Restore Dapper after Edgy

[John L Fjellstad]

NoOp <glgxg at mfire.com> writes:

> John L Fjellstad wrote:
>> aptitude install ubuntu-desktop/dapper
>
> I sincerely hope that is not the answer.
>
> However, if it is perhaps you mean sudo aptitude install
> ubuntu-desktop/dapper?

Well, yeah.  I kinda presume you knew you needed root privileges to
install stuff. 

> sudo aptitude install ubuntu-desktop/dapper
> Password:
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree... Done
> Reading extended state information
> Initializing package states... Done
> Building tag database... Done
> The following NEW packages will be automatically installed:
>   openoffice.org-common openoffice.org-core
> The following packages will be automatically REMOVED:
>   openoffice.org-debian-menus
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>   openoffice.org openoffice.org-common openoffice.org-core
>   openoffice.org-evolution openoffice.org-gnome openoffice.org-gtk
>   openoffice.org-java-common ubuntu-desktop
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
>   openoffice.org-debian-menus
> 0 packages upgraded, 8 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
> Need to get 13.8kB/58.9MB of archives. After unpacking 145MB will be used.
>
> So my question then would be; why is openoffice an integral part to the
> ubuntu desktop?  For instance, if you install the ubuntu desktop package
> in Synaptics it will show that it is installing the above openoffice.org
> files. Again, this seems to be the IE to Microsoft situation.

Apple and oranges. Ubuntu didn't create OOo.  Ubuntu is not a monopoly,
either in the operating system arena or in the linux distribution arena.

Think of the linux distributions as OEMs.  OEMs like Dell, HP etc
bundles certain software packages when you buy their PC, like a virus
scanner, cd burner etc etc.  You're free to install whatever you want,
but the OEMs have to make some decision on what they should bundle their
system with.

Same with Ubuntu (and other Linux distributors).  A linux distribution
is just a bundle of software that the distributor has tested work
together.  So, Ubuntu decides to bundle OpenOffice.org as opposed to say
KOffice.  If tomorrow, by customer demand, KOffice becomes more popular
and better than OO.org, the Ubuntu people doesn't really have any reason
not to bundle KOffice. For them, it's just a choice.  And if they don't,
users might go to another distributor than bundle the software selection
they want.

And why does ubuntu-desktop depend on OO.org?  It doesn't really.
ubuntu-desktop, as Brian mentioned, is a meta-package.  It's like the
root in a tree.  Install it and everything else that is considered the
default ubuntu desktop gets installed.  It's just an easy way to install
ubuntu (or kubuntu, or xubuntu).  

>>> 2. How to upgrade to the next Ubuntu version without having to depend on
>>> ubuntu-desktop which installs seriously outdated files?

Ubuntu-desktop for edgy doesn't install seriously outdated files, does
it?
Ubuntu-desktop has different versions, dapper, edgy whatever comes
next. Decide on which version you want.

>> They recommend that you install ubuntu-desktop since it pulls everything
>> in for that release.  You're not going to get a newer version than what
>> ubuntu-desktop installation will pull in anyways.
>
> See above & why is that? What if I wish to run a minimal system and do
> not wish to have OOo on the system at all in order to save disk space?

Because Ubuntu decided they wanted to target users that wanted an
integrated experience when it comes to Linux.  So, ubuntu-desktop (for
Gnome), kubuntu-desktop (for KDE), and Xubuntu-desktop (for Xfce) gives
you this depending on which environment you want. You can also remove
software once you have your ubuntu system working. I don't really care
for speedcrunch (in Kubuntu) or kaffeine, so I uninstalled it and
installed kcalc and kmplayer. Works great.

Do you want a minimal system that you only install exactly want?  Maybe
Ubuntu isn't for you.  (don't know how the server install works, since I
never install that).  I know a Debian base install comes to under 150
Mb.   And you can build up your environment that way. I do that with my
servers, since I want only the application I want installed and no
others. Works great. Choose the distribution that works for you.

> Perhaps I don't understand backports;
>
> http://backports.ubuntuforums.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
>
> <quote>
>  What are 'Backports'?
>
> Backporting is the process of compiling and providing new packages for a
> distribution that no longer gets any updates except for security
> purposes - for example backports are often made to bring the latest,
> greatest version of a crucial piece of software to a version of an OS
> that it isn't officially available for. Specifically, when backporting,
> the package is taken from the current development version of the OS.
>
> In Ubuntu's case this means that packages that are in the Dapper Drake
> repositories(the unreleased successor to Breezy Badger) can be compiled
> and made to run on Breezy.
>
> As a result, in order for a package to be considered for backporting, it
> must first be available in the Dapper repositories. Failure to check
> this is probably the main reason for the refusal of backport requests.
> </quote>

And? What is it that is unclear?

Actually, I have a feeling it's the version system you don't understand.
When Ubuntu releases a version, like Dapper, that means all the software
that is released for that release is compiled against a certain ABI with
a given set of libraries and dependencies.
Say GCC 4.0 (with associated software).  When the next release is
released, everything is compiled against 4.1.  Now, a software compiled
with GCC 4.1 might or might not run with libraries compiled for 4.0 (for
instance, programs compiled with g++ 3.3 would break if you run ith with
libraries compiled against g++ 3.0).  
But distributors don't want to care about all the possible permutations
(compiler versions, library version etc), so they create software packages
compiled against a given release.

Now, some people want newer software versions.  Now, going to a new
release version is not safe, because the dependencies might have
changed.  Enter backports.  Backports are supposed to give you newer
software compiled for your release. So, a backport version of
openoffice.org for dapper would have been compiled on a Dapper system,
and made sure it worked with Dapper. So you can safely install it.

> In this case it is not the components of the actual application that
> broke the system, it was the upgrading via the repository that broke the
> system (and my foolishness for attempting it). I have been running OOo
> 2.0.3 & 4 on Dapper for some time with no problems via the OOo site
> code. It was only when I installed via the Edgy repository that the
> system broke. That is because the repository apparently has modified the
> OOo code to the extent that that version will only work in U/Edgy.
>
>   If you look at the 2.0.4 OOo version on Edgy you'll see that it is a
> Ubuntu branded version. I see nothing wrong with this with the exception
> being that the _application_ also modifies critical system files that
> the compiled OOo does _not_ do.

Looking at OOo, it has a dependency on on a newer version of libstdc++,
so that is why.  Again, an edgy package is going to be compiled against
an edgy compiler.  So, it will probably not work unless you install the
associated library too. Which means its dependencies have to be
installed too.

So why doesn't the OOo original have to have updated system
library. Probably because they do a static compile, so they don't have
to worry about this.  If you take Opera for an example, they have
different versions of their browser.  One of the versions is the static
version with all the dependent libraries statically linked.  It means it
works on all systems, but it also means that it will use more memory,
because the libraries can't be shared between applications.

> So it's back to the basic question: is there a script and/or method that
> will allow one to restore a Dapper (or name your flavour) back to it's
> basic system files without destroying user data in the /home directory?
> It seems to me that there must be as the kernal can be updated without
> doing this. It's not even necessary to preserve extra user settings
> and/or application settings (those can easily be rebuilt), just preserve
> /home directory data. Note: yes I've tried the /home directory on a
> separate partition, no it didn't help much -- best bet that I've found
> so far is to mirror the data on an external Windows disk & bring it back
> in once I've rebuilt the Ubuntu drives.

Downgrading ubuntu-desktop to dapper should restore everything to dapper
without touching /home.  But above you didn't want that, so I'm unsure
what you actually want.  Do you want to go to Edgy or do you want to
stay in Dapper?

And no installation of software should touch configuration files in
/home.  Now, once you run an application, it might update your
configuration file if the config has change. And if you then go back to
an older version of the program, the older version will probably not be
able to read the configuration file.  Otherwise, something else is going
on with your system.

-- 
John L. Fjellstad
web: http://www.fjellstad.org/          Quis custodiet ipsos custodes