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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #174495 > unrolled thread

Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

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

Contents

  Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-11 16:50 +0100
    Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 19:00 +0100
      Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-11-11 19:00 +0100
        Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 19:40 +0100
          Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 20:00 +0100
            Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 20:10 +0100
        Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 20:30 +0100
          Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-11-11 20:40 +0100
            Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 20:50 +0100
              Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-11-11 21:00 +0100
                Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 21:20 +0100
                  Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 23:20 +0100
              Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-11-11 22:20 +0100
                Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-11-11 23:00 +0100
                  Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-11-11 23:30 +0100
                    Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 00:20 +0100
                  Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 00:40 +0100
                    Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 01:40 +0100
                    Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Joseph Loo <jloo20111002@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 01:50 +0100
                      Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 02:00 +0100
                    Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 01:50 +0100
          Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-11 21:50 +0100
            Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 22:00 +0100
      Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-11 21:50 +0100
    Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-11-11 20:10 +0100
      Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 20:20 +0100
      Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2016-11-11 20:40 +0100
        Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 20:50 +0100
          Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2016-11-11 22:00 +0100
        Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Seeker <seeker5528@comcast.net> - 2016-11-11 21:00 +0100
        Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-11 22:00 +0100
          Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2016-11-11 22:40 +0100
            Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-11 22:50 +0100
      Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-11 22:00 +0100
    Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Michael Milliman <michael.e.milliman@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 21:00 +0100
      Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 21:10 +0100
      Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-11 22:10 +0100
        Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 23:00 +0100
          Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 14:50 +0100
            Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 16:50 +0100
              Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 18:20 +0100
                Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 20:20 +0100
              Re: install recommended by default? (was: Gparted will not label...) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-11-13 02:30 +0100
                Re: install recommended by default? (was: Gparted will not label...) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 05:20 +0100
                  Re: install recommended by default? Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-11-13 05:50 +0100
                    Re: install recommended by default? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 14:40 +0100
                  Re: install recommended by default? (was: Gparted will not label...) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 12:20 +0100
                    Re: install recommended by default? (was: Gparted will not label...) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 14:10 +0100
                      Re: install recommended by default? (was: Gparted will not label...) Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 15:00 +0100
                      Re: install recommended by default? (was: Gparted will not label...) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 22:40 +0100

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#174589

On Saturday 12 November 2016 15:45:28 Brian wrote:
> The behaviour of your aptitude is presumably because you have adjusted
> the default behaviour in some way. The new behaviour is not a bug.

No, I haven't.  This is a temporary machine, which I have not been using long.  
I have adjusted very little.  I don't remember claiming that anything was a 
bug.

> Also, a default Debian doesn't have aptitude but apt-get. which installs
> recommended packages by default.

Varies with time.  Sometimes it is there and sometimes it isn't.  When 
aptitude isn't there, I install it.  But I don't configure it.

So, after some exploring (aptitude show and aptitude search), in this 
installation (Jessie, 8.6 - I installed Jessie 8.5) aptitude was *not* 
automatically installed and the recommends of aptitude *were* automatically 
installed.  I must watch for next time I have to install/not install some 
recommends and see why and when.

Interesting.  Thanks.

Lisi

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

#174602

On Sat, 2016-11-12 at 17:19 +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Saturday 12 November 2016 15:45:28 Brian wrote:
> > The behaviour of your aptitude is presumably because you have adjusted
> > the default behaviour in some way. The new behaviour is not a bug.
> 
> No, I haven't.  This is a temporary machine, which I have not been using long.  
> I have adjusted very little.  I don't remember claiming that anything was a 
> bug.
> 
> > Also, a default Debian doesn't have aptitude but apt-get. which installs
> > recommended packages by default.
> 
> Varies with time.  Sometimes it is there and sometimes it isn't.  When 
> aptitude isn't there, I install it.  But I don't configure it.
> 
> So, after some exploring (aptitude show and aptitude search), in this 
> installation (Jessie, 8.6 - I installed Jessie 8.5) aptitude was *not* 
> automatically installed and the recommends of aptitude *were* automatically 
> installed.  I must watch for next time I have to install/not install some 
> recommends and see why and when.

I'm pretty sure installing recommends is Debian's default. I remember it
changing, and dug up this 2007 announcement of the fact...

https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/08/msg00000.html

I also have as the very first step in my personal notes for installing
Debian instructions to disable that...

        Create /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/20norecommends containing
        
        APT {
        	Install-Recommends "false";
        };

-- 
Tixy

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

#174622 — Re: install recommended by default? (was: Gparted will not label...)

Brian composed on 2016-11-12 15:45 (UTC):

> On Sat 12 Nov 2016 at 13:45:38 +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote:

>> Brian wrote:

>> > Not installing a recommended package on a default Debian would be a bug.

>> Aptitude on my current almost vanilla temporary Jessie install doesn't install
>> recommends.  But it makes a big point of telling me a) that they are
>> recommended and b) that they are not going to be installed.  I then often,
>> but not always, install them.  It doesn't strike me as a bug.  This is Debian
>> not Ubuntu.

>> I could, of course, reset aptitude.  I am quite happy with the status quo.

> Never really used aptitude but I've just installed it and ran the curses
> variety of the program. "options" at the top of the screen shows

> Option:  Apt::Install-Recommends
> Default: True
> Value:   True

I'd like to know how you found the above. Running aptitude 0.6.11 on vtty3 
here as root in 8.6 I'm unable to find anything like that from its Options 
menu, or anywhere else.

> The behaviour of your aptitude is presumably because you have adjusted
> the default behaviour in some way. The new behaviour is not a bug.

> Also, a default Debian doesn't have aptitude but apt-get. which installs
> recommended packages by default.

I booted 5 of 6 Jessie installations here in recent minutes. All contain

	APT::Install-Recommends "false";

in /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/00InstallRecommends. Timestamp on the file on the 
currently booted installation is 366 days old, same as on the previous one or 
two booted (timestamp not noticed on the first two or three).

All my Jessie installations were made via HTTP, started from Grub, including 
the following on the cmdline:

	...tasks=standard base-installer/install-recommends=false...

What a "default" Debian installation includes or not I may never have seen, 
at least not since my first, Etch, as all since, and maybe Etch too, have 
been installed in same manner.
-- 
"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]

#174625 — Re: install recommended by default? (was: Gparted will not label...)

On Sat 12 Nov 2016 at 20:27:37 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote:
> Brian composed on 2016-11-12 15:45 (UTC):
> 
> >On Sat 12 Nov 2016 at 13:45:38 +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> 
> >>Brian wrote:
> 
> >>> Not installing a recommended package on a default Debian would be a bug.
> 
> >>Aptitude on my current almost vanilla temporary Jessie install doesn't install
> >>recommends.  But it makes a big point of telling me a) that they are
> >>recommended and b) that they are not going to be installed.  I then often,
> >>but not always, install them.  It doesn't strike me as a bug.  This is Debian
> >>not Ubuntu.
> 
> >>I could, of course, reset aptitude.  I am quite happy with the status quo.
> 
> >Never really used aptitude but I've just installed it and ran the curses
> >variety of the program. "options" at the top of the screen shows
> 
> >Option:  Apt::Install-Recommends
> >Default: True
> >Value:   True
> 
> I'd like to know how you found the above. Running aptitude 0.6.11 on
> vtty3 here as root in 8.6 I'm unable to find anything like that from
> its Options menu, or anywhere else.

I type "?" which gives a list of key bindings. About 30 lines down it says
   Control-t:    Activate or deactivate the menu.
so I "q" back to the View and press "Ctrl-T" which pulls down the leftmost
menu (Actions). Use ← or → to get to the sixth menu which is Options.
Select the first item, Preferences and you get UI Options. Again, about
30 ↓ keystrokes gets to the line with, and when you're on it, the lower
pane displays as above and gives a few lines of explanation. The line is
    [X] Install recommended packages automatically
Where in that sequence does your aptitude behave differently?

> >The behaviour of your aptitude is presumably because you have adjusted
> >the default behaviour in some way. The new behaviour is not a bug.
> 
> >Also, a default Debian doesn't have aptitude but apt-get. which installs
> >recommended packages by default.
> 
> I booted 5 of 6 Jessie installations here in recent minutes. All contain
> 
> 	APT::Install-Recommends "false";
> 
> in /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/00InstallRecommends. Timestamp on the file on
> the currently booted installation is 366 days old, same as on the
> previous one or two booted (timestamp not noticed on the first two
> or three).
> 
> All my Jessie installations were made via HTTP, started from Grub,
> including the following on the cmdline:
> 
> 	...tasks=standard base-installer/install-recommends=false...
> 
> What a "default" Debian installation includes or not I may never
> have seen, at least not since my first, Etch, as all since, and
> maybe Etch too, have been installed in same manner.

I don't understand what you mean by "via HTTP, started from Grub".
I install Debian systems either by upgrading from a previous version,
or by booting up a CD, normally a netinst version. The latter always
boots straight into the screen where one can choose "Advanced Options"
and "Expert Install" (my choices) or other options. I don't even recall
whether Grub is doing the booting, or one of those other methods like
syslinux etc. It all just flashes by.

Cheers,
David.

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

#174627 — Re: install recommended by default?

David Wright composed on 2016-11-12 22:09 (UTC-0600):

> On Sat 12 Nov 2016 at 20:27:37 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote:

>> Brian composed on 2016-11-12 15:45 (UTC):

>>>Never really used aptitude but I've just installed it and ran the curses
>>>variety of the program. "options" at the top of the screen shows

>>>Option:  Apt::Install-Recommends
>>>Default: True
>>>Value:   True

>> I'd like to know how you found the above. Running aptitude 0.6.11 on
>> vtty3 here as root in 8.6 I'm unable to find anything like that from
>> its Options menu, or anywhere else.

> I type "?" which gives a list of key bindings. About 30 lines down it says
>    Control-t:    Activate or deactivate the menu.

I open the menu with F10.

> so I "q" back to the View and press "Ctrl-T" which pulls down the leftmost
> menu (Actions). Use ← or → to get to the sixth menu which is Options.

Same my way.

> Select the first item, Preferences and you get UI Options. Again, about
> 30 ↓ keystrokes gets to the line with, and when you're on it, the lower
> pane displays as above and gives a few lines of explanation. The line is
>     [X] Install recommended packages automatically
> Where in that sequence does your aptitude behave differently?

There are two panes, upper and lower, each about half a screen. I assumed 
that the last item showing was the last available option under preferences. 
Now that I know about the additional options, I see, and it does indeed 
report that the default is True.

I suppose it must be that my installer cmdline option 
install-recommends=false must be taken into account, but I'm perplexed that 
multiple Jessie installations have the same Nov. 2015 timestamp on 
/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/00InstallRecommends while including False instead of the 
reported default True.

>> I booted 5 of 6 Jessie installations here in recent minutes. All contain

>> 	APT::Install-Recommends "false";

>> in /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/00InstallRecommends. Timestamp on the file on
>> the currently booted installation is 366 days old, same as on the
>> previous one or two booted (timestamp not noticed on the first two
>> or three).

>> All my Jessie installations were made via HTTP, started from Grub,
>> including the following on the cmdline:

>> 	...tasks=standard base-installer/install-recommends=false...

>> What a "default" Debian installation includes or not I may never
>> have seen, at least not since my first, Etch, as all since, and
>> maybe Etch too, have been installed in same manner.

> I don't understand what you mean by "via HTTP, started from Grub".

A recent installation's boot menu stanza:

title Install Debian via HTTP
     kernel (hd0,2)/debian/linux showopts vga=791 --- 
netcfg/disable_dhcp=true netcfg/get_hostname=myhost tasks=standard 
base-installer/install-recommends=false splash=0
     initrd (hd0,2)/debian/initrd.gz

All my machines are multiboot. Virtually all my installations begin as 
minimal, so that I can configure to not install optional packages as a matter 
of course, keeping space required low, and updates time and bandwidth minimized.

Normally when I want to install any distro, I fetch the installation kernel 
and initrd from an appropriate location on the Internet, if I haven't done so 
already and saved on the LAN. Isos represent a lot of downloading of packages 
that won't be installed here. Release isos don't get updated, so HTTP gets 
latest available packages instead of installing multiple versions of various 
packages or leaving a fresh installation in need of update. Similar is 
commonly the reasoning with pre-release isos.
-- 
"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]

#174650 — Re: install recommended by default?

On Sat 12 Nov 2016 at 23:44:56 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:

> David Wright composed on 2016-11-12 22:09 (UTC-0600):
> 
> >Select the first item, Preferences and you get UI Options. Again, about
> >30 ↓ keystrokes gets to the line with, and when you're on it, the lower
> >pane displays as above and gives a few lines of explanation. The line is
> >    [X] Install recommended packages automatically
> >Where in that sequence does your aptitude behave differently?
> 
> There are two panes, upper and lower, each about half a screen. I assumed
> that the last item showing was the last available option under preferences.
> Now that I know about the additional options, I see, and it does indeed
> report that the default is True.
> 
> I suppose it must be that my installer cmdline option
> install-recommends=false must be taken into account, but I'm perplexed that

install-recommends=false means no recommended packages installed when
using d-i and also set it up for the installed system with

  APT::Install-Recommends "false";

in /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/00InstallRecommends. This will prevail for apt
*and* aptitude.

> multiple Jessie installations have the same Nov. 2015 timestamp on
> /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/00InstallRecommends while including False instead of the
> reported default True.

Similar timestamps? Installed on the same day? Check timestamps on
directories.

The reported "True" is the hard-coded aptitude default. The "Value" will
be shown as "False" because of 00InstallRecommends.

-- 
Brian.

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

#174636 — Re: install recommended by default? (was: Gparted will not label...)

On Sunday 13 November 2016 04:09:13 David Wright wrote:
> > I'd like to know how you found the above. Running aptitude 0.6.11 on
> > vtty3 here as root in 8.6 I'm unable to find anything like that from
> > its Options menu, or anywhere else.
>
> I type "?" which gives a list of key bindings. About 30 lines down it says
>    Control-t:    Activate or deactivate the menu.
etc.

I assume you mean n-curses aptitude.  I meant at the CLI.

Lisi

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

#174646 — Re: install recommended by default? (was: Gparted will not label...)

On Sun 13 Nov 2016 at 11:16:51 (+0000), Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Sunday 13 November 2016 04:09:13 David Wright wrote:
> > > I'd like to know how you found the above. Running aptitude 0.6.11 on
> > > vtty3 here as root in 8.6 I'm unable to find anything like that from
> > > its Options menu, or anywhere else.
> >
> > I type "?" which gives a list of key bindings. About 30 lines down it says
> >    Control-t:    Activate or deactivate the menu.
> etc.
> 
> I assume you mean n-curses aptitude.  I meant at the CLI.

Oh, I was just answering Felix's question of Brian.

For the CLI, I think you (as the appropriate user) just:
cat /etc/apt/apt.conf /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/* ~/.aptitude/config | less
but then I assume you need to study   man 5 apt.conf   to ascertain
which options and settable, and which are defaults, etc. and
man <command>   for any defaulting options that might take precedence
over the configuration files' options. The curses help that I described
has already merged the options from configuration files and the
commandline, hence the displayed Default and Value lines.

Cheers,
David.

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

#174652 — Re: install recommended by default? (was: Gparted will not label...)

On Sun 13 Nov 2016 at 07:01:27 -0600, David Wright wrote:

> On Sun 13 Nov 2016 at 11:16:51 (+0000), Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Sunday 13 November 2016 04:09:13 David Wright wrote:
> > > > I'd like to know how you found the above. Running aptitude 0.6.11 on
> > > > vtty3 here as root in 8.6 I'm unable to find anything like that from
> > > > its Options menu, or anywhere else.
> > >
> > > I type "?" which gives a list of key bindings. About 30 lines down it says
> > >    Control-t:    Activate or deactivate the menu.
> > etc.
> > 
> > I assume you mean n-curses aptitude.  I meant at the CLI.
> 
> Oh, I was just answering Felix's question of Brian.

And very well answered it was, too.

Before going on to respond to the following paragraph I want to repeat
(in a slightly different way) what I said previously. A default install
sets up the installed system to download recommended packages with apt,
If aptitude is installed afterwards it also downloads recommended
packages by default. A failure of apt or aptitude to do this would be a
bug.

> For the CLI, I think you (as the appropriate user) just:
> cat /etc/apt/apt.conf /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/* ~/.aptitude/config | less
> but then I assume you need to study   man 5 apt.conf   to ascertain
> which options and settable, and which are defaults, etc. and
> man <command>   for any defaulting options that might take precedence
> over the configuration files' options. The curses help that I described
> has already merged the options from configuration files and the
> commandline, hence the displayed Default and Value lines.

apt-config dump | grep Recommends

-- 
Brian.

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

#174671 — Re: install recommended by default? (was: Gparted will not label...)

On Sunday 13 November 2016 13:01:27 David Wright wrote:
> On Sun 13 Nov 2016 at 11:16:51 (+0000), Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Sunday 13 November 2016 04:09:13 David Wright wrote:
> > > > I'd like to know how you found the above. Running aptitude 0.6.11 on
> > > > vtty3 here as root in 8.6 I'm unable to find anything like that from
> > > > its Options menu, or anywhere else.
> > >
> > > I type "?" which gives a list of key bindings. About 30 lines down it
> > > says Control-t:    Activate or deactivate the menu.
> >
> > etc.
> >
> > I assume you mean n-curses aptitude.  I meant at the CLI.
>
> Oh, I was just answering Felix's question of Brian.
>
> For the CLI, I think you (as the appropriate user) just:
> cat /etc/apt/apt.conf /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/* ~/.aptitude/config | less
> but then I assume you need to study   man 5 apt.conf   to ascertain
> which options and settable, and which are defaults, etc. and
> man <command>   for any defaulting options that might take precedence
> over the configuration files' options. The curses help that I described
> has already merged the options from configuration files and the
> commandline, hence the displayed Default and Value lines.

Thanks, David.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web