[mythtv-users] Backend consolidation, continued...

[Clay]

jedi wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:51:24AM +1200, Nick Rout wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Clay <ctmythtv at pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> Mike McMullin wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 12:23 -0700, Clay wrote:
>>>>> f-myth-users at media.mit.edu wrote:
>>>>>>     > Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:49:57 -0700
>>>>>>     > From: Clay <ctmythtv at pacbell.net>
>>>>>>>     > Fscking ubuntu doesn't lshw anymore so from memory, the
>>>>>>> hardware is:
>>>>>>> Can you explain this comment?
>>>>>>> I've never seen one for which lshw didn't work, including 10.04,
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>> is the latest release.  What exactly did you try, and what exactly did
>>>>>> you see when you did?
>>>>> $ lshw
>>>>> $ sudo lshw
>>>>> $ apropos lshw
>>>>> $ apropos ls
>>>>>
>>>>> command not found, or some such.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure it's just another byproduct of doing a net install after the CD
>>>>> install failed.
>>>>  Just a suggestion but have you tried to installing it?
>>>>
>>> I'm sure that would resolve it. I've found a couple commands missing and
>>> installed them. Probably others missing I haven't tried yet.
>>> I don't think chasing all the things missing from the install is the correct
>>> (easy) way to debug backend troubles.
>>>
>>> The long version:
>>> I originally installed from the alternate CD. Everything was fine but I saw
>>> the drive I chose to do the install on had 3 years uptime on it.
>>> I put a fresh drive in and the install failed. (I've since concluded the CD
>>> was good once, since it installed, but it failed on other machines after
>>> that.)
>>> Anyway, I installed the kernel from the CD then installed everything else
>>> from the repos.
>>> Evidently, lots of stuff got left uninstalled...
>>>
>> try running dpkg --get-selections >package-list on a live cd. The file
>> package-list should contain a list of installed packages.
> 
>    It's so easy installing stuff in Debian or Ubuntu that it really doesn't
> make much sense getting upset about your particular pet tool not being 
> installed by default. 

Not a pet, just a tool. (pet tool is 'locate'*g*)
I was surprised bash didn't prompt, as it does many times, "program 
'bla' is not installed, to install..."


As long as it is still "supported" and they are
> building and including it, then it's a trivial thing to add later.
> 
>    apt-get build-dep is a thing of beauty and well worth a few quirks.

yes, it is.
Thanks!