[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Upgrading to woody - the saga continues...



Rodrigo Agerri wrote:

That remarkable Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 15:11, Peter Hugosson-Miller wrote:

What happens now is that the screen blanks for about a second, then the
greeter comes back again, without logging in. When I look in
~/.gnome-errors, there are a couple of warnings, but one fatal error
which seems to be the root of the problem: the script
/etc/gdm/Sessions/Gnome calls for the execution of another script
/usr/bin/gnome-session, which is sadly missing from my system. Despite
looking through the update instructions, I found no mention of this
script or where it comes from. Anyone have any ideas?

do you have gnome-session installed?

apt-get install gnome-session

cheers

Well, my immediate response would be "of course I have", but now looking at my transcript of the dist-upgrade, I notice that a bunch of packages were removed, and amoung them was gnome-session. I guess I had better try re-installing it ;-)

Does anyone have a better way of finding which packages were removed than going into dselect? I tried this:

#dpkg -l | grep '^r'

I found about 20 packages that way, and re-installed them, but gnome-session didn't show up there, or I already would have re-installed it.

There is an instruction on the aforementioned page to go into dselect and find "packages that need to be installed, that are not noticed by apt-get". I won't use dselect, as it doesn't like me, and I succeeded in trashing my system completely with it once... (The interested reader might like to check this:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2000/debian-user-200009/msg04545.html

...but it's really not that interesting. Can't believe I was ever that pessimistic about getting Debian installed!)

Anyhow, my second question is this: is there a better way to find those "--- Obsolete and local packages present on system ---" than by going into the dreaded dselect?


--
Cheers!

 .~.
 /V\
// \\
/( )\
^`~´^
< hugge >



Reply to: