SolydXK 10 Testing [updated: 31-07-2019]

SolydXK is too quiet for you? SolydXK Enthusiast Editions, based on Debian Testing is for you! Here you can find news about Debian Testing and Unstable too, and also tests on SolydXK programs.
The support for SolydXK EE is provided by the community.
User avatar
ilu
Posts: 2539
Joined: 09 Oct 2013 12:45

Re: SolydXK 10 Testing [updated: 31-07-2019]

Postby ilu » 31 Jul 2019 22:23

pam should do that auto-magically. But still hasn't worked for me :-(

User avatar
escolar
Posts: 135
Joined: 23 Aug 2013 08:14
Location: Spain

Re: SolydXK 10 Testing [updated: 31-07-2019]

Postby escolar » 01 Aug 2019 12:30

Arjen Balfoort wrote:
31 Jul 2019 15:40

I have also included an upgrade script to upgrade solydxk-9 to solydxk-10.
I have updated my HP Stream SolydX with the script with this issues:
1. I probably had some previous update not well finished, and the script recommended me to do dpkg --configure -a. I stopped the script and run dpkg, but maybe it'd be better if the script run it at the beginning
2. It removed some packages I had installed from the deb, not from repositories. Maybe it did it because I have chosen remove orphaned files
3. After rebooting the grub prompt were, and I had to install grub from a live usb (after booting from the reinstalled grub I reinstall from SolydX 10 and I obtained the grub prompt again).

System is working now as expected

Thanks for your work

User avatar
grizzler
Posts: 2180
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 15:45
Location: The Hague, NL

Re: SolydXK 10 Testing [updated: 31-07-2019]

Postby grizzler » 01 Aug 2019 13:03

Arjen,

Is it possible a number of automatically installed packages got marked as manually installed on the SolydXK 10 ISOs?

I upgraded (a copy of) the 32-bit build structures and ran a compare 32 vs 64 bit. After weeding out the differences I ended up with this (SolydK only - checking SolydX is next, when I have the time...):

Code: Select all

The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required:
  ant-contrib firebird3.0-common firebird3.0-common-doc libaopalliance-java
  libargs4j-java libasm-java libasync-mergepoint-perl
  libatinject-jsr330-api-java libcapture-tiny-perl libcdi-api-java
  libcglib-java libcodemodel-java libcommons-cli-java libcommons-compress-java
  libcommons-io-java libcommons-lang3-java libfuture-perl
  libgeronimo-annotation-1.3-spec-java libgeronimo-interceptor-3.0-spec-java
  libguava-java libguice-java libhawtjni-runtime-java libhttpclient-java
  libhttpcore-java libhwloc-plugins libhwloc5 libio-async-perl
  libistack-commons-java libjansi-java libjansi-native-java libjsoup-java
  libjsr305-java libmaven-file-management-java libmaven-parent-java
  libmaven-resolver-java libmaven-shared-io-java libmaven-shared-utils-java
  libmaven3-core-java libpath-tiny-perl libplexus-archiver-java
  libplexus-cipher-java libplexus-classworlds-java
  libplexus-component-annotations-java libplexus-interpolation-java
  libplexus-io-java libplexus-sec-dispatcher-java libplexus-utils2-java
  libsereal-decoder-perl libsereal-encoder-perl libsereal-perl
  libsisu-guice-java libsisu-inject-java libsisu-ioc-java libsisu-plexus-java
  libslf4j-java libsnappy-java libsnappy-jni libstruct-dumb-perl
  libtest-fatal-perl libtest-refcount-perl libunicode-utf8-perl
  libwagon-http-java libwagon-provider-api-java libyaml-libyaml-perl
  python-asn1crypto python-attr python-automat python-bcrypt python-constantly
  python-hyperlink python-idna python-incremental python-ipaddress python-nacl
Use 'sudo apt autoremove' to remove them.
This lot is still installed on the 64-bit SolydK 10 ISO. Are you sure they are necessary there?

Also, I don't think keeping cpp-7 and gcc-7-base installed is useful, considering the rest of gcc-7 is gone...
Frank

SolydX EE 64 - tracking Debian Testing

User avatar
Arjen Balfoort
Site Admin
Posts: 9330
Joined: 26 Jan 2013 19:36
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: SolydXK 10 Testing [updated: 31-07-2019]

Postby Arjen Balfoort » 01 Aug 2019 20:43

grizzler wrote:
01 Aug 2019 13:03
Is it possible a number of automatically installed packages got marked as manually installed on the SolydXK 10 ISOs?
It is not something I intend to do. Perhaps this happens when I reinstall a package?
grizzler wrote:
01 Aug 2019 13:03
I upgraded (a copy of) the 32-bit build structures and ran a compare 32 vs 64 bit. After weeding out the differences I ended up with this (SolydK only - checking SolydX is next, when I have the time...):
If you tell me how you got to this list I can create my own to cleanup the ISOs even further.
grizzler wrote:
01 Aug 2019 13:03
Also, I don't think keeping cpp-7 and gcc-7-base installed is useful, considering the rest of gcc-7 is gone...
I will remove them from the ISOs


SolydXK needs you!
Development | Testing | Translations

User avatar
GGerson
Posts: 20
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 19:05

Re: SolydXK 10 Testing [updated: 31-07-2019]

Postby GGerson » 01 Aug 2019 22:48

Excelente, acabo de hacer update con el scrip y va funcionando muy bien, espero la ISO final de SolydK con Debian 10 :clap:

Excellent, I just updated the script and it works very well, I hope the final ISO of SolydK with Debian 10 :clap:
Quien no teme preguntar... cada día aprende más. :clap:

User avatar
GGerson
Posts: 20
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 19:05

Re: SolydXK 10 Testing [updated: 31-07-2019]

Postby GGerson » 02 Aug 2019 00:54

After upgrading to SolydK 10 the LibreOffice package does not work, in return, I had to install FreeOffice 2018 :shock:

Después de actualizar a SolydK 10 el paquete de LibreOffice no funciona, a cambio, tuve que instalar FreeOffice 2018 :shock:
Quien no teme preguntar... cada día aprende más. :clap:

User avatar
grizzler
Posts: 2180
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 15:45
Location: The Hague, NL

Re: SolydXK 10 Testing [updated: 31-07-2019]

Postby grizzler » 02 Aug 2019 06:26

Arjen Balfoort wrote:
01 Aug 2019 20:43
If you tell me how you got to this list I can create my own to cleanup the ISOs even further.
Basically, you need the build structure with the 64-bit ISO and another build structure, unpacked from the last 32-bit ISO that was produced, upgraded to SolydXK 10. Then you create a list of installed packages for both, run a diff on the two lists and check the result.

Delete the obvious mismatches (like firefox vs firefox-esr and the kernel files 686 vs amd64) from the diff result, install missing packages in the 32-bit structure (skipping cpp-7 and gcc-7-base), remove those from the diff result as well and use what's left as input for an apt purge on the 32-bit structure. That's when the list of autoremove suggestions pops up.

With my build structure setup, this is not as complicated/cumbersome as it may sound. I'll see if I can pull some of the bits from the build scripts to create a stand-alone version (may be tomorrow before I have time to do that, though...).
Frank

SolydX EE 64 - tracking Debian Testing

User avatar
Arjen Balfoort
Site Admin
Posts: 9330
Joined: 26 Jan 2013 19:36
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: SolydXK 10 Testing [updated: 31-07-2019]

Postby Arjen Balfoort » 02 Aug 2019 06:44

GGerson wrote:
02 Aug 2019 00:54
After upgrading to SolydK 10 the LibreOffice package does not work, in return, I had to install FreeOffice 2018 :shock:
Can you compress (tar or zip) the log file ~/solydxk10-upgrade.log and post it here?


SolydXK needs you!
Development | Testing | Translations

User avatar
Arjen Balfoort
Site Admin
Posts: 9330
Joined: 26 Jan 2013 19:36
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: SolydXK 10 Testing [updated: 31-07-2019]

Postby Arjen Balfoort » 02 Aug 2019 07:22

grizzler wrote:
02 Aug 2019 06:26
With my build structure setup, this is not as complicated/cumbersome as it may sound. I'll see if I can pull some of the bits from the build scripts to create a stand-alone version (may be tomorrow before I have time to do that, though...).
I've been looking at apt-mark, but couldn't figure out what to do with the output (long lists for both showauto and showmanual).
Now I just created a package list(*) of the ISOs to manually check for unneeded packages. This is very time consuming and I don't know if I am willing to put that much effort into something for just a small result.

(*) Command to create the package list:

Code: Select all

dpkg-query -Wf '${Package;-40}${binary:Summary;-80}${Priority}\n' | grep optional > installed-pcks.txt


SolydXK needs you!
Development | Testing | Translations

User avatar
GGerson
Posts: 20
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 19:05

Re: SolydXK 10 Testing [updated: 31-07-2019]

Postby GGerson » 02 Aug 2019 11:38

Arjen Balfoort wrote:
02 Aug 2019 06:44
GGerson wrote:
02 Aug 2019 00:54
After upgrading to SolydK 10 the LibreOffice package does not work, in return, I had to install FreeOffice 2018 :shock:
Can you compress (tar or zip) the log file ~/solydxk10-upgrade.log and post it here?
See here
Attachments
solydxk10-upgrade.log.tar.gz
(197.29 KiB) Downloaded 17 times
Quien no teme preguntar... cada día aprende más. :clap:

User avatar
Arjen Balfoort
Site Admin
Posts: 9330
Joined: 26 Jan 2013 19:36
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: SolydXK 10 Testing [updated: 31-07-2019]

Postby Arjen Balfoort » 02 Aug 2019 14:02

@Ggerson
I'll take a look at it.

@Grizzler
I've created some scripts to generate lists of packages to investigate.
create-pck-list.sh creates a csv with optional and extra packages that do not rdepend.
I've added the resulting odts and marked some packages for deletion (red=ok to delete, blue=in doubt, but still going to try) and the cleanup scripts that combine your list with mine.

[EDIT]
I forgot to mention that after you remove the packages you can run the script again resulting in a smaller set of packages to inspect. I see how far I can get until the whole thing breaks.
Attachments
cleanup-isos.tar.gz
(35.4 KiB) Downloaded 15 times


SolydXK needs you!
Development | Testing | Translations

User avatar
GGerson
Posts: 20
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 19:05

Re: SolydXK 10 Testing [updated: 31-07-2019]

Postby GGerson » 02 Aug 2019 16:58

GGerson wrote:
02 Aug 2019 11:38
Arjen Balfoort wrote:
02 Aug 2019 06:44
GGerson wrote:
02 Aug 2019 00:54
After upgrading to SolydK 10 the LibreOffice package does not work, in return, I had to install FreeOffice 2018 :shock:
Can you compress (tar or zip) the log file ~/solydxk10-upgrade.log and post it here?
See here
I am going to download the ISO of August 1 and do a zeros installation.
EDITO:
I could not install the August 1 ISO because I get the same error that I had commented before:
viewtopic.php?f=78&t=7537&start=40#p70583
Quien no teme preguntar... cada día aprende más. :clap:

User avatar
grizzler
Posts: 2180
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 15:45
Location: The Hague, NL

Re: SolydXK 10 Testing [updated: 31-07-2019]

Postby grizzler » 03 Aug 2019 05:34

@Arjen,

I'll take a look at your scripts later today. Depeding on that, I may or may not (need to) create the extract of my build scripts I mentioned earlier.
Frank

SolydX EE 64 - tracking Debian Testing

User avatar
grizzler
Posts: 2180
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 15:45
Location: The Hague, NL

Re: SolydXK 10 Testing [updated: 31-07-2019]

Postby grizzler » 03 Aug 2019 08:32

Your scripts do not consider the differences between what's installed in the 64-bit ISOs vs the 32-bit ISOs. Now you may be sceptical about the relevance of that comparison, but I assure you it is.

If you compare the last SolydXK 9 sets, there is very little real difference between them, mainly version differences and the usual CE vs non-CE stuff.
However, if you compare upgraded 32-bit versions with the 64-bit SolydXK 10 ones, you get a list of several hundred (!) packages that you apparently removed from the 64-bit versions (an example of such a comparison is in the attached tarball).
The moment you feed that list (after cleaning it up) to the apt purge command for the 32-bit sets, the autoremove suggestions come up. So in my view, the packages mentioned in those suggestions can only be dependencies of the purged packages, which have already been removed from the 64-bit sets.

If you're not interested in following this up using the comparison, fine. In that case just ignore the next posting I'm going to make in this thread, later today, after i've prepared the build script extract I mentioned earlier.

The list I provided in my posting of 01 Aug 2019 15:03 only applies to SolydK, by the way (I did mention that...). The SolydX list (below) is not identical.

Code: Select all

The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required:
  ant-contrib libaopalliance-java libappindicator3-1 libargs4j-java
  libasm-java libasync-mergepoint-perl libatinject-jsr330-api-java
  libcapture-tiny-perl libcdi-api-java libcglib-java libcodemodel-java
  libcommons-cli-java libcommons-compress-java libcommons-io-java
  libcommons-lang3-java libfuture-perl libgeronimo-annotation-1.3-spec-java
  libgeronimo-interceptor-3.0-spec-java libguava-java libguice-java
  libhawtjni-runtime-java libhttpclient-java libhttpcore-java libhwloc-plugins
  libhwloc5 libio-async-perl libistack-commons-java libjansi-java
  libjansi-native-java libjsoup-java libjsr305-java
  libmaven-file-management-java libmaven-parent-java libmaven-resolver-java
  libmaven-shared-io-java libmaven-shared-utils-java libmaven3-core-java
  libpath-tiny-perl libplexus-archiver-java libplexus-cipher-java
  libplexus-classworlds-java libplexus-component-annotations-java
  libplexus-interpolation-java libplexus-io-java libplexus-sec-dispatcher-java
  libplexus-utils2-java libsereal-decoder-perl libsereal-encoder-perl
  libsereal-perl libsisu-guice-java libsisu-inject-java libsisu-ioc-java
  libsisu-plexus-java libslf4j-java libsnappy-java libsnappy-jni
  libstruct-dumb-perl libtest-fatal-perl libtest-refcount-perl
  libunicode-utf8-perl libwagon-http-java libwagon-provider-api-java
  libyaml-libyaml-perl odbcinst odbcinst1debian2 pkg-config
Use 'sudo apt autoremove' to remove them.
Edit
Just reread this thread: viewtopic.php?f=78&t=7567 and I wonder if what ilu wrote in her 24 Jun 2019 04:15 posting ("only 3 packages are automatic") means what I think it means...

Edit 2
/usr/lib/solydxk/constructor/files/cleanup.sh - line 73:
aptitude -y unmarkauto ~M

You have got to be kidding me...

Actually, I think I understand why this line has been put in. And it is slightly disconcerting, because it means I may have to add an extra step to any autoremove process after extensive clean ups...
Attachments
result-10x32-10x64-0.tar.gz
(5.36 KiB) Downloaded 16 times
Frank

SolydX EE 64 - tracking Debian Testing

User avatar
Arjen Balfoort
Site Admin
Posts: 9330
Joined: 26 Jan 2013 19:36
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: SolydXK 10 Testing [updated: 31-07-2019]

Postby Arjen Balfoort » 03 Aug 2019 14:16

Grizzler, I am very interested in your solutions and I really appreciate your help a lot. I do my best to juggle my spare time between live and SolydXK, I also lack in-depth knowledge of Linux. Programming is no problem, maintaining a system is something different. For me that's more Google with copy and paste than knowledge. So, please be patient.


SolydXK needs you!
Development | Testing | Translations

User avatar
grizzler
Posts: 2180
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 15:45
Location: The Hague, NL

Re: SolydXK 10 Testing [updated: 31-07-2019]

Postby grizzler » 03 Aug 2019 16:55

Arjen Balfoort wrote:
03 Aug 2019 14:16
...juggle my spare time between live and SolydXK...
Tell me about it. Apart from SolydXK vs real life, there's this other project I've had on hold since May, when another project suddenly got precedence. And that little thing about the AVG-setup I promised someone who couldn't get his head around it. And...
Never mind.
I also lack in-depth knowledge of Linux.
I'm not exactly a linux guru either, you know.

Anyway... I've reset the 32-bit SolydXK 10 build structures and started over in a more controlled fashion.
Also, the fact the constructor has been systematically screwing up the 'automatically installed' flag of every single package is something that requires attention. There may be a way to fix that in your build structures, using the 32-bit sets. They do have a considerable number of packages marked as automatically installed (around 1180 SolydK and 780 SolydX).

I get the impression line 73 of the cleanup.sh file is meant to make it easier for the ISO maintainer to remove transitional packages. By marking everything as manually installed, you don't run the risk of inadvertently removing a replacement after the transitional dummy has been deleted. Without that, you need to be aware that deleting the dummy means you have to check the packages it has as automatically installed dependencies and make them manual. Of course there could be an entirely different reason...

Whatever the reason, we'll have to run another check on the packages that have already been removed from the 64-bit sets, before we can state with confidence that all the autoremovable dependencies are indeed what they seem. More stuff to write, less chance of anything useful today, because people are already trying to pull me away from the keyboard.
Frank

SolydX EE 64 - tracking Debian Testing

User avatar
ilu
Posts: 2539
Joined: 09 Oct 2013 12:45

Re: SolydXK 10 Testing [updated: 31-07-2019]

Postby ilu » 04 Aug 2019 00:14

grizzler, do I need to work on viewtopic.php?f=78&t=7567 again? I don't think I removed anything substantial except the installer dependencies that deborphan couldn't know about.

I re-read your post several times and tried to figure out whether you think there was too much removed in the 64bit images or not enough? Generally I think less packages on initial install is better. The ISOs seemed to carry a lot of stuff for historical reasons. Everything that's not really needed for basic functions on common hardware (in a broad sense, including old, but not ancient) and the applications we want to have should be removed. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Should I go through your tarball file? On first glance I can see a lot of packages which IMHO were removed with good reason but also some that need to be checked. Or did I misunderstand your post?

The markauto problem is something different of course and I don't know how to go about that. It's difficult to get system maintainer information on the internet - most stuff is looked at from a user perspective and that makes it difficult to figure out how it should be done in a system setup.

As an aside: I love about working on SolydXK that I don't feel totally outclassed by arrogant Linux super geeks. Working with those guys is rewarding knowledge-wise but frustrating in almost any other aspect.

Edit: I'm presently working my way through the tarball. I think most stuff got removed with a reason. See the results here: viewtopic.php?f=78&t=7567&p=70749#p70749

User avatar
grizzler
Posts: 2180
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 15:45
Location: The Hague, NL

Re: SolydXK 10 Testing [updated: 31-07-2019]

Postby grizzler » 04 Aug 2019 10:08

ilu wrote:
04 Aug 2019 00:14
I re-read your post several times and tried to figure out whether you think there was too much removed in the 64bit images or not enough?
To be honest, I didn't even look at it that way. I upgraded my 32-bit build structures, just to see if that worked, and then ran a compare. That showed an unusually large number of packages had been removed from the 64-bit sets. I decided to do the same to the 32-bit ones and that's when the autoremove suggestions came up.
Generally I think less packages on initial install is better. The ISOs seemed to carry a lot of stuff for historical reasons. Everything that's not really needed for basic functions on common hardware (in a broad sense, including old, but not ancient) and the applications we want to have should be removed. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Nope. Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion.
Should I go through your tarball file? On first glance I can see a lot of packages which IMHO were removed with good reason but also some that need to be checked. Or did I misunderstand your post?
Possibly. The file in that tarball was just an example of the output of my build scripts' compare function. It showed the state of the 32-bit SolydX after upgrading, but before removing the packages that had already been removed from the 64-bit ISO.
The markauto problem is something different of course and I don't know how to go about that.
Well, for starters the constructor needs to be fixed, so it stops marking everything as manually installed. After that, the 32-bit sets could provide a list of packages that should be marked automatically installed and this could be fed to the 64-bit sets' apt-mark.
After that, we need to be careful whenever a dummy/transitional package is removed, because that could mean another package needs to be marked as manually installed.
Edit: I'm presently working my way through the tarball. I think most stuff got removed with a reason. See the results here: viewtopic.php?f=78&t=7567&p=70749#p70749
I don't doubt that. I'll provide some more info later, after I've 'polished' the script I mentioned earlier.
Frank

SolydX EE 64 - tracking Debian Testing

User avatar
Arjen Balfoort
Site Admin
Posts: 9330
Joined: 26 Jan 2013 19:36
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: SolydXK 10 Testing [updated: 31-07-2019]

Postby Arjen Balfoort » 04 Aug 2019 10:42

I've downloaded the 32-bit ISOs and created a list with packages that are marked auto:

Code: Select all

apt-mark showauto > showauto-x-32.txt
Now, I am running this bash script (together with the above txt) in SolydX 10:

Code: Select all

#!/bin/bash
for P in $(cat showauto-x-32.txt); do
    if [ ! -z "$(dpkg-query -l $P 2>/dev/null)" ]; then
        if [ ! -z $(apt-mark showmanual $P) ]; then
            echo $P >> showauto-x-32.log
            apt-mark auto $P
        fi
    fi
done
I know that the package check is not needed but I'd like to have a log file with packages that were changed.

In cleanup.sh (solydxk-constructor) I have removed the line:

Code: Select all

aptitude -y unmarkauto ~M
Later today (I have to go) I will build a new ISO to see if that (including Ilu's purges and installs) works out.

Log file for SolydX (set to auto):

Code: Select all

breeze-icon-theme
btrfs-progs
coinor-libcoinmp1v5
coinor-libcoinutils3v5
coinor-libosi1v5
cowsay-off
cryptsetup
distro-info-data
evolvere-icon-theme-additional
evolvere-icon-theme-flat-vivid-sunken
f2fs-tools
font-manager
fonts-lato
fonts-noto-mono
fuse2fs
geoipupdate
gir1.2-gst-plugins-base-1.0
gir1.2-gstreamer-1.0
gnome-desktop3-data
gnome-menus
gnome-packagekit-data
gnupg-l10n
gstreamer1.0-plugins-bad
gtk-update-icon-cache
gtk3-engines-breeze-x
haveged
hfsprogs
hunspell-en-us
iio-sensor-proxy
imagemagick-6-common
initramfs-tools-core
inotify-tools
libapparmor1
libapt-inst2.0
libapt-pkg5.0
libatkmm-1.6-1v5
libbasicusageenvironment1
libbdplus0
libbs2b0
libc-l10n
libcairomm-1.0-1v5
libcc1-0
libchromaprint1
libclucene-contribs1v5
libclucene-core1v5
libcmis-0.5-5v5
libcolamd2
libcwidget3v5
libde265-0
libdrm-amdgpu1
libdvbpsi10
libebml4v5
libefiboot1
libefivar1
libept1.5.0
libexiv2-14
libfdisk1
libffmpegthumbnailer4v5
libfluidsynth1
libgail-common
libgdata-common
libgdata22
libgif7
libglibmm-2.4-1v5
libgnutls30
libgphoto2-port12
libgroupsock8
libgstreamer-plugins-bad1.0-0
libgtkmm-2.4-1v5
libgtkmm-3.0-1v5
libgucharmap-2-90-7
libhavege1
libhogweed4
libimobiledevice6
libinotifytools0
libinput-bin
libinput10
libio-stringy-perl
libip4tc0
libip6tc0
libiptc0
libjavascriptcoregtk-4.0-18
libjson-c3
libjsoncpp1
libkeybinder-3.0-0
libldap-common
liblensfun-data-v1
liblensfun1
liblirc-client0
liblognorm5
liblouis-bin
liblouis-data
liblouisutdml-bin
liblouisutdml-data
liblz4-1
libmagic-mgc
libmatroska6v5
libmaxminddb0
libmicrodns0
libmjpegutils-2.1-0
libmpeg2encpp-2.1-0
libmplex2-2.1-0
libnettle6
libnghttp2-14
libnm0
libnma0
libnpth0
libnuma1
liboauth0
liboobs-1-5
libopenjfx-java
libopenjfx-jni
libopenjp2-7
libopenmpt-modplug1
libopenobex2
libpagemaker-0.0-0
libpangomm-1.4-1v5
libplist3
libplymouth4
libpng16-16
libproxy1v5
libpsl5
libqmi-glib5
libqt5core5a
libqt5dbus5
libqt5gui5
libqt5network5
libqt5svg5
libqt5widgets5
libqt5x11extras5
libreadline7
libreoffice-style-breeze
librubberband2
libsbc1
libsctp1
libseccomp2
libservlet3.1-java
libsigc++-2.0-0v5
libsnappy1v5
libsoundtouch1
libsoxr0
libssh-gcrypt-4
libssl1.1
libtag1v5
libtag1v5-vanilla
libtfm1
libtry-tiny-perl
libtypes-serialiser-perl
libusageenvironment3
libusbmuxd4
libvdpau-va-gl1
libvlc-bin
libvlccore9
libvncclient1
libvncserver1
libvte-2.91-0
libvte-2.91-common
libwacom-bin
libwacom-common
libwacom2
libwebkit2gtk-4.0-37
libwebkit2gtk-4.0-37-gtk2
libwebp6
libwebpdemux2
libwebrtc-audio-processing1
libwildmidi2
libwps-0.4-4
libxapian30
libxcb-render-util0
libxcb-xinerama0
libxcb-xkb1
libxcomp3
libxfce4panel-2.0-4
libxfce4ui-2-0
libxfce4ui-common
libxfce4util7
libxfont2
libxkbcommon-x11-0
libxnvctrl0
libxtables12
libyaml-0-2
libzmq5
light-locker
lightning
menulibre
mesa-vdpau-drivers
nilfs-tools
p7zip
perl-openssl-defaults
pinentry-gnome3
publicsuffix
pulseaudio-module-zeroconf
python-bs4
python-html5lib
python-webencodings
python3-apparmor
python3-cups
python3-cupshelpers
python3-dateutil
python3-geoip2
python3-libapparmor
python3-maxminddb
python3-parted
python3-pil
python3-psutil
python3-ptyprocess
python3-pyqt4
python3-requests
python3-sip
python3-smbc
python3-urllib3
qt-at-spi
qt5-gtk-platformtheme
qttranslations5-l10n
system-config-printer-common
update-glx
vdpau-driver-all
vlc-bin
vlc-l10n
vlc-plugin-base
vlc-plugin-qt
vlc-plugin-skins2
vlc-plugin-video-output
vlc-plugin-video-splitter
vlc-plugin-visualization
x11vnc-data
xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin
xfce4-taskmanager
xserver-xorg-input-libinput
xserver-xorg-video-amdgpu


SolydXK needs you!
Development | Testing | Translations

User avatar
grizzler
Posts: 2180
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 15:45
Location: The Hague, NL

Re: SolydXK 10 Testing [updated: 31-07-2019]

Postby grizzler » 04 Aug 2019 13:30

The attached tarball contains the imt-cmp script, which can be used to compare installed packages in two build structures. You can run it from anywhere, but the easiest is to put it in the directory that contains the directories with the build structures and then open a terminal on that directory.

Run it like this:

Code: Select all

./imt-cmp  name-of-first-directory  name-of-second-directory
It should open the result in a text editor.

If you put it in ~/bin or /usr/local/bin, you shouldn't need the ./ bit.
The two arguments can be full pathnames or simple directory names, depending on the current working directory in your terminal.

It produces a list similar to the one in the previous tarball in this thread, but with a bit more at the end, i.e. a list of packages from the first column that happen to be dummy/transitional packages and the 'aptitude show' output for each of those. In case you decide to remove packages from the first column, this extra output can be checked to see if you need to change another package.

Two examples from the SolydX comparison on my own system: gnupg-agent (provides gpg-agent) and pk-update-icon (for package-update-indicator).
The first one doesn't require further action because gpg-agent is also a dependency of gnupg. The second however, does. If package-update-indicator's status isn't changed to manually installed, autoremove will remove it.

The script creates some files in /tmp/imt-cmp.
Attachments
imt-cmp.tar.gz
(971 Bytes) Downloaded 14 times
Frank

SolydX EE 64 - tracking Debian Testing


Return to “Testing Zone”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests