jscoder 2017-02-04 00:45:22
or simply that apt works, but not with the progress
nicofrand 2017-02-04 00:45:23
that must be some misconfiguration on my server, this seems to work fine for other people, and on my ubuntu computer (yeah I know, not debian, just saying)
nicofrand 2017-02-04 00:45:54
jscoder apt works, the thing (deconf-apt-progress) to display the progress does not
SynrG 2017-02-04 00:46:02
agreed that helping you debug random scripts not in debian is out of scope for here
SynrG 2017-02-04 00:46:29
maybe the script's usage of debconf-apt-progress is incorrect?
jscoder 2017-02-04 00:47:27
sounds like user error is the issue if in fact he uses the exact same script on another box with another OS and it works. That user error may or may not be compounded by certain configuration or feature differences of the packages in debian
nicofrand 2017-02-04 00:47:31
SynrG nope, I just tried the command myself (so, not using the script) and it seems conform to the manual
jscoder 2017-02-04 00:47:53
either way, the upstream developer would be in the best position to know what the hell that script does and what it needs to do it.
jscoder 2017-02-04 00:48:07
you'd want to compile a detailed bug report and send it upstream to the developer(s)
SynrG 2017-02-04 00:48:14
of debconf?
SynrG 2017-02-04 00:48:42
if we're talking about "debconf-apt-progress" which as i pointed out, is part of debconf itself, it *is* very much a part of debian ...
jscoder 2017-02-04 00:48:48
include info like package versions on the system of related packages (e.g. dpkg -l debconf-apt-progress) and such
nicofrand 2017-02-04 00:48:50
(I checked "man debconf-apt-progress")
SynrG 2017-02-04 00:48:53
and discussion about it is appropriate for here
nicofrand 2017-02-04 00:48:57
SynrG I am
SynrG 2017-02-04 00:49:21
and filing a bug from a debian system on debconf itself is also appropriate (i.e. no need to "find upstream" and file a bug there)
jscoder 2017-02-04 00:49:58
if apt is working without this 3rd party script it is probably the script not debconf that has the issue
SynrG 2017-02-04 00:50:16
nicofrand: it has some stringent requirements for what 'command' should do. you sure you've met those?
SynrG 2017-02-04 00:50:26
jscoder: agreed with that statement.
jscoder 2017-02-04 00:50:48
and as I said it MAY be due to a debconf feature not in that version or that has been patched, but the developer of the SCRIPT would know best where the issue lies
nicofrand 2017-02-04 00:51:05
SynrG I guess. What do you have in mind ? I just tried "debconf-apt-progress -- apt-get update"
jscoder 2017-02-04 00:51:19
if you hear from that upstream developer, then check the debian BTS against what he tells you, then you may still need to file a bug under debian
SynrG 2017-02-04 00:51:24
nicofrand: "specifically it must ..." make sure your apt frontend command meets those requirements
SynrG 2017-02-04 00:51:48
nicofrand: it may be that the script makes assumptions about what options are enabled (or implemented)
nicofrand 2017-02-04 00:52:22
I am trying the command myself here, once I make it work, I'll use the script again, but for now I just forget the script.
SynrG 2017-02-04 00:52:35
nicofrand: so it could either be a deficiency in the implementation of the apt frontend (feature not yet supported) or else in the default configuration of that frontend (i.e. your script must override the defaults)
SynrG 2017-02-04 00:52:54
since i haven't studied in depth, i couldn't say which
nicofrand 2017-02-04 00:53:04
ok then I have to find if "apt-get update" is well configured to send progress information
SynrG 2017-02-04 00:53:21
nicofrand: exactly. i bet it just doesn't meet the requirements
thecha 2017-02-04 00:53:27
how can i change the ownership of an exteranl in debian
thecha 2017-02-04 00:53:46
i try the normal instructions and it comes back as 'error' no permitted'
nicofrand 2017-02-04 00:54:31
ok thank you SynrG
SynrG 2017-02-04 00:54:37
best of luck
jscoder 2017-02-04 00:54:48
thecha: a what?
jscoder 2017-02-04 00:55:07
thecha: are you talking about a removable storage device?
SynrG 2017-02-04 00:55:20
thecha: yes, a what? :) we have no idea what "an external" means. be more specific.
SynrG 2017-02-04 00:55:35
otherwise, we're left to guessing ...
jscoder 2017-02-04 00:55:52
SynrG: an external is one that dangles between your legs..
jscoder 2017-02-04 00:56:13
some people have them turned inside out and stuffed internally now..
jscoder 2017-02-04 00:56:23
I heard medicare may cover it soon
tehcha 2017-02-04 00:57:26
hang on let me read out the devices information from comand line
tehcha 2017-02-04 00:57:36
thanks for helping me help you
tehcha 2017-02-04 00:57:40
help me
tehcha 2017-02-04 00:57:41
lol
tehcha 2017-02-04 01:05:33
hwinfo didnt work
tehcha 2017-02-04 01:05:52
it is an usb hdd wich i have plugged into debian via usb
tehcha 2017-02-04 01:06:38
i have mounted it belonging to the root user
tehcha 2017-02-04 01:07:06
and i want to change the ownership of one folder on there to www-data if possible
jayshols 2017-02-04 01:08:29
Kkk
jscoder 2017-02-04 01:14:03
tehcha: what is the filesystem?
tehcha 2017-02-04 01:16:16
the filesystem is fat32
tehcha 2017-02-04 01:16:48
I wanted to do the ntfs-3g but it only became available just recently even though i installed it days ago
jscoder 2017-02-04 01:17:21
o.O
jscoder 2017-02-04 01:18:22
ok, well look, windows filesystems be they fat or ntfs do not have unix style permissions, so the mount command sets the permissions globally
jscoder 2017-02-04 01:18:42
you can set -o uid=foo,gid=bar options to have a user and a group
jscoder 2017-02-04 01:18:55
dpkg umsdos
dpkg 2017-02-04 01:18:55
UMSDOS was an overlay filesystem driver for the Linux kernel, providing a traditional Unix filesystem within a FAT volume. It allowed Linux distributions to be installed within an existing FAT filesystem, avoiding disk partitioning and ext2 filesystem establishment. Removed at Linux 2.6.11 due to lack of maintenance, see http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/7/11/68
jscoder 2017-02-04 01:19:19
apparently umsdos isn't even around anymore
jscoder 2017-02-04 01:20:07
I just attempted to use a bind mount with different permissions on an ntfs partition to attempt to change the permissions of a single folder, it doesn't work
nicofrand 2017-02-04 01:41:56
SynrG sorry to bother you again, but I can't find any way to check it. "apt-get upgrade --show-progress" works fine though. I can't find any log from debconf either that would point me to the good direction to know where it fails (if this comes from apt-get or not)…
