Re: loss of synaptic due to wayland
I thought it was possible to have both X and Wayland installed and
just start the one you want to use. Pretty sure I did that when I was
playing with Buster.
I can do
apt search
but then I have apt installed. There are several package management
tools. What I like Synaptic for besides the obvious is finding and
fixing broken packages. You can get in there and take out what's
causing the problem, if it doesn't do it from the menu. The package
tools work differently in that situation. I seem to get broken
packages a lot. apt isn't apt-get or aptitude or synaptic or wajig or
apt-cache or dpkg, but they probably all use the APT library.
On 7/9/19, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> wrote:
> (hi gene, hope you don't mind, i'm cc'ing the list back again, i
> assume you accidentally didn't hit "reply-to-all?" or that i did, if
> so, whoops...)
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:20 PM Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Monday 08 July 2019 08:37:14 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 12:55 PM Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net>
>> wrote:
>> > > yes it was, and no solution was offered that I read about. And no,
>> > > aptitude is not a replacement.
>> >
>> > used it once or twice, wasn't impressed, returned to apt-get and
>> > apt-cache search, which work extremely well, and have done since
>> > debian began.
>> >
>> What I am trying to do is build a much newer, rt-preempt kernel for
>> buster on an armhf, aka a pi3b. After having configured it, I try
>> a "make" and in about a minute, am getting a missing openssl/bio.h exit:
>>
>> pi@picnc:/media/pi/workpi120/buildbot/linux-5.1.14 $ make
>> HOSTCC scripts/extract-cert
>> scripts/extract-cert.c:21:10: fatal error: openssl/bio.h: No such file or
>> directory
>> #include <openssl/bio.h>
>> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> compilation terminated.
>> make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.host:92: scripts/extract-cert] Error 1
>> make: *** [Makefile:1065: scripts] Error 2
>>
>>
>> not at all fam with apt-cache search, I have not found a bio.h except in
>> some obvious biology related programs. unrelated to openssl IOW.
>>
>> The man page is so long I quickly lose track of all the options.
>>
>> So how would I state the search that will find it if it exists in the
>> repo's?
>
> there's a file search "thing" somewhere, for apt... it's a plugin (i
> think)... although i suspect you simply have the wrong version of
> openssl installed.
>
> ok so i do have /usr/include/openssl/bio.h (makes it easier if
> someone else has it....) and so i can find it with:
>
> $ grep bio.h /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.list | grep openssl
>
> and that gives:
>
> /var/lib/dpkg/info/libssl-dev:amd64.list:/usr/include/openssl/bio.h
> /var/lib/dpkg/info/nodejs.list:/usr/include/node/openssl/bio.h
>
> shriieeeek wtf am i doiiing with nodejs installed, dieee nodejs,
> dieeeee sorry about that, adverse reaction to node.js
>
> ok so you'll need to do "apt-get install libssl-dev" and that *should*
> get you the missing openssl/bio.h file.
>
> if you run into any other difficulties with missing packages, try this:
>
> "apt-get build-dep linux-image-4.something.something"
>
> that will install *all* build dependencies for a *debian* kernel build
> process... which (warning) may be a little bit more than you bargained
> for, you'll have to review what it recommends to install before
> proceeding, ok?
>
> basically when doing a build of a package that's similar (or
> identical) to an existing debian one, the trick of installing
> *debian's* build dependencies for the same name uuusuuually does the
> trick of getting you everything you'll need to build that "vanilla"
> upstream {whatever}.
>
> problems come when debian sets different options from the default, and
> you can always inspect the debian/rules file for what they are.
>
>
>> My /e/a/sources.list:
>>
>> deb http://raspbian.raspberrypi.org/raspbian/ buster main contrib
>> non-free rpi
>> # Uncomment line below then 'apt-get update' to enable 'apt-get source'
>> deb-src http://raspbian.raspberrypi.org/raspbian/ buster main contrib
>> non-free rpi
>>
>> > never had *any* problems - at all - that weren't caused by doing
>> > something incredibly stupid such as "ctrl-c" in the middle of an
>> > installation (at the point where dpkg is being called), and even then,
>> > apt-get -f install in almost 100% of cases fixed the "problem that i
>> > had myself caused".
>> >
>> > really: if you ask me, relying on GUIs for something as
>> > mission-critical as installation of packages is asking for trouble.
>>
>> What the gui is good for is showing you the exact package name to install
>> or purge. Nothing else, however capable it might be, can really replace
>> the look and feel of a good gui. But I've been corrected before. Teach
>> me!
>
> :)
>
> on-list is better (other people benefit too). these are what i use:
>
> for source stuff:
> * apt-get source {package} - gets the *source code* of a package
> * apt-get build-dep {package} - gets you the (full) build
> dependencies required to *make* a source package (with
> "dpkg-buildpackage)
>
> those are typically best done in a chroot, for safety.
>
>
> to find out which package has a file installed:
> * grep filename /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.list
>
> general package installing process:
> * apt-cache search "keyword(s)"
> * apt-cache show {package} - usually pipe this into more (or less)
> * apt-get install {package} - just one.
> * apt-get --purge remove {package} - just one.
>
> these are [almost certainly] the commands that synaptics runs,
> behind-the-scenes. for me, GUIs just irritate me beyond belief,
> because they typically require moving hands off the keyboard and onto
> the mouse. i even use fvwm2 with "mouse-over equals window-focus"
> very deliberately to minimise clicks. this all because i have
> recurring bouts of RSI...
>
> hth.
>
> l.
>
>
--
-------------
No, I won't call it "climate change", do you have a "reality problem"? - AB1JX
Cities are cages built to contain excess people and keep them from
cluttering up nature.
Impeach Impeach Impeach Impeach Impeach Impeach Impeach Impeach
Reply to: