 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ah yes, the wonders of Debian.
Tell me, is there some way of operating the package manager where you
*don't* have to waste hours of your life trying to figure out why it
refuses to install the package you need?
I've tried several different ways, but I can't get any version of the
package I want actually installed.
- If I try from KPackage, it downloads a heap of stuff and attempts to
install it. Half way through, it tries to upgrade "libc6", and bombs out
with an opaque error. (Some subprocess terminated with exitcode 1.)
- If I try through apt-get, I just get a message to the effect of
"foo-123 requires bar-456 which won't be installed anyway". Um... so
install it for me then? What's the problem??
- I can't bring myself to try it with dselect. It's just too painful.
I'm not sure what else to try here... I guess I could invoke dpkg
directly. That'll be fun. :-/
I always hated this about Debian. There doesn't appear to be a simple
way to make it do what you want. :-(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Ah yes, the wonders of Debian.
>
> Tell me, is there some way of operating the package manager where you
> *don't* have to waste hours of your life trying to figure out why it
> refuses to install the package you need?
>
> I've tried several different ways, but I can't get any version of the
> package I want actually installed.
>
> I'm not sure what else to try here...
Hmm. How interesting. If I do
apt-get install darcs
I get all sorts of fun and games. However, if I do
apt-get -t stable install darcs
it works perfectly first time. In fact, *everything* works first time.
So, um, *why* is this not the default?! o_O
/me walks off shaking his head...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:59:49 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> it works perfectly first time. In fact, *everything* works first time.
> So, um, *why* is this not the default?! o_O
At a guess (as I don't use debian systems), you have more than one repo
set up and the package exists in more than one place - so the package
manager doesn't decide for you but requires that you select the repo you
want to install from?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> it works perfectly first time. In fact, *everything* works first time.
>> So, um, *why* is this not the default?! o_O
>
> At a guess (as I don't use debian systems), you have more than one repo
> set up and the package exists in more than one place - so the package
> manager doesn't decide for you but requires that you select the repo you
> want to install from?
As another guess, I think KNOPPIX is defaulting to using the "unstable"
branch rather than the "stable" branch, meaning it picks packages that
depend on whole new versions of libc and other critical infrastructure.
Telling it to pick the newest package from "stable" seems to make
everything work beautifully. I wonder why KNOPPIX is set this way?
OTOH... I asked for GHC, and I got version 6.6. That's *years* old
(current version is 6.10.1 - although note they skip odd-numbered
versions). Maybe that's why?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On a related note, and I'm sure I could track this down with enough
googling, but I only spent about 10 minutes on it and didn't find anything
that looked likely: Can "apt" use "yum" repositories? Specifically, if
there's a repository with software for "open suse", can Ubuntu manage
packages from that easily? How about RPM repositories? Most of the
third-party repositories I see offer those two.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> On a related note, and I'm sure I could track this down with enough
> googling, but I only spent about 10 minutes on it and didn't find
> anything that looked likely: Can "apt" use "yum" repositories?
> Specifically, if there's a repository with software for "open suse", can
> Ubuntu manage packages from that easily? How about RPM repositories?
> Most of the third-party repositories I see offer those two.
APT definitely works with RPM (according to Wikipedia).
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:35:20 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> On a related note, and I'm sure I could track this down with enough
> googling, but I only spent about 10 minutes on it and didn't find
> anything that looked likely: Can "apt" use "yum" repositories?
> Specifically, if there's a repository with software for "open suse", can
> Ubuntu manage packages from that easily? How about RPM repositories?
> Most of the third-party repositories I see offer those two.
I don't think Apt can use RPM repos (which the openSUSE repos would be).
You can convert packages using alien, which I have done with some
success, though library names might be different (they were for a video
converter I was pointed at) so it takes a little work to get the package
working.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:41:23 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> On a related note, and I'm sure I could track this down with enough
>> googling, but I only spent about 10 minutes on it and didn't find
>> anything that looked likely: Can "apt" use "yum" repositories?
>> Specifically, if there's a repository with software for "open suse",
>> can Ubuntu manage packages from that easily? How about RPM
>> repositories? Most of the third-party repositories I see offer those
>> two.
>
> APT definitely works with RPM (according to Wikipedia).
Seen, this is what happens because I don't use Debian-derived systems. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> APT definitely works with RPM (according to Wikipedia).
I'll investigate more, but I don't know if the fact that something works
with RPM files means it also works with RPM repositories. I don't know if
they're the same kind of thing. (By "works with repositories", I mean
things like give you the TOC, keep updates updated, etc.)
My sysadmin guru says to use Ubuntu for servers these days, but I've been
using openSuSE, so ... I need to figure out where to get the packages I use
in a way that Ubuntu likes. This is what happens when you start getting
incompatible competition in Linux releases. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:16:06 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> My sysadmin guru says to use Ubuntu for servers these days
out of curiosity, what are his reasons for that recommendation?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> out of curiosity, what are his reasons for that recommendation?
Last time I asked him to configure some sophisticated stuff in OpenSuSE, it
was more desktoppy than servery, apparently. Like, the configuration of the
IP address and stuff sticks to the MAC address in SuSE, but to the card slot
in Ubuntu, so if you want to configure a disk you're going to mail to
someone to stick in a machine in a different city, it's harder with SuSE.
That was the bit that bit me, for example. Binding two network cards in a
fail-over configuration was apparently not as easy as it could be too.
I'm not real sure I got all his reasons, but he's been a UNIX guru since
well before Solaris was called SunOS, and he seemed to think it was
unnecessarily difficult to set things up there. So I asked "where do you
download RedHat from, or what do you use instead." He said Ubuntu. <shrug>
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:07:20 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> out of curiosity, what are his reasons for that recommendation?
>
> Last time I asked him to configure some sophisticated stuff in OpenSuSE,
> it was more desktoppy than servery, apparently. Like, the configuration
> of the IP address and stuff sticks to the MAC address in SuSE, but to
> the card slot in Ubuntu, so if you want to configure a disk you're going
> to mail to someone to stick in a machine in a different city, it's
> harder with SuSE. That was the bit that bit me, for example. Binding two
> network cards in a fail-over configuration was apparently not as easy as
> it could be too.
>
> I'm not real sure I got all his reasons, but he's been a UNIX guru since
> well before Solaris was called SunOS, and he seemed to think it was
> unnecessarily difficult to set things up there. So I asked "where do you
> download RedHat from, or what do you use instead." He said Ubuntu.
> <shrug>
Thanks. Network config is something that I've heard works very
differently, and even on SLES8 (granted, two major versions ago), it was
tied to MAC addresses which made imaging very difficult (especially as it
retained the old address and used it when the MAC changed - which I
thought was really odd).
I remember SunOS as well. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> My sysadmin guru says to use Ubuntu for servers these days, but I've been
> using openSuSE, so ... I need to figure out where to get the packages I use
> in a way that Ubuntu likes. This is what happens when you start getting
> incompatible competition in Linux releases. :-)
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=19990303
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=19990303
(chortle!) Sent along, just in case.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> As another guess, I think KNOPPIX is defaulting to using the "unstable"
> branch rather than the "stable" branch, meaning it picks packages that
> depend on whole new versions of libc and other critical infrastructure.
>
> Telling it to pick the newest package from "stable" seems to make
> everything work beautifully. I wonder why KNOPPIX is set this way?
Because...
> OTOH... I asked for GHC, and I got version 6.6. That's *years* old
> (current version is 6.10.1 - although note they skip odd-numbered
> versions). Maybe that's why?
... stable is ment to be stable, so all the software getting to Debian
Stable is in testing -phase for a long time. Unstable is more like
bleeding edge.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
