Re: Apt should be called "inapt" (rhymes with "inept")
another reason why you shouldnt reboot a box from remote :) when one of my
servers needs a reboot i always make sure someone is nearby incase
something goes bad. for the same reason i refuse to attempt a
slink->potato upgrade from remote, too risky.
of course i also pray whenever rebooting a server of any kind :) one time
recently i rebooted my home multipurpose server and it took me 45minutes
to get it to a state where it was fully functional again.(mostly not
putting programs in startup scripts/having to recompile 3rd party modules
for a new kernel, and rebooting many many times during the process to make
sure it goes right).
if i couldn't tune2fs -c0 i'd go mad!! :)
nate
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Joe Emenaker wrote:
joe >I tried to install a package using apt-get yesterday. It complained about dependencies for some stuff. It suggested that I use "apt-get -f install {packagename}".
joe >
joe >So I did....
joe >
joe >It downloaded a bundle of packages, whizzed through the configurations for them in no time at all.
joe >
joe >Everything seemed to be fine..... until I rebooted.
joe >
joe >It seems that apt-get decided to UNINSTALL:
joe > o netkit-inetd
joe > o ipchains
joe > o netbase
joe >
joe >and a couple of others. In other words, upon reboot, there was no network connectivity and no way to GET network connectivity without bringing in netbase and it's dependencies via floppy disk.
joe >
joe >The man pages seemed to say that the "-f" option would install any dependencies needed to install what you originally asked for. However, it seems to have also deleted some packages that it felt should be removed.
joe >
joe >Is there an option for apt-get to tell it to install extra stuff it needs but to *not* remove anything?
joe >
joe >- Joe
joe >
:::
http://www.aphroland.org/
http://www.linuxpowered.net/
aphro@aphroland.org
5:16pm up 32 days, 1:12, 3 users, load average: 0.08, 0.03, 0.01
Reply to: