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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #160013 > unrolled thread

Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid?

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

Contents

  Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> - 2015-10-31 12:00 +0100
    Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-10-31 12:40 +0100
      Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 12:50 +0100
        Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-10-31 13:10 +0100
          Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 14:10 +0100
          Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2015-10-31 16:10 +0100
            Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 16:30 +0100
              Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2015-10-31 17:10 +0100
            Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2015-10-31 17:10 +0100
              Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Mario Castelán Castro  <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-10-31 17:20 +0100
                Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 17:30 +0100
                  Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2015-10-31 17:40 +0100
                    Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 19:20 +0100
                      Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-02 17:40 +0100
                  Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Mario Castelán Castro  <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-10-31 20:20 +0100
                    Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 00:00 +0100
                      Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Mario Castelán Castro  <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-11-02 20:50 +0100
                  Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-31 20:30 +0100
                    Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-10-31 20:40 +0100
                    Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-10-31 20:40 +0100
                Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2015-10-31 17:40 +0100
          Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? moxalt <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2015-11-02 17:40 +0100
            Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 18:00 +0100
            Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-11-02 20:10 +0100
      How to identify obsolete packages (was: Anybody know why aptitude  is not installed by default in Sid?) Stephen Powell <zlinuxman@wowway.com> - 2015-10-31 15:40 +0100
        Re: How to identify obsolete packages (was: Anybody know why  aptitude is not installed by default in Sid?) Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:40 +0100
          Re: How to identify obsolete packages (was: Anybody know why  aptitude is not installed by default in Sid?) Stephen Powell <zlinuxman@wowway.com> - 2015-10-31 17:10 +0100
        Re: How to identify obsolete packages (was: Anybody know why aptitude  is not installed by default in Sid?) kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 16:30 +0100
          [SOLVED] How to identify obsolete packages Stephen Powell <zlinuxman@wowway.com> - 2015-10-31 17:40 +0100
            Re: [SOLVED] How to identify obsolete packages kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 04:50 +0100
            Re: [SOLVED] How to identify obsolete packages Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2015-11-01 21:40 +0100
        Re: How to identify obsolete packages (was: Anybody know why aptitude  is not installed by default in Sid?) Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> - 2015-10-31 18:30 +0100
          Re: How to identify obsolete packages Stephen Powell <zlinuxman@wowway.com> - 2015-10-31 20:10 +0100
      Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-31 20:10 +0100
    Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-10-31 17:10 +0100
      Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-31 20:00 +0100
        Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2015-10-31 20:20 +0100
          Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Javi Barroso <javibarroso@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 21:20 +0100
            Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-31 21:40 +0100
              Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Javi Barroso <javibarroso@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 00:20 +0100
                Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-11-01 02:10 +0100
                  Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-11-01 14:00 +0100
        Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-31 20:50 +0100
          Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> - 2015-10-31 22:20 +0100
            Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-31 23:20 +0100
          Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-11-03 23:40 +0100
      Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Tim McDonough <tmcdonough@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 22:30 +0100
        Re: minimal installation (was: Anybody know why...) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2015-10-31 23:10 +0100
        Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 23:50 +0100
    Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> - 2015-11-01 01:00 +0100
      Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Alex Moonshine <moonshine@openmailbox.org> - 2015-11-02 08:50 +0100
        Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-11-02 09:50 +0100
          Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> - 2015-11-02 11:10 +0100
            Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-11-02 12:20 +0100
              Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:40 +0100
                Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-11-02 13:20 +0100
                  Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 16:10 +0100
                    Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-11-02 21:00 +0100
                      Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 23:20 +0100
                        Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-11-03 00:40 +0100
                          Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 01:00 +0100
                          Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 01:00 +0100
                            Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-11-03 10:10 +0100
            Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2015-11-02 14:30 +0100
            Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? "John L. Ries" <jries@salford-systems.com> - 2015-11-02 20:50 +0100
              Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-11-03 05:00 +0100
          Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-11-03 04:40 +0100
            Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Glenn English <ghe@slsware.net> - 2015-11-03 16:20 +0100
              Re: Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-11-03 20:30 +0100

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#160013 — Anybody know why aptitude is not installed by default in Sid?

I notice that Sid is not including aptitude by default in the stock installation.  I have to do “apt get install aptitude” manually after installation.

Does anybody know why this is?

Thanks!
Rick

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#160014

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 03:57:30AM -0700, Rick Thomas wrote:
> I notice that Sid is not including aptitude by default in the stock installation.  I have to do “apt get install aptitude” manually after installation.
> 
> Does anybody know why this is?

Oh great! They've fixed it. I hated having to "dpkg --purge aptitude"
after a new installation. If you want extra packages, it's just an
apt-get install <package> step away.

-- 
"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]

#160015

On Saturday 31 October 2015 11:38:25 Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 03:57:30AM -0700, Rick Thomas wrote:
> > I notice that Sid is not including aptitude by default in the stock
> > installation.  I have to do “apt get install aptitude” manually after
> > installation.
> >
> > Does anybody know why this is?
>
> Oh great! They've fixed it. I hated having to "dpkg --purge aptitude"
> after a new installation. If you want extra packages, it's just an
> apt-get install <package> step away.

They can't win!  

"You can please all of the people some of the time, and you can please some of 
the people all of the time; but you cannot please all of the people all of 
the time."

Lisi

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

#160019

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:44:45AM +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Saturday 31 October 2015 11:38:25 Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 03:57:30AM -0700, Rick Thomas wrote:
> > > I notice that Sid is not including aptitude by default in the stock
> > > installation.  I have to do “apt get install aptitude” manually after
> > > installation.
> > >
> > > Does anybody know why this is?
> >
> > Oh great! They've fixed it. I hated having to "dpkg --purge aptitude"
> > after a new installation. If you want extra packages, it's just an
> > apt-get install <package> step away.
> 
> They can't win!  
> 
> "You can please all of the people some of the time, and you can please some of 
> the people all of the time; but you cannot please all of the people all of 
> the time."

Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you install
with the minimum number of packages necessary, and then download any
extra packages you want *after* the install?

I'm thinking bandwidth wastage, installation media size, etc.

-- 
"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]

#160021

On Saturday 31 October 2015 12:02:19 Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:44:45AM +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Saturday 31 October 2015 11:38:25 Chris Bannister wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 03:57:30AM -0700, Rick Thomas wrote:
> > > > I notice that Sid is not including aptitude by default in the stock
> > > > installation.  I have to do “apt get install aptitude” manually after
> > > > installation.
> > > >
> > > > Does anybody know why this is?
> > >
> > > Oh great! They've fixed it. I hated having to "dpkg --purge aptitude"
> > > after a new installation. If you want extra packages, it's just an
> > > apt-get install <package> step away.
> >
> > They can't win!
> >
> > "You can please all of the people some of the time, and you can please
> > some of the people all of the time; but you cannot please all of the
> > people all of the time."
>
> Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you install
> with the minimum number of packages necessary, and then download any
> extra packages you want *after* the install?
>
> I'm thinking bandwidth wastage, installation media size, etc.

It depends what kind of installation you have asked for.

Lisi

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

#160027

On 31/10/15 12:02, Chris Bannister wrote:
> Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you install
> with the minimum number of packages necessary, and then download any
> extra packages you want *after* the install?

Only if you accept austere minimalism as axiomatically good.

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

#160031

On 10/31/15, Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> wrote:
> On 31/10/15 12:02, Chris Bannister wrote:
>> Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you install
>> with the minimum number of packages necessary, and then download any
>> extra packages you want *after* the install?
>
> Only if you accept austere minimalism as axiomatically good.


I think it was Chris that mentioned bandwidth. I debootstrap Debian
"several" times a year on dialup. LOVE IT! Getting ready to do so
again in the next few days. I end up with basically zero packages of
almost everything when going that route.. *grin*

Prior to that, I was using various distros offered via CD/DVDs. It
crossed my mind more than a few times that, *in an ideal World*, those
larger install options (that aren't hard line themed in some very
specific way) would consciously offer at least 2 different notable
program packages of each [genre/class/type/yada]. My thinking there is
that it's a nice way to introduce newcomers to the fact that Debian
offers so much variety in many, if not most places we look within.

In the *real* World, Developers who package up each Debian release
face variables like current CD/DVD size limitations. That's when they
have to start making those difficult decisions about what packages are
shipped and which ones hit the cutting room floor. Just glad I'm not
wearing those Shoes. :)

Cindy :)

-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* plays with plastic bags *

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

#160035

Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
> On 10/31/15, Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 31/10/15 12:02, Chris Bannister wrote:
>>> Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you install
>>> with the minimum number of packages necessary, and then download any
>>> extra packages you want *after* the install?
>>
>> Only if you accept austere minimalism as axiomatically good.
>
>
> I think it was Chris that mentioned bandwidth. I debootstrap Debian
> "several" times a year on dialup. LOVE IT! Getting ready to do so
> again in the next few days. I end up with basically zero packages of
> almost everything when going that route.. *grin*
>
> Prior to that, I was using various distros offered via CD/DVDs. It
> crossed my mind more than a few times that, *in an ideal World*, those
> larger install options (that aren't hard line themed in some very
> specific way) would consciously offer at least 2 different notable
> program packages of each [genre/class/type/yada]. My thinking there is
> that it's a nice way to introduce newcomers to the fact that Debian
> offers so much variety in many, if not most places we look within.
>
> In the *real* World, Developers who package up each Debian release
> face variables like current CD/DVD size limitations. That's when they
> have to start making those difficult decisions about what packages are
> shipped and which ones hit the cutting room floor. Just glad I'm not
> wearing those Shoes. :)
>
> Cindy :)
>

Yes!

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

#160032

Martin Read wrote:
> On 31/10/15 12:02, Chris Bannister wrote:
>> Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you
>> install
>> with the minimum number of packages necessary, and then
>> download any
>> extra packages you want *after* the install?
>
> Only if you accept austere minimalism as axiomatically good.
>

*YES* <grin>
That 'yes' would not have been so bold except Debian defaults go 
too far in the other direction. E.G. I just installed Squeeze to 
one machine be cause I like some Gnome2 features that Gnome3 
zapped and I'm not sure exist in MATE (am investigating).

Applications->Internet lists 8 applications, none of which are of 
interest and does not list the only internet application I need 
(SeaMonkey).
System->Administration lists 10 applications, only 1 of which I 
use more than once a month (Synaptic) and doesn't list one I use 
almost daily (Gparted).

I'm working on learning debootstrap and multistrap to have things 
suitably minimal and powerful simultaneously.

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

#160036

El 31/10/15 a las 10:05, Richard Owlett escribió:
> Martin Read wrote:
>> On 31/10/15 12:02, Chris Bannister wrote:
>>> Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you
>>> install
>>> with the minimum number of packages necessary, and then
>>> download any
>>> extra packages you want *after* the install?
>>
>> Only if you accept austere minimalism as axiomatically good.
>>
>
> *YES* <grin>
> That 'yes' would not have been so bold except Debian defaults go too far
> in the other direction. E.G. I just installed Squeeze to one machine be
> cause I like some Gnome2 features that Gnome3 zapped and I'm not sure
> exist in MATE (am investigating).
>
> Applications->Internet lists 8 applications, none of which are of
> interest and does not list the only internet application I need
> (SeaMonkey).
> System->Administration lists 10 applications, only 1 of which I use more
> than once a month (Synaptic) and doesn't list one I use almost daily
> (Gparted).
>
> I'm working on learning debootstrap and multistrap to have things
> suitably minimal and powerful simultaneously.

I have also noticed that Debian installs a lot of "extra" programs by 
default. For example, when I installed LXDE using the latest (Debian 7) 
LXDE CD and, I obtained LibreOffice, Iceweasel and Deluge (among many 
others), none of which are part of LXDE, and of those, I only wanted 
Icweasel installed since the beginning.

If you want to control more precisely which packages get installed, you 
can also install a text-only system and then add the additional packages 
with the package manager. It won't give the same results and isn't as 
flexible as Debootstrap or Multistrap, of course.

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

#160037

On Saturday 31 October 2015 16:18:15 Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> El 31/10/15 a las 10:05, Richard Owlett escribió:
> > Martin Read wrote:
> >> On 31/10/15 12:02, Chris Bannister wrote:
> >>> Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you
> >>> install
> >>> with the minimum number of packages necessary, and then
> >>> download any
> >>> extra packages you want *after* the install?
> >>
> >> Only if you accept austere minimalism as axiomatically good.
> >
> > *YES* <grin>
> > That 'yes' would not have been so bold except Debian defaults go too far
> > in the other direction. E.G. I just installed Squeeze to one machine be
> > cause I like some Gnome2 features that Gnome3 zapped and I'm not sure
> > exist in MATE (am investigating).
> >
> > Applications->Internet lists 8 applications, none of which are of
> > interest and does not list the only internet application I need
> > (SeaMonkey).
> > System->Administration lists 10 applications, only 1 of which I use more
> > than once a month (Synaptic) and doesn't list one I use almost daily
> > (Gparted).
> >
> > I'm working on learning debootstrap and multistrap to have things
> > suitably minimal and powerful simultaneously.
>
> I have also noticed that Debian installs a lot of "extra" programs by
> default. For example, when I installed LXDE using the latest (Debian 7)
> LXDE CD and, I obtained LibreOffice, Iceweasel and Deluge (among many
> others), none of which are part of LXDE, and of those, I only wanted
> Icweasel installed since the beginning.
>
> If you want to control more precisely which packages get installed, you
> can also install a text-only system and then add the additional packages
> with the package manager. It won't give the same results and isn't as
> flexible as Debootstrap or Multistrap, of course.

It isn't Debian that installs all those packages.  It's the DE. All anyone has 
to do to avoid them is not install a DE.  You are given the option.

Lisi

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

#160038

Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Saturday 31 October 2015 16:18:15 Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
>> El 31/10/15 a las 10:05, Richard Owlett escribió:
>>> Martin Read wrote:
>>>> On 31/10/15 12:02, Chris Bannister wrote:
>>>>> Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you
>>>>> install
>>>>> with the minimum number of packages necessary, and then
>>>>> download any
>>>>> extra packages you want *after* the install?
>>>>
>>>> Only if you accept austere minimalism as axiomatically good.
>>>
>>> *YES* <grin>
>>> That 'yes' would not have been so bold except Debian defaults go too far
>>> in the other direction. E.G. I just installed Squeeze to one machine be
>>> cause I like some Gnome2 features that Gnome3 zapped and I'm not sure
>>> exist in MATE (am investigating).
>>>
>>> Applications->Internet lists 8 applications, none of which are of
>>> interest and does not list the only internet application I need
>>> (SeaMonkey).
>>> System->Administration lists 10 applications, only 1 of which I use more
>>> than once a month (Synaptic) and doesn't list one I use almost daily
>>> (Gparted).
>>>
>>> I'm working on learning debootstrap and multistrap to have things
>>> suitably minimal and powerful simultaneously.
>>
>> I have also noticed that Debian installs a lot of "extra" programs by
>> default. For example, when I installed LXDE using the latest (Debian 7)
>> LXDE CD and, I obtained LibreOffice, Iceweasel and Deluge (among many
>> others), none of which are part of LXDE, and of those, I only wanted
>> Icweasel installed since the beginning.
>>
>> If you want to control more precisely which packages get installed, you
>> can also install a text-only system and then add the additional packages
>> with the package manager. It won't give the same results and isn't as
>> flexible as Debootstrap or Multistrap, of course.
>
> It isn't Debian that installs all those packages.  It's the DE. All anyone has
> to do to avoid them is not install a DE.  You are given the option.
>
> Lisi
>

But extraneous cruft is not intrinsic to using a DE. I'll search 
for my last preseed.cfg and come back with numbers.

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

#160043

On Saturday 31 October 2015 16:37:41 Richard Owlett wrote:
> Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Saturday 31 October 2015 16:18:15 Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> >> El 31/10/15 a las 10:05, Richard Owlett escribió:
> >>> Martin Read wrote:
> >>>> On 31/10/15 12:02, Chris Bannister wrote:
> >>>>> Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you
> >>>>> install
> >>>>> with the minimum number of packages necessary, and then
> >>>>> download any
> >>>>> extra packages you want *after* the install?
> >>>>
> >>>> Only if you accept austere minimalism as axiomatically good.
> >>>
> >>> *YES* <grin>
> >>> That 'yes' would not have been so bold except Debian defaults go too
> >>> far in the other direction. E.G. I just installed Squeeze to one
> >>> machine be cause I like some Gnome2 features that Gnome3 zapped and I'm
> >>> not sure exist in MATE (am investigating).
> >>>
> >>> Applications->Internet lists 8 applications, none of which are of
> >>> interest and does not list the only internet application I need
> >>> (SeaMonkey).
> >>> System->Administration lists 10 applications, only 1 of which I use
> >>> more than once a month (Synaptic) and doesn't list one I use almost
> >>> daily (Gparted).
> >>>
> >>> I'm working on learning debootstrap and multistrap to have things
> >>> suitably minimal and powerful simultaneously.
> >>
> >> I have also noticed that Debian installs a lot of "extra" programs by
> >> default. For example, when I installed LXDE using the latest (Debian 7)
> >> LXDE CD and, I obtained LibreOffice, Iceweasel and Deluge (among many
> >> others), none of which are part of LXDE, and of those, I only wanted
> >> Icweasel installed since the beginning.
> >>
> >> If you want to control more precisely which packages get installed, you
> >> can also install a text-only system and then add the additional packages
> >> with the package manager. It won't give the same results and isn't as
> >> flexible as Debootstrap or Multistrap, of course.
> >
> > It isn't Debian that installs all those packages.  It's the DE. All
> > anyone has to do to avoid them is not install a DE.  You are given the
> > option.
> >
> > Lisi
>
> But extraneous cruft is not intrinsic to using a DE. 

Yes, it is.  That is why it is called an environment.  That is what makes it 
an environment.  Without cruft it is effectively a window manager.

Lisi

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

#160130

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:11:48 +0000, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday 31 October 2015 16:37:41 Richard Owlett wrote:
> > Lisi Reisz wrote:  
> > > On Saturday 31 October 2015 16:18:15 Mario Castelán Castro wrote:  
> > >> El 31/10/15 a las 10:05, Richard Owlett escribió:  
> > >>> Martin Read wrote:  
> > >>>> On 31/10/15 12:02, Chris Bannister wrote:  
> > >>>>> Logically, doesn't it make more sense to make it so that you
> > >>>>> install
> > >>>>> with the minimum number of packages necessary, and then
> > >>>>> download any
> > >>>>> extra packages you want *after* the install?  
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Only if you accept austere minimalism as axiomatically good.  
> > >>>
> > >>> *YES* <grin>
> > >>> That 'yes' would not have been so bold except Debian defaults go too
> > >>> far in the other direction. E.G. I just installed Squeeze to one
> > >>> machine be cause I like some Gnome2 features that Gnome3 zapped and I'm
> > >>> not sure exist in MATE (am investigating).
> > >>>
> > >>> Applications->Internet lists 8 applications, none of which are of
> > >>> interest and does not list the only internet application I need
> > >>> (SeaMonkey).
> > >>> System->Administration lists 10 applications, only 1 of which I use
> > >>> more than once a month (Synaptic) and doesn't list one I use almost
> > >>> daily (Gparted).
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm working on learning debootstrap and multistrap to have things
> > >>> suitably minimal and powerful simultaneously.  
> > >>
> > >> I have also noticed that Debian installs a lot of "extra" programs by
> > >> default. For example, when I installed LXDE using the latest (Debian 7)
> > >> LXDE CD and, I obtained LibreOffice, Iceweasel and Deluge (among many
> > >> others), none of which are part of LXDE, and of those, I only wanted
> > >> Icweasel installed since the beginning.
> > >>
> > >> If you want to control more precisely which packages get installed, you
> > >> can also install a text-only system and then add the additional packages
> > >> with the package manager. It won't give the same results and isn't as
> > >> flexible as Debootstrap or Multistrap, of course.  
> > >
> > > It isn't Debian that installs all those packages.  It's the DE. All
> > > anyone has to do to avoid them is not install a DE.  You are given the
> > > option.
> > >
> > > Lisi  
> >
> > But extraneous cruft is not intrinsic to using a DE.   
> 
> Yes, it is.  That is why it is called an environment.  That is what makes it 
> an environment.  Without cruft it is effectively a window manager.

Not necessarily. A desktop environment can be a rather minimal collection of
programs- a window manager, desktop background thingy, file manager, and panel
qualifies as a desktop environment. At the very least, a desktop environment is
just a window manager packaged with some other useful stuff. Xfce comes pretty
close to just being a window manager (xfwm), a desktop (xfdesktop) a panel
(xfpanel), and a file manager (thunar). A desktop environment doesn't need to
be packed full of cruft.

If by 'desktop environment' you are referring to the bloated RAM-eating
monstrosities known only as GNOME and KDE (especially KDE) then I take the
cruft point.

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

#160051

>> I have also noticed that Debian installs a lot of "extra" programs by
>> default. For example, when I installed LXDE using the latest (Debian 7)
>> LXDE CD and, I obtained LibreOffice, Iceweasel and Deluge (among many
>> others), none of which are part of LXDE, and of those, I only wanted
>> Icweasel installed since the beginning.
>>
>> If you want to control more precisely which packages get installed, you
>> can also install a text-only system and then add the additional packages
>> with the package manager. It won't give the same results and isn't as
>> flexible as Debootstrap or Multistrap, of course.
>
> It isn't Debian that installs all those packages.  It's the DE. All anyone has
> to do to avoid them is not install a DE.  You are given the option.
>
> Lisi

Of course it is Debian that installs them!. (*)

Note that neither of the packages I mentioned is part of LXDE. When 
using the Debian 7.2.0 LXDE CD, those packages *are bundled by Debian* 
along with LXDE in the Debian LXDE Desktop Environment task that the 
installer offers. Note that this bundling is done by Debian.

Here "desktop environment" can mean 1 of 2 different things. Given the 
previous clarification, we can now analyze both cases and see that both 
entail the assertion (*):

(1) If by "desktop environment" you mean LXDE, then no, the desktop 
environment is not installing the programs I mentioned, as you claimed; 
it is the Debian installer.

(2) On the other hand, if by "desktop environment" you mean the bundle 
of software packages that Debian bundles along with LXDE that the Debian 
LXDE CD installs by default (package "task-lxde-desktop"), then indeed 
it is the "desktop environment" what installs those programs, but note 
that this "desktop environment" is a part of Debian, so it follows again 
that Debian is doing the installation.

-----

You said "All anyone has to do to avoid them is not install a DE. You 
are given the option.". That is right; I never claimed otherwise 
(furthermore, I alluded to this fact when I mentioned installing a 
text-only environment and then add additional packages), but your 
assertion that Debian does not install all those package does not follow 
(it is a non-sequitur).

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

#160066

On Saturday 31 October 2015 19:14:30 Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> >> I have also noticed that Debian installs a lot of "extra" programs by
> >> default. For example, when I installed LXDE using the latest (Debian 7)
> >> LXDE CD and, I obtained LibreOffice, Iceweasel and Deluge (among many
> >> others), none of which are part of LXDE, and of those, I only wanted
> >> Icweasel installed since the beginning.
> >>
> >> If you want to control more precisely which packages get installed, you
> >> can also install a text-only system and then add the additional packages
> >> with the package manager. It won't give the same results and isn't as
> >> flexible as Debootstrap or Multistrap, of course.
> >
> > It isn't Debian that installs all those packages.  It's the DE. All
> > anyone has to do to avoid them is not install a DE.  You are given the
> > option.
> >
> > Lisi
>
> Of course it is Debian that installs them!. (*)
>
> Note that neither of the packages I mentioned is part of LXDE. When
> using the Debian 7.2.0 LXDE CD, those packages *are bundled by Debian*
> along with LXDE in the Debian LXDE Desktop Environment task that the
> installer offers. Note that this bundling is done by Debian.

Of course.  Every Distro individualises its DE's.  I was over-succinct.  But 
you do not get the same set of packages whichever DE you choose with Debian, 
let alone the same set of packages if you do not choose  DE at all.  

You are most unlikely to get LO, Iceweasel etc with KDE I would have thought.  
One certainly didn't in the past.  I now use Trinity DE and have to install 
LO, Iceweasel etc. myself because I want them.  What you get is DE dependant, 
and it is all therefore very easy to avoid.

>
> Here "desktop environment" can mean 1 of 2 different things. Given the
> previous clarification, we can now analyze both cases and see that both
> entail the assertion (*):
>
> (1) If by "desktop environment" you mean LXDE, then no, the desktop
> environment is not installing the programs I mentioned, as you claimed;
> it is the Debian installer.
>
> (2) On the other hand, if by "desktop environment" you mean the bundle
> of software packages that Debian bundles along with LXDE that the Debian
> LXDE CD installs by default (package "task-lxde-desktop"), then indeed
> it is the "desktop environment" what installs those programs, but note
> that this "desktop environment" is a part of Debian, so it follows again
> that Debian is doing the installation.
>
> -----
>
> You said "All anyone has to do to avoid them is not install a DE. You
> are given the option.". That is right; I never claimed otherwise
> (furthermore, I alluded to this fact when I mentioned installing a
> text-only environment and then add additional packages), but your
> assertion that Debian does not install all those package does not follow
> (it is a non-sequitur).

Yes, I wasn't referring particularly to you, but to the general trend of the 
thread.  Sorry that I didn't make that clear.

Lisi

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

#160136

El 31/10/15 a las 16:55, Lisi Reisz escribió:
>> You said "All anyone has to do to avoid them is not install a DE. You
>> are given the option.". That is right; I never claimed otherwise
>> (furthermore, I alluded to this fact when I mentioned installing a
>> text-only environment and then add additional packages), but your
>> assertion that Debian does not install all those package does not follow
>> (it is a non-sequitur).
>
> Yes, I wasn't referring particularly to you, but to the general trend of the
> thread.  Sorry that I didn't make that clear.

I see. It's fine. I thought you were specifically addressing what I 
said, hence that I elaborated on an argument to support it.

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

#160052

On Sat 31 Oct 2015 at 16:24:36 +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Saturday 31 October 2015 16:18:15 Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> >
> > I have also noticed that Debian installs a lot of "extra" programs by
> > default. For example, when I installed LXDE using the latest (Debian 7)
> > LXDE CD and, I obtained LibreOffice, Iceweasel and Deluge (among many
> > others), none of which are part of LXDE, and of those, I only wanted
> > Icweasel installed since the beginning.
> >
> > If you want to control more precisely which packages get installed, you
> > can also install a text-only system and then add the additional packages
> > with the package manager. It won't give the same results and isn't as
> > flexible as Debootstrap or Multistrap, of course.
> 
> It isn't Debian that installs all those packages.  It's the DE. All anyone has 
> to do to avoid them is not install a DE.  You are given the option.

Sorry to disagree here, but the packages brought in by LXDE (particularily
the Recommends:) are determined by the maintainer. Also, getting LXDE from
tasksel is not the same as with 'apt-get install lxde'.

Someone who wanted a customised LXDE installation would not be using
tasksel or 'apt-get install lxde'. Someone who does use either of these
methods gets what Debian decides is useful for most users.

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

#160053

> I agree. Note that this does not contradict the claim that what I called
> “extras” (LibreOffice, etc.) are installed by Debian. Also note that I
> mentioned the Debian 7.0.2 LXDE CD, not apt-get nor tasksel.

In this message I meant to write “Debian 7.2.0” rather than “Debian 
7.0.2 LXDE CD”.

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

#160054

El 31/10/15 a las 13:22, Brian escribió:
> On Sat 31 Oct 2015 at 16:24:36 +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote:
>
>> On Saturday 31 October 2015 16:18:15 Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
>>>
>>> I have also noticed that Debian installs a lot of "extra" programs by
>>> default. For example, when I installed LXDE using the latest (Debian 7)
>>> LXDE CD and, I obtained LibreOffice, Iceweasel and Deluge (among many
>>> others), none of which are part of LXDE, and of those, I only wanted
>>> Icweasel installed since the beginning.
>>>
>>> If you want to control more precisely which packages get installed, you
>>> can also install a text-only system and then add the additional packages
>>> with the package manager. It won't give the same results and isn't as
>>> flexible as Debootstrap or Multistrap, of course.
>>
>> It isn't Debian that installs all those packages.  It's the DE. All anyone has
>> to do to avoid them is not install a DE.  You are given the option.
>
> Sorry to disagree here, but the packages brought in by LXDE (particularily
> the Recommends:) are determined by the maintainer. Also, getting LXDE from
> tasksel is not the same as with 'apt-get install lxde'.

As bought in by the LXDE packages of *Debian*, because of the decision 
of a *Debian* developer. You missed the “Debian” part.

> Someone who wanted a customised LXDE installation would not be using
> tasksel or 'apt-get install lxde'. Someone who does use either of these
> methods gets what Debian decides is useful for most users.

I agree. Note that this does not contradict the claim that what I called 
“extras” (LibreOffice, etc.) are installed by Debian. Also note that I 
mentioned the Debian 7.0.2 LXDE CD, not apt-get nor tasksel.

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web