Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #160013 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-31 12:00 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-11-03 20:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 69 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
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 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 02:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qpPjI-1HH-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160067 |
On Sun 01 Nov 2015 at 00:16:09 +0100, Javi Barroso wrote: > El 31 de octubre de 2015 21:34:51 CET, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> escribió: > >On Sat 31 Oct 2015 at 21:12:42 +0100, Javi Barroso wrote: > >> You can see when priority was overruled > >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=758561#12 > > > >This is a very good pointer. It doesn't explain why two different tools > >give different answers but it does get to the heart of the matter. > > I guess override action are done by ftp-masters when maintainer has > not time or interest changing some parameters > > See, for more información wiki page: > https://wiki.debian.org/FtpMaster/Override Thanks to you and Teemu Likonen for prodding my memory. 'apt-get update' does not update dpkg's database so 'dpkg --status' me gave something from a year ago and so the answers to the two queries were different. No overruling or overriding. And no "verifiable" fact either! Rather prosaic really. I think I'll go back to using 'dselect update'. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 14:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qq0oO-8n6-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160069 |
On Sun 01 Nov 2015 at 01:02:54 +0000, Brian wrote: > On Sun 01 Nov 2015 at 00:16:09 +0100, Javi Barroso wrote: > > > El 31 de octubre de 2015 21:34:51 CET, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> escribió: > > >On Sat 31 Oct 2015 at 21:12:42 +0100, Javi Barroso wrote: > > >> You can see when priority was overruled > > >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=758561#12 > > > > > >This is a very good pointer. It doesn't explain why two different tools > > >give different answers but it does get to the heart of the matter. > > > > I guess override action are done by ftp-masters when maintainer has > > not time or interest changing some parameters > > > > See, for more información wiki page: > > https://wiki.debian.org/FtpMaster/Override > > Thanks to you and Teemu Likonen for prodding my memory. 'apt-get update' > does not update dpkg's database so 'dpkg --status' me gave something > from a year ago and so the answers to the two queries were different. > > No overruling or overriding. And no "verifiable" fact either! > > Rather prosaic really. I think I'll go back to using 'dselect update'. :) After reading the dpkg manual and more memory searching it dawned on me that 'dpkg --status' was not a good command to get the present Priority: state of a package in sid. Javi Barroso's link lead me to a realisation that it is the override file which is the cause of my two different outcomes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 20:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qpKk2-6XD-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160046 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:49:59 +0000 Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > On Sat 31 Oct 2015 at 10:01:36 -0600, Mario Castelán Castro wrote: > > > Will Debian 9 no longer install Aptitude by default?. > > Que Sera, Sera..... . Let's stay in the present (in line with the post > which started this thread) and look at unstable. Here are two > verifiable facts: > > brian@sid:~$ dpkg --status aptitude | grep Priority > Priority: important > > Debian policy says: > > The base system consists of all those packages with priority > required or important. > > Sid "not including aptitude by default in the stock installation" > would be somewhat unusual. > When did it begin? I can't recall any stable up to squeeze that included aptitude at the base level. When I've started from the ground up, aptitude, sudo and mc are the first things I've always added to a minimal netinstall. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 22:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qpLJ8-7VS-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160056 |
On Oct 31, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:49:59 +0000 > Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > >> On Sat 31 Oct 2015 at 10:01:36 -0600, Mario Castelán Castro wrote: >> >>> Will Debian 9 no longer install Aptitude by default?. >> >> Que Sera, Sera..... . Let's stay in the present (in line with the post >> which started this thread) and look at unstable. Here are two >> verifiable facts: >> >> brian@sid:~$ dpkg --status aptitude | grep Priority >> Priority: important >> >> Debian policy says: >> >> The base system consists of all those packages with priority >> required or important. >> >> Sid "not including aptitude by default in the stock installation" >> would be somewhat unusual. >> > > When did it begin? I can't recall any stable up to squeeze that > included aptitude at the base level. When I've started from the ground > up, aptitude, sudo and mc are the first things I've always added to a > minimal netinstall. In my experience (I’m the OP) aptitude was always part of the default installation, even when I specified a text-only (no DE) system. It’s very recent (last month or so) that I now have to “apt-get install aptitude”. I wonder what you and I are doing differently? Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 23:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qpMFc-8uO-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160061 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 14:15:08 -0700 Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> wrote: > > In my experience (I’m the OP) aptitude was always part of the default > installation, even when I specified a text-only (no DE) system. It’s > very recent (last month or so) that I now have to “apt-get install > aptitude”. I wonder what you and I are doing differently? > I haven't ever installed sid as such, that may be a difference. I normally have the current stable netinstall CD laying around, I put on the most minimal system allowed, upgrade it as stable, upgrade straight to sid, then install all the bells and whistles I want. I usually fiddle around a bit before the sid upgrade, and I like aptitude, sudo and mc around then, and I've always had to explicitly install them. I haven't yet done this with anything later than wheezy, which is why I asked when aptitude was moved into the base system. Presumably some component(s) of a full desktop system specifies aptitude, but I haven't ever gone that way. I'm either installing a stable server, when I don't want anything graphical, or I'm working up to sid with minimal downloading where I want aptitude earlier than it might otherwise arrive. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 23:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qqSpc-nO-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160056 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 19:41:47 +0000 Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 18:49:59 +0000 > Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > > On Sat 31 Oct 2015 at 10:01:36 -0600, Mario Castelán Castro wrote: > > > > > Will Debian 9 no longer install Aptitude by default?. > > > > Que Sera, Sera..... . Let's stay in the present (in line with the > > post which started this thread) and look at unstable. Here are two > > verifiable facts: > > > > brian@sid:~$ dpkg --status aptitude | grep Priority > > Priority: important > > > > Debian policy says: > > > > The base system consists of all those packages with priority > > required or important. > > > > Sid "not including aptitude by default in the stock installation" > > would be somewhat unusual. > > > > When did it begin? I can't recall any stable up to squeeze that > included aptitude at the base level. When I've started from the ground > up, aptitude, sudo and mc are the first things I've always added to a > minimal netinstall. > Since there seems to be some confusion over this, a datum: I've just run a basic jessie netinstall (no tasks selected) and aptitude was *not* installed. 23.6MB of disc space, for the record, which is certainly a fair bit for a text utility. Total disc space used is about 740MB. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim McDonough <tmcdonough@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 22:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qpLSO-7Zc-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160034 |
Perhaps there is a way to do this with a CD/DVD boot parameter and I'm not aware of it... I wish there was a way to be presented with a more complete list of options at install time. On some installations with small disks I really don't need all of the documentation, utilities, etc. Is there an option that just installs the bare basics of a running system with networking and apt-get? I'm not saying this should be the standard or even the default, just an option to provide a quick basic install on a minimal system. Tim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 23:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: minimal installation (was: Anybody know why...) |
| Message-ID | <qpMvv-8rH-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160062 |
Tim McDonough composed on 2015-10-31 16:22 (UTC-0500): > Perhaps there is a way to do this with a CD/DVD boot parameter and I'm > not aware of it... I wish there was a way to be presented with a more > complete list of options at install time. On some installations with > small disks I really don't need all of the documentation, utilities, > etc. Is there an option that just installs the bare basics of a running > system with networking and apt-get? > I'm not saying this should be the standard or even the default, just an > option to provide a quick basic install on a minimal system. I've been putting these on my installation kernel cmdline: tasks=standard base-installer/install-recommends=false I don't recall just how small the result, but it is svelte. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 23:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qpN8e-ex-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160062 |
On Saturday 31 October 2015 21:22:42 Tim McDonough wrote: > Is there an option that just installs the bare basics of a running > system with networking and apt-get? I think that the netinstall CD can give you that,if you choose the most minimal system on offer. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 01:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qpOdY-QP-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160013 |
As shown below, aptitude has been progressively downgraded from “important” in oldstable (Wheezy) to “standard” in stable (Jessie), “standard” in testing (Stretch) and finally to “optional” in unstable (Sid)
rbthomas@cube:~$ aptitude -vv show aptitude | egrep '^(Priority|Version|Archive): ' | sed 's/^Version: / &/'
Version: 0.7.4-1
Priority: optional
Archive: unstable
Version: 0.7.4-1
Priority: optional
Archive: unstable
Version: 0.7.4-1
Priority: optional
Archive: now
Version: 0.7.2-1
Priority: optional
Archive: testing
Version: 0.6.11-1+b1
Priority: standard
Archive: stable
Version: 0.6.11-1+b1
Priority: standard
Archive: stable
Version: 0.6.8.2-1
Priority: important
Archive: oldstable
And exim4 has gone from “standard” in all versions (at least those I have access to) before testing to “optional” in testing and above.
rbthomas@cube:~$ aptitude -vv show exim4 | egrep '^(Priority|Version|Archive): ' | sed 's/^Version: / &/'
Version: 4.86-4
Priority: optional
Archive: unstable
Version: 4.86-4
Priority: optional
Archive: testing
Version: 4.86-4
Priority: optional
Archive: unstable
Version: 4.86-4
Priority: optional
Archive: now
Version: 4.84-8
Priority: standard
Archive: stable
Version: 4.84-8
Priority: standard
Archive: stable
Version: 4.80-7+deb7u1
Priority: standard
Archive: oldstable
This (and several other downgrades) seem to have been discussed on the debian-boot list in May, 2015. See the thread that starts at
https://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2015/05/msg00156.html
for details.
I have a small script I run after finishing any install that loads and configures several packages that I use regularly but are not included in a standard install. It just got a whole lot bigger!
Sigh!
Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex Moonshine <moonshine@openmailbox.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 08:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qqi2m-2yF-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160068 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 16:52:37 -0700 Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> wrote: > As shown below, aptitude has been progressively downgraded from > “important” in oldstable (Wheezy) to “standard” in stable (Jessie), > “standard” in testing (Stretch) and finally to “optional” in unstable > (Sid) > And exim4 has gone from “standard” in all versions (at least those I > have access to) before testing to “optional” in testing and above. > > I have a small script I run after finishing any install that loads > and configures several packages that I use regularly but are not > included in a standard install. It just got a whole lot bigger! > > Sigh! > Rick To be honest, I see no reason at all why two package managers needed to be included in standard install. If you aren't happy with apt-get, just apt-get install aptitude. It seems beyond question to me that having bare minimum to start with and adding things you need from there is a much cleaner and better way of doing things than having several tools with the same function and having to get rid of one. So a very sensible change, I only wonder what was the thinking behind the initial approach. -- Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. Best wishes, Alex S.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 09:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qqiYp-37u-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160086 |
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:27:42 +0200 Alex Moonshine <moonshine@openmailbox.org> wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 16:52:37 -0700 > Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> wrote: > > > As shown below, aptitude has been progressively downgraded from > > “important” in oldstable (Wheezy) to “standard” in stable (Jessie), > > “standard” in testing (Stretch) and finally to “optional” in > > unstable (Sid) > > > And exim4 has gone from “standard” in all versions (at least those I > > have access to) before testing to “optional” in testing and above. > > > > I have a small script I run after finishing any install that loads > > and configures several packages that I use regularly but are not > > included in a standard install. It just got a whole lot bigger! > > > > Sigh! > > Rick > > To be honest, I see no reason at all why two package managers needed > to be included in standard install. If you aren't happy with apt-get, > just apt-get install aptitude. It seems beyond question to me that > having bare minimum to start with and adding things you need from > there is a much cleaner and better way of doing things than having > several tools with the same function and having to get rid of one. So > a very sensible change, I only wonder what was the thinking behind > the initial approach. Not in the base system, no, but I'd expect it to be included in any system which might be used by newcomers to Linux. A lot of Internet sites include installation instructions using aptitude, without mentioning any alternatives, or even that there are any. Similarly, a desktop system other than a minimalist one should include Synaptic. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 11:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qqkdQ-42a-33@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160090 |
On Nov 2, 2015, at 12:45 AM, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote: >> To be honest, I see no reason at all why two package managers needed >> to be included in standard install. If you aren't happy with apt-get, >> just apt-get install aptitude. It seems beyond question to me that >> having bare minimum to start with and adding things you need from >> there is a much cleaner and better way of doing things than having >> several tools with the same function and having to get rid of one. So >> a very sensible change, I only wonder what was the thinking behind >> the initial approach. > > Not in the base system, no, but I'd expect it to be included in any > system which might be used by newcomers to Linux. A lot of Internet > sites include installation instructions using aptitude, without > mentioning any alternatives, or even that there are any. Similarly, a > desktop system other than a minimalist one should include Synaptic. > > -- > Joe +1 for Joe. Requiring a newcomer to install aptitude before she can follow the simple step-by-step instructions she downloaded from the web — or alternatively requiring all the helpful folks who posted those step-by-step instructions to go back and modify them… That’s not what I’d call “newbie friendly”. Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 12:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qqljA-4Eg-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160092 |
On Mon 02 Nov 2015 at 01:33:01 -0800, Rick Thomas wrote: > On Nov 2, 2015, at 12:45 AM, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote: > > >> To be honest, I see no reason at all why two package managers needed > >> to be included in standard install. If you aren't happy with apt-get, > >> just apt-get install aptitude. It seems beyond question to me that > >> having bare minimum to start with and adding things you need from > >> there is a much cleaner and better way of doing things than having > >> several tools with the same function and having to get rid of one. So > >> a very sensible change, I only wonder what was the thinking behind > >> the initial approach. > > > > Not in the base system, no, but I'd expect it to be included in any > > system which might be used by newcomers to Linux. A lot of Internet > > sites include installation instructions using aptitude, without > > mentioning any alternatives, or even that there are any. Similarly, a > > desktop system other than a minimalist one should include Synaptic. > > > > -- > > Joe > > +1 for Joe. > > Requiring a newcomer to install aptitude before she can follow the > simple step-by-step instructions she downloaded from the web — or > alternatively requiring all the helpful folks who posted those > step-by-step instructions to go back and modify them… That’s not what > I’d call “newbie friendly”. The helpful folks at Debian also produce copious documentation (a Guide, Release Notes etc). At release time these tend to be up to date and are much more useful to newcomers and experienced users than any random web page. Perhaps submitting a bug report (plus a patch) against the Release Notes would cover the changed priority situation (standard to optional) for affected packages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 12:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qqlCW-4Kt-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160097 |
On Monday 02 November 2015 11:16:11 Brian wrote: > On Mon 02 Nov 2015 at 01:33:01 -0800, Rick Thomas wrote: > > On Nov 2, 2015, at 12:45 AM, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote: > > >> To be honest, I see no reason at all why two package managers needed > > >> to be included in standard install. If you aren't happy with apt-get, > > >> just apt-get install aptitude. It seems beyond question to me that > > >> having bare minimum to start with and adding things you need from > > >> there is a much cleaner and better way of doing things than having > > >> several tools with the same function and having to get rid of one. So > > >> a very sensible change, I only wonder what was the thinking behind > > >> the initial approach. > > > > > > Not in the base system, no, but I'd expect it to be included in any > > > system which might be used by newcomers to Linux. A lot of Internet > > > sites include installation instructions using aptitude, without > > > mentioning any alternatives, or even that there are any. Similarly, a > > > desktop system other than a minimalist one should include Synaptic. > > > > > > -- > > > Joe > > > > +1 for Joe. > > > > Requiring a newcomer to install aptitude before she can follow the > > simple step-by-step instructions she downloaded from the web — or > > alternatively requiring all the helpful folks who posted those > > step-by-step instructions to go back and modify them… That’s not what > > I’d call “newbie friendly”. > > The helpful folks at Debian also produce copious documentation (a Guide, > Release Notes etc). At release time these tend to be up to date and are > much more useful to newcomers and experienced users than any random web > page. But people often use random web pages. And not all of us are fully able-bodied. You would appear to be able to read well and fast. Not all of us are that fortunate. Minimal should be minimal. But fuller installations should definitely not be minimal. Having more than one of each application there can be very useful, in giving the opportunity easily to try to see which one likes. I deprecate the creeping Ubuntuisation of Debian. Minimal should be minimal. Otherwise we should avoid dictating and give plenty of choice. Lisi > Perhaps submitting a bug report (plus a patch) against the Release Notes > would cover the changed priority situation (standard to optional) for > affected packages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 13:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qqmfD-5cO-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160098 |
On Mon 02 Nov 2015 at 11:37:48 +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Monday 02 November 2015 11:16:11 Brian wrote: > > On Mon 02 Nov 2015 at 01:33:01 -0800, Rick Thomas wrote: > > > > > > Requiring a newcomer to install aptitude before she can follow the > > > simple step-by-step instructions she downloaded from the web — or > > > alternatively requiring all the helpful folks who posted those > > > step-by-step instructions to go back and modify them… That’s not what > > > I’d call “newbie friendly”. > > > > The helpful folks at Debian also produce copious documentation (a Guide, > > Release Notes etc). At release time these tend to be up to date and are > > much more useful to newcomers and experienced users than any random web > > page. > > But people often use random web pages. And not all of us are fully > able-bodied. You would appear to be able to read well and fast. Not all of > us are that fortunate. I do not see the relevance of this to reading the Debian documentation accompanying a release. Unless it is thought to be an optional extra. :) > Minimal should be minimal. But fuller installations should definitely not be > minimal. Having more than one of each application there can be very useful, > in giving the opportunity easily to try to see which one likes. The context is the purpose of priority levels and what part they play within the installer. "Minimal" is one factor in making a decision; the debian-boot thread referenced earlier in the thread gives other reasons. > I deprecate the creeping Ubuntuisation of Debian. Minimal should be minimal. > Otherwise we should avoid dictating and give plenty of choice. How does Ubuntu figure in this? As far as I can see, it doesn't. As far as choice is concerned, you have the choice to install aptitude or not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 16:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qqoUa-6R3-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160101 |
On Monday 02 November 2015 12:15:51 Brian wrote: > And not all of us are fully > > > able-bodied. You would appear to be able to read well and fast. Not all > > of us are that fortunate. > > I do not see the relevance of this to reading the Debian documentation > accompanying a release. Unless it is thought to be an optional extra. :) I can't, as in can't, read all the documentation. So I try to pick out the headings that obviously really matter, am never an early adopter, and try to pay close attention to what other people say. As I say, you are lucky. And before you say "Of course you could, if you wanted to", I can't climb Mount Everest either. Not even if I wanted to. Others are worse off than I am. No it is not an optional extra. But some of us have to do without all the same. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 21:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qqtqO-10k-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160124 |
On Mon 02 Nov 2015 at 15:01:16 +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Monday 02 November 2015 12:15:51 Brian wrote: > > And not all of us are fully > > > > > able-bodied. You would appear to be able to read well and fast. Not all > > > of us are that fortunate. > > > > I do not see the relevance of this to reading the Debian documentation > > accompanying a release. Unless it is thought to be an optional extra. :) > > I can't, as in can't, read all the documentation. So I try to pick out the > headings that obviously really matter, am never an early adopter, and try to > pay close attention to what other people say. As I say, you are lucky. > > And before you say "Of course you could, if you wanted to", I can't climb > Mount Everest either. Not even if I wanted to. > > Others are worse off than I am. No it is not an optional extra. But some of > us have to do without all the same. What are you appealing to here? d-i no longer installs aptitude; reasons have been given. This fact may or may not eventually appear in the release notes; reading them is no more onerous than reading some random web page. Your argument appears to be based on the state of a person's eyesight. It also makes assertions about the state of mine. This is out of line; you have no knowledge about the state of my sight (and never will). Please refrain from framing aruments in terms of preconceptions or agendas,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 23:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qqvCi-2xp-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160139 |
On Monday 02 November 2015 19:58:51 Brian wrote: > Your argument appears to be based on the state of a person's eyesight. > It also makes assertions about the state of mine. This is out of line; > you have no knowledge about the state of my sight (and never will). I said "would appear". I was very careful in my choice of words. I have a blind friend who can "read" at a phenomenal speed. It is out of line to be as judgemental as you are of others. What you can do easily everyone else must do, or be dismissed, and no allowances must be made. We are not all the same. You have abilities which some others do not have. You said "The helpful folks at Debian also produce copious documentation (a Guide, Release Notes etc).At release time these tend to be up to date and are much more useful to newcomers" as a reason why aptitude should not be included. I pointed out that these are not useful to everyone. In fact, to some of us they are barely useful at all. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 00:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qqwRI-3eC-33@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #160141 |
On Mon 02 Nov 2015 at 22:15:10 +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Monday 02 November 2015 19:58:51 Brian wrote: > > Your argument appears to be based on the state of a person's eyesight. > > It also makes assertions about the state of mine. This is out of line; > > you have no knowledge about the state of my sight (and never will). > > I said "would appear". I was very careful in my choice of words. I have a > blind friend who can "read" at a phenomenal speed. The form of words doesn't matter. It is out of place and unhelpful to comment on the physical capabilities of a participant on a list of this nature, especially as a way of countering a argument. To repeat: you have no knowledge of how easy or hard I find reading a computer screen to be or the speed I do it with. "would appear" are weasel words to cover this lack of knowledge. > It is out of line to be as judgemental as you are of others. What you can do > easily everyone else must do, or be dismissed, and no allowances must be > made. We are not all the same. You have abilities which some others do not > have. I can wiggle both my ears at the same time. :) > You said "The helpful folks at Debian also produce copious documentation (a > Guide, Release Notes etc).At release time these tend to be up to date and are > much more useful to newcomers" as a reason why aptitude should not be > included. I pointed out that these are not useful to everyone. In fact, to > some of us they are barely useful at all. What is written has been written. Others can judge it in the context of the mail it replied to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web