Re: A couple of dumb questions
And network-manager-gnome or wicd for network connection
On 05/07/2020, Michael . <keltoiboy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>That sounds like a bit of a chore, I have no idea what it takes to put
>>together a Desktop like XFCE, Mate etc.
> Go to packages.debian.org and do a search for task-xfce-desktop then
> look at the list of packages that are Dependencies and the packages
> that are recommended
>
> Dependencies.
> light-locker
> lightdm
> task-desktop
> tasksel
> xfce4
>
> Recommends.
> atril
> default-dbus-session-bus or dbus-session-bus
> hunspell-en-us
> hyphen-en-us
> libreoffice
> libreoffice-gtk2
> libreoffice-help-en-us
> mousepad
> mythes-en-us
> network-manager-gnome
> orca
> parole
> quodlibet
> synaptic
> system-config-printer
> tango-icon-theme
> xfce4-goodies
> xfce4-mixer
> xfce4-power-manager
> xfce4-terminal
> xsane
>
> Take out the packages you don't want, add the packages you do want. It
> really isn't all that hard (and no I'm not being sarcastic).
> Personally I'd forget about the recommends for now and just install
> xfce4 and lightdm.
>
> On 05/07/2020, andy pugh <bodgesoc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 at 02:41, Michael . <keltoiboy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 2) if you don't want items listed in the metapackage try apt-pinning,
>>> the only other alternative is to write a list including things in the
>>> metapackage you do want but not things you don't want.
>>
>> That sounds like a bit of a chore, I have no idea what it takes to put
>> together a Desktop like XFCE, Mate etc.
>>
>>> 3) it used to be possible but I'm not sure if it is anymore. In the
>>> past if you wanted a non-standard kernel you had to list it in lb
>>> config.
>>
>> The rt-amd64 kernel is fairly standard, the RTAI one isn't, but will
>> be on a publicly-accessible repository.
>>
>> --
>> atp
>> "A motorcycle is a bicycle with a pandemonium attachment and is
>> designed for the especial use of mechanical geniuses, daredevils and
>> lunatics."
>> — George Fitch, Atlanta Constitution Newspaper, 1912
>>
>
Reply to: