> like to remove the doc packages alone and also stop future installs
> of the same type whenever I Upgrade TexLive.
>
> Could someone please suggest a way?  I'm on debian test release, if
> that is of any help.
>
>   sivaram
>   --
>
>
If the .doc packages are all in one directory, then it's easy: when you're in that directory, issue: rm -fr *.doc or if they are called .txt, then use that--
whatever suffix the files use.

--doug

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

#162080

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

On 2015-12-23 at 16:48, Doug wrote:

> On 12/23/2015 01:45 AM, Sivaram Neelakantan wrote:
> 
>> I installed TexLive recently and during one of the upgrades, the
>> entire texdoc package got installed too.  that is humoungous and
>> I'd like to remove the doc packages alone and also stop future
>> installs of the same type whenever I Upgrade TexLive.
>> 
>> Could someone please suggest a way?  I'm on debian test release, if
>> that is of any help.
> 
> If the .doc packages are all in one directory, then it's easy: when
> you're in that directory, issue: rm -fr *.doc or if they are called
> .txt, then use that-- whatever suffix the files use.

This is not a way to remove a package. It is a way to delete files which
were installed by a package (and won't work correctly even for that in
this case, since this package's files not only use multiple file
extensions but are spread throughout a fairly sizable directory tree),
but is not recommended in pretty much any case.

It will also not prevent the package's files from getting reinstalled
later on, so it doesn't really address the question which was asked.


The correct approach would be to remove the appropriate texlive-lang-*
package (e.g., texlive-lang-english) which contains the documentation,
using e.g. 'apt-get remove texlive-lang-english', and then blacklist the
package from being installed using the method suggested by Osamu Aoki.

(There is no 'texlive-doc' package in current testing as far as I can
see, and the 'texlive-doc-en' package appears to be a transitional dummy
package; it appears to be superseded by texlive-lang-english, so I infer
that that is the documentation package in question. Note that because of
this naming difference, the removal command suggested by Udyant Wig
probably wouldn't get the job done, at least not by itself.)

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

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

#162083

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

The aptitude command line I suggested removed such documentation packages as

    texlive-fonts-extra-doc
    texlive-fonts-recommended-doc
    texlive-latex-extra-doc

apart from the science, pstricks, and pictures doc packages. The language
docs had to be handled specially because of the transition.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web