Re: 8 more packages
Christmas and "new year" are over, now this "retransmit"
And at bottom some "extras"
On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 04:13:36PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 09:15:07PM +0100, mario.stromar@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 10:43:29PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> > >
> > > ( on-list-follow-up ( after some off-list-messages ))
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 11:32:23PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 05:13:03PM +0100, mario.stromar@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Greetings, Debians!
> > > >
> > > > Welcome all,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I found something occur in d-i since stretch and it is present on
> > > > > buster. Whenever I installer with Ethernet on my laptop, there are 8
> > > > > packages more than via WiFi. Is this ok?
> > > >
> > > > Seen the question.
> > > > At least I have seen parts of the question :-)
> > > >
> > > > Please provide the package names of the those extra eight.
> > >
> > > Got a WiFi.odt and an Ethernet.odt in response of `dpkg -l` request.
> > > After some labor I got two identical files, I was hoping
> > > to get a difference showing the 8 extra packages.
> > >
> > >
> > > > In case you don't have the package names,
> > > > tell how you found the difference in amount of packages.
> > >
> > > Photos of screen while installing packages explained it.
> > > (FWIW Graphical Installer is being used)
> > > One said installing 1363 packages, the other 1371 packages.
> > >
> > > So an interesting problem exists 8^)
> > >
> > > Please do gather more information. / Please do provide more information.
> > >
> > > After ethernet installation
> > >
> > > dpkg -l | sudo tee /var/log/installer/dpkg-l
> > > sudo tar cz /var/log/installer > ethernet.tgz
> > > # mail ethernet.tgz
> > >
> > > After wifi installation
> > >
> > > dpkg -l | sudo tee /var/log/installer/dpkg-l
> > > sudo tar cz /var/log/installer > wifi.tgz
> > > # mail wifi.tgz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > It works both ...it's debian!
> > > > > ☺ Just ask a question and I'd like to understand why is that. I always
> > > > > use the netinst method. D-i is the best linux installer and thank you
> > > > > people for doing this tremendous job!
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the compliment to the people would made it possible.
> > > > Feel free to join us. You already found the mailinglist.
> > >
> > > Now checking if original poster recieves mailinglist postings.
> > >
> > >
> > > Groeten
> > > Geert Stappers
> > >
> > > P.S.
> > > The .tgz will most likely larger as the max size of mailinglist post.
> > > So finding another path is needed. I do prefer that I can do `wget URL`.
> > > Recieving the two .tgz in two separated emails is acceptable.
> > > --
> > > Leven en laten leven
> > >
> >
> > Ethernet...
> > [ ... four thousand something lines ... ]
>
> and
> | On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 04:37:22PM +0100, mario.stromar@gmail.com wrote:
> | > wifi:
> | > [ ... four thousand something lines ... ]
>
> Both postings contained the same 1575 package names. So we are nothing
> closer to what is causing the 8 more packages install. The only difference
> seems to be install through ethernet versus through wifi.
>
> Based upon the timestamp of the email is the last install an ethernet
> install. Please do
>
> dpkg -l | sudo tee /var/log/installer/dpkg-l
> sudo tar cz /var/log/installer > ethernet.tgz
> # save the ethernet.tgz
>
>
> Then a wifi install plus
>
> dpkg -l | sudo tee /var/log/installer/dpkg-l
> sudo tar cz /var/log/installer > wifi.tgz
> # mail wifi.tgz
>
>
> Next is sharing the .tgz with us, this mailinglist.
Both .tgz
Yes, I'm curios what is/was causing the difference in package count.
Over here no hardware with _both_ WIFI and ethernet available
for re-installs. And sacrificing an installed laptop doesn't make
sense because what we are researching might be hardware related.
> Please be warned that the mailinglist software has a size limit on each
> posting. So some creativity might be needed.
Just communicate, so we can find a solution.
Groeten
Geert Stappers
--
Leven en laten leven
Reply to: