Apt-get Question...

Hi, I am abusing this forum again, I know... But it did say anything goes!

I am trying to use fedora, I don't know how to go about installing apt-get, becuase apt-get isn't installed to get-apt-get with apt-get!!!

Is there an easy way to do this in fedora? Please be gentle, I only know windows terms and functions so if you say to me just install it and run it, I won't have the slightest clue on how to do it.

I also haven't ever really used much of the *nix command line. So you might need to spell it out to me. Thank-you anyone that might try to help me.

I don't know why you would want to mix an rpm-based system with an apt-based system. If you're using fedora, you should go to redhat and rpm something called yum, which is similar to apt-get used in debian based systems. Yum is primarily for rpm based systems, but it functions similar to apt-get from what documentation I've read so far. Why don't you give that a try?

AFAIK you don't use apt-get with Fedora, you use rpm (RedHat Package Manager) instead. This is not the place to discuss this tool in depth, but anyway, here are a few starting points. You need to download the *.rpm file(s) or have them on a CD and then:
rpm -i package # install it
rpm -ivv package # be *very* verbose
rpm -U package # upgrade it
rpm -F package # upgrade only if already installed
rpm -Uvh --force yourRPMname.rpm --nodeps # install no matter what
rpm -e package # uninstall it
rpm -V package # check integrity of files installed by package
rpm -qa | grep keyword # search all the rpms you have installed for a keyword
rpm -qpi package # find out what's in an uninstalled package
rpm -qpl package #list files in package
rpm -qi package # same as above for installed packages
rpm -ql package # find out what files just got installed by a rpm
rpm -qf file # show package 'file' belongs to
rpm --test package # don't install, test + report


HTH and doesn't offend pure debianists here :-)

Thanks, I will.

BTW, I don't have any loyalties to Fedora, it is just one of the easier installs I have tried so far. (Free ones anyway) I wish Debian was easy to install, I DL all seven disks and I couldn't get past disk one!!! What a land fill problem, not to mention the wasted money!

Another note:
I thought (or read somewhere) that Fedora was able to use apt-get now. Or a program that bolts on to Fedora and allows (most) apt-get packages to install. (Might be wrong, but thought so)

Again thanks, have a good day/night depending on your Big Blue Marble location.

A little Googling will go a long way.

• Article: Keeping Fedora Up to Date With Yum
• Wiki: Fedora HOWTO
• Yum's home page
• Fedora Legacy Project Documentation page

(Looks interesting -- and a lot like apt!)

There is a beta DVD of the latest Debian, Sarge, on the cover of the June issue of Linux Magazine. The new installer is streets better than anything that went before, but there is still a problem with lack of a dynamic space counter during package selection. It only reverts to the familiar IT gibberish in the final stages of the install process (presumably this is where the 'work in progress' has gotten to). Even I was able to bypass this by selecting just the working desktop, pressing enter to all the irrelevant garbage then using the DVD to apt-get the rest of the combo I wanted once it was running. In truth, the full working Debian is a delight to behold, even if it takes a dozen attempts to get there! The sensible approach to further development would seem to be to set up a 'clean room' in which random volunteers, straight off-the-street, were invited to install it, use it, break it - perhaps with the offer of the proverbial free lunch?! There really is no mileage in having these things tested by the cognoscenti - seems obvious except to those closest to the action?
OG.

Go to http://www.open-carpet.org

Download their open-carpet rpm.

Follow link to Ximian and get RedCarpet (redcarpet, rug and rcd rpms) > follow install instructions on both sites.

RedCarpet accesses both Yum and Apt repositories (though not ftp:// ones).

Open-Carpet installs a slew of operating repositories.

Works for me better, than Synaptic too!

master_b

I just want to say think-you to this community. The members here are the best of any Linux forum going. I have learned more on this site than I have on all the others put together.

Some sites are full of rude Linux Gurus that are mean and nasty. They talk to you like you are stupid or get mad at you because you don't know what they know. "RTFM" is their way of helping everyone. Even if you don't know what that means, they will still tell you that! It's just like, because they know, they think it is common knowledge.

Anyway, I just wanted to let you all know, that I have learned from the best here, and you all should be proud of yourselves. You have given freely. Just like the GNU and the Linux stand behind.

Thank-you.

Hunkah,
Have you tried the hard Drive install of Knoppix?It's very nice, I have in running on 4 computers. Open a console and as root type "knoppix-installer" The GUI will lead you through an install now you have a configured Debian system complete with apt-get. :D

I am thinking about junking my fedora install and trying that. But Fedora is about to release the final Core 2 in two days. I think I will wait for that first. I don't like to install more than one OS on a HDD. Mostly because I am still trying to differentiate between a hdd partition and a linux partition. They both look the same to me. So I just work with one OS at a time to save the confusion.

To explain further abaout the partition confusion:
In windows world there is a partition (C:\) it has a fat (or varient) or ntfs file system. I understand the diffrence between Primary and Logical partitions.

Then there is:
/ partiton (aka root too)
/root partition
/boot partition
/flute partiton
/poot partition
/swap partition

Frig, I think this is the hardest thing to figure out in the Linux world. I love the explorer interface. I think it is the best thing that windows has going for it. It makes sense. It just does!

But for some reason there is something blocking me from learning it the same thing in the linux world. I will start, then I give up after only three minutes of trying to study it.

I start to read about it then I take a huge inhale of air, then I exhale and quit trying. I noticed it the last two times I tried.

BTW, thanks for the input... I will probably try this in a week or so. Once I have tried Fedora Core 2.

"I love the explorer interface. I think it is the best thing that windows has going for it."
Exactly! 'doze has absolutely nothing going for it!
For browsing, you just haven't lived until you've used Mozilla 1.6 or Firefox 0.8, which are extremely intuitive - the latter super-fast, too. Now Opera 7.50 has gone gold, and although it is a little more difficult to use, it is still miles ahead of IE, intuitive, feature rich, smallest and was the one that introduced tabbed browsing. It can also save whole sessions. Don't even contemplate continuing using the bug-ridden, security hazard called Explorer.
For regular file access and manipulation, KDE Konq is adequate, but there's a large selection of entirely different UIs that appeal to different folks. Take a look at Flonix to decide whether that suits you better?
OG

I think you are mistaking what I meant. IE vs. EI (explorer interface)
Internet Explorer now sucks in compairison to Firefox! I totally agree with you one that.

But I have yet to find a "File Browser" that works as nice as "Windows Explorer" (Windows Explorer is not Internet Explorer) I have tried many of them Konq just doesn't work for me. It is too confusing. I like the detailed view with the folders window open. To me that is as good as it gets.

Please, if anyone knows of one that looks and feels like "Windows Explorer" tell me! I would love to see what it looks like. It will help me understand the linux filesystem!

You could try xfe, but it isn'e nearly as full featured as konqueror. Konqueror can be made to output detailed view like you have in windows explorer. All you had to do was change the view mode to detailed view. It's that simple.

Btw, windows explorer is internet explorer. Don't believe me? When you go to windows, right-click explorer.exe and right-click iexplore.exe. You'll see they are one and the same, just tweaked to view things differently. The explorer.exe from win95/NT has the one that's not the same as iexplore.exe. You can also do a test, open windows explorer and type www.yahoo.com in the address box. Be prepared to get shocked and pick your jaw up off the floor.

Durand

Sorry, yes I did know that... I was just, umm, yah... I guess I can't talk my way out of that one.

I did know that IE is Explorer. But I also said they weren't the same thing. What I meant was the GUI isn't the same.

Here! This is what I like!!!
http://members.lycos.co.uk/hunkah/explorer.png

Which features in Explorer's GUI aren't in Konqueror? Konqueror does the sidebar and all...

http://pictures.champagnemojo.com/konqueror.jpg

Alright, I know I can mimic the GUI but...
The breakdown is what I don't get. It just seems so confusing.
I know this is just nit-picking off an elephant's butt, but I guess it is something that I will learn eventually.

One question I do have is, are Disks/Partitions/(File System)/Folders/Files the exact same thing in Linux as it is in windows? Like for some reason I find that people will interchange the word Partition for the word Folder. For example, When I do an install it looks as though I have three partitions. Yet isn't /root a partiton also? Or does /root exist within "/" partition? Frig, I am over complicating this, I know. But I think I am starting to think I have a handicap. I can't go to point C until I get from A to B first.

This is the thing I am confused about most. If I ever get this nailed down... I think I will like working with linux. I just hate not knowing where things are and how it is logically set up.

The other thing that drives me crazy is the details view doesn't stick in Konqueror! Every time I burrow down into the file system, it changes back to icon view for every folder I go down. Is there anyway to "save settings"?

I think I understand what you're asking about the partitions/folders thing. It depends on how you install things. If you just run knoppix-installer and don't mess with the config file at all everything will be just folders (/home, /root, etc.). But it's possible to specify a separate partition for things like /home, so that you can reinstall without losing all the stuff inside of it. Does that make sense?

If you want your details view to stick, first set the details view, and desired sort order if you like, then click on settings>save view profile: filemanagement. That will make it stick.

Quote:

---

One question I do have is, are Disks/Partitions/(File System)/Folders/Files the exact same thing in Linux as it is in windows? Like for some reason I find that people will interchange the word Partition for the word Folder. For example, When I do an install it looks as though I have three partitions. Yet isn't /root a partiton also? Or does /root exist within "/" partition?

---

In Linux, the file system begins with / (root) and expands like an upside-down tree. Hard disk partitions can be mounted anywhere within that tree, and are usually mounted on directories specifically created to be used as mount points.

When you run the Knoppix installer, unless you manually change its configuration file, it installs itself completely on one hard disk partition, mounted as / (root). However, the books I've read often recommend using three or more hard disk partitions for Linux, usually /, /home, and /boot (so that if one of those partitions gets screwed up, the damage is limited to that one partition).

And of course there's the swap partition, which you can't "see" within Linux.

Say you have a Windows partition on hda1, and you mount it within Knoppix at /mnt/hda1. All /mnt/hda1 is, before you mount the Windows partition, is a directory you intend to use as a mount point. You could use it to store files. But as soon as you mounted the Windows partition on it, you'd no longer see the files you saved there...until you unmounted the Windows partition again.

You could theoretically mount the Windows partition to any directory you wanted to, but it would mess things up if you mounted it to the wrong one!

Your CD-ROM is (in Debian, at least) mounted at /cdrom, which again is just a regular directory before you actually mount your CD-ROM there.

(It's too bad Windows got people in the habit of using the term "folder" instead of "directories" and "subdirectories." Just makes things conceptually harder to understand IMHO.)

To underline one issue:

The root partition is '/' but there is a directory '/root', which is the home of root and called :) ... 'root'.
Normally, the home of root isn't an own partition.

In most cases it would be good to refer to partitions as /dev/hda7, and to directorys as /usr/share.
To say: "There are only 10 MB free space left on /usr/share" isn't accurate - since you don't use quotas - but 'free space on /dev/hda7'.

One difference between Windows and Linux is the idea, to hide the hardware-issues from the user.
You don't have to manage 'Drive A: C: D:' - these are mounted (or not) to the filesystem. This is useful, if you try to find files, no matter on which partition you lost them :), using the commandline.
Another big difference is the existance of symbolic links. They don't exist in Windows.
And there is no /dev /proc /sys - filesystem on windows.

To: Hunkah, and anyone interested in how partitions, directories, subdirectories, files, and folders are related.

Some of what follows has been mentioned or alluded to earlier in this thread. When I started this reply, I wasn't intending to write a book. Anyway, I hope there is some info here that helps you see things more clearly.

A PARTITION is a physically defined space on the hard drive. This space must be FORMATTED (ie. have a base file system installed) in order to be used by the operating system. This is true for DOS, MSWindows and all variations of Linux. A hard drive can have multiple partitions, and each can be formatted and used independently of the other.

In MSWindows, you can have two physical partitions -- PRIMARY and EXTENDED. If the entire drive is set up and formatted as one large partition, this will be drive "C:". If you want more partitions in MSWindows, the first part of the hard drive will be defined as the PRIMARY partition (C:), and the rest of the drive (or part of it -- however you choose to set things up) will be an EXTENDED partition, and drives D:, E:, etc. will be created as LOGICAL (or VIRTUAL) partitions within this EXTENDED partition. The tool to create partitions for MSWindows is Microsoft FDISK.

Linux systems use a different (though similar) scheme. You can have as many as four PRIMARY partitions. If you want more than four, one of these must be an EXTENDED partition, and additional partitions will be created within this space. The naming convention is logical. The first hard drive is "hda", the second hard drive is "hdb". The first partition of "hda" is hda1, the second partition is hda2, etc. The partitions can be set up and formatted as different types -- for example: swap, ext2, ext3, reiserfs, xfs, etc. The tool to create these partitions is Linux FDISK, or CFDISK. The Linux partitioning tools will also create partitions for MSWindows if you have both MSWindows and Linux on the same hard drive.

When installing the Linux filesystem, the base of it all is "/", which we call "root", as in the root of the file system "tree". And as a tree has roots, and branches, and branches have branches, and branches have leaves, so the file system has "root", and "directories, and subdirectories, and files.

A DIRECTORY is a part of the file system. In Linux, the main directories are "/bin", "/boot", "/dev", "/etc", "/home", on thru "/var". These contain branch directories which are sometimes called subdirectories. "/etc" is where most configuration files are located. "/home" is where all users and user data is kept. "/root" is where the files of the Master User (system administrator, if you prefer) are kept.

Microsoft used a directory tree naming convention until Win95, when they decided to make the file system analogous to a file cabinet instead of a tree. Thus you have the cabinet, drawers, folders, and the documents in the folders. From this you can see that "directory" and "folder" are roughly the same thing.

Now here is where it gets interesting. In Linux a DIRECTORY can simply be a part of the file system. When Knoppix is installed on a hard drive, it is set up this way -- one PARTITION containing the entire file system. But a DIRECTORY can also be placed on a separate PARTITION that is linked to the filesystem, and thru this link functions as an integral part of the filesystem.

Example: Let's say you installed Knoppix on a hard drive in partition "hda1", and that "hda2" is set up as a "swap" partition. When you reformat "hda1" (to install a different version or whatever), all settings and data will be lost if they have not been backed up. If "hda3" is set up as "/home", all data and program settings in "/home" would be unaffected if you format "hda1". Granted, you will have to set this up by hand in the file system table (/etc/fstab), but this is not as complicated as it sounds.

You may never do some of the things mentioned above, but be aware of the possibilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kansas

But a DIRECTORY can also be placed on a separate PARTITION that is linked to the filesystem, and thru this link functions as an integral part of the filesystem.

---

I might nerve, but a filesystem might be on a different partition, and this might be mounted to the root-filesystem.

Code:

---

mount /dev/hda1/windows /mnt/windows

---

will not work, nor will

Code:

---

mount /dev/hda1 /mnt/foo

---

if there is no filesystem on /dev/hda1.

linking is a well defined term, when talking about linux filesystems, and should therefore not been mixed up with mounting.
When you create a link, the target must not exist, while when mounting, the target must exist.

I don't mean to jump the gun, but I have fedora core 1 using the apt-get stuff. freshrpms.net has a version of apt that can use rpm based repositories. The official site even provides a copy of apt that you can use. You can use either apt OR yum but not both at the same time. Here is a copy of my /etc/apt/sources.list file:

Code:

---

# List of available apt repositories available from ayo.freshrpms.net.
# This file should contain an uncommented default suitable for your system.
#
# See http://ayo.freshrpms.net/ for a list of other repositories and mirrors.
#
# $Id: sources.list.i386 378 2004-04-30 16:33:52Z dude $

# Fedora Linux Development
#rpm http://ayo.freshrpms.net fedora/linux/development/i386 core
#rpm http://ayo.freshrpms.net fedora/linux/1/i386 freshrpms
#rpm-src http://ayo.freshrpms.net fedora/linux/development/i386 core
#rpm-src http://ayo.freshrpms.net fedora/linux/1/i386 freshrpms

# Fedora Linux 1
rpm http://ayo.freshrpms.net fedora/linux/1/i386 core updates freshrpms
#rpm http://ayo.freshrpms.net fedora/linux/1/i386 tupdates
rpm-src http://ayo.freshrpms.net fedora/linux/1/i386 core updates freshrpms
#rpm-src http://ayo.freshrpms.net fedora/linux/1/i386 tupdates

# Red Hat Linux 9
#rpm http://ayo.freshrpms.net redhat/9/i386 os updates freshrpms
#rpm-src http://ayo.freshrpms.net redhat/9/i386 os updates freshrpms

# Red Hat Linux 8.0
#rpm http://ayo.freshrpms.net redhat/8.0/i386 os updates freshrpms
#rpm-src http://ayo.freshrpms.net redhat/8.0/i386 os updates freshrpms

# Red Hat Linux 7.3
#rpm http://ayo.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/i386 os updates freshrpms
#rpm-src http://ayo.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/i386 os updates freshrpms

# Red Hat Linux 7.2
#rpm http://ayo.freshrpms.net redhat/7.2/i386 os updates freshrpms
#rpm-src http://ayo.freshrpms.net redhat/7.2/i386 os updates freshrpms

# Red Hat Linux 7.1
#rpm http://ayo.freshrpms.net redhat/7.1/i386 os updates freshrpms
#rpm http://ayo.freshrpms.net redhat/7.1/i386 powertools dma
#rpm-src http://ayo.freshrpms.net redhat/7.1/i386 os updates freshrpms
#rpm-src http://ayo.freshrpms.net redhat/7.1/i386 powertools dma

# Red Hat Linux 7.0
#rpm http://ayo.freshrpms.net redhat/7.0/i386 os updates freshrpms
#rpm http://ayo.freshrpms.net redhat/7.0/i386 powertools dma
#rpm-src http://ayo.freshrpms.net redhat/7.0/i386 os updates freshrpms
#rpm-src http://ayo.freshrpms.net redhat/7.0/i386 powertools dma

# Red Hat Linux 6.2
#rpm http://ayo.freshrpms.net redhat/6.2/i386 os updates freshrpms
#rpm http://ayo.freshrpms.net redhat/6.2/i386 powertools
#rpm-src http://ayo.freshrpms.net redhat/6.2/i386 os updates freshrpms
#rpm-src http://ayo.freshrpms.net redhat/6.2/i386 powertools

# DAG
rpm http://apt.sw.be redhat/fc1/en/i386 dag

# NewRPMS
rpm http://newrpms.sunsite.dk/apt/ redhat/en/i386/fc1 newrpms
#rpm-src http://newrpms.sunsite.dk/apt/ redhat/en/i386/fc1 newrpms

# ATrpms
rpm http://apt.physik.fu-berlin.de fedora/1/en/i386 at-testing
#rpm-src http://apt.physik.fu-berlin.de fedora/1/en/i386 at-testing

# Dries
rpm http://dries.studentenweb.org apt/fedora/fc1/i386 dries
#rpm-src http://dries.studentenweb.org apt/fedora/fc1/i386 dries

---

If you want apt for Fedora, just go to www.freshrpms.net and follow the links to get apt-rpm, then make your /etc/apt/sources.list look like mine, and there you go. Fully functional apt running on a RedHat product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by user unknown

linking is a well defined term, when talking about linux filesystems, and should therefore not been mixed up with mounting.

---

I used the term "linked" in its traditional English language sense meaning "to tie together". Not in the Unix sense of "to make a link". Perhaps I should have said "tied", or "tie".

I did not refer to "mount" at all because I didn't want to throw yet another term into the discussion. I did say this can be done in "/etc/fstab", which we both know will "mount" a partition in a way that is completely transparent to the user. If a directory that is part of the filesystem is on a separate partition that is mounted by /etc/fstab, then the filesystem will be intact once again. The user need not even be aware this is happening.