topic title: [SOLVED] metapackage-installer
Posts: 125
poorguy
Joined: 11 May 2016
#1
Hey All,

Perhaps it is me but what happened to"metapackage-installer" it used to be in the"Control Centre" under System.

I'm using this Distro:"antiX-17.a3_386-full keerfa 22 April 2017".

Thanks

PoorGuy __{{emoticon}}__
Last edited by poorguy on 02 Jul 2017, 05:14, edited 1 time in total.
Posts: 521
Shay
Joined: 20 Apr 2015
#2
Called Package installer .
Posts: 125
poorguy
Joined: 11 May 2016
#3
Shay wrote:Called Package installer .
Which is located where as I'm not finding it in the Control Centre where I always found it before.

This is what I'm trying to find it appears to be gone in the install that I done today.


========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"https://mxlinux.org/videos/metapackage-installer"
linktext was:"https://mxlinux.org/videos/metapackage-installer"
====================================


In the Control Centre I do find Manage Packages which is Synaptic Package Manager.
Posts: 521
Shay
Joined: 20 Apr 2015
#4
And the next one down is what you want. Same column.
Posts: 125
poorguy
Joined: 11 May 2016
#5
Shay wrote:And the next one down is what you want. Same column.
Nope.
Choose start up services.

How can I post a picture of what I have as it has changed.
Posts: 521
Shay
Joined: 20 Apr 2015
#6
Mine shows
Image

Code: Select all

  Host: antix17B1 Kernel: 4.10.5-antix.1-amd64-smp x86_64 (64 bit gcc: 6.3.0)
           Desktop: IceWM 1.3.12+mod+20170325.1
           Distro: antiX-17.b1_x64-full keerfa 29 June 2017
Posts: 125
poorguy
Joined: 11 May 2016
#7
OK so how do I post a picture of what I have as yours is different.

Code: Select all

$ inxi -Fx
System:    Host: Dell-Optiplex-360 Kernel: 4.10.5-antix.1-486-smp i686 (32 bit gcc: 6.3.0)
           Desktop: IceWM 1.3.12+mod+20170325.1 Distro: antiX-17.a3_386-full keerfa 22 April 2017
Machine:   Device: desktop System: Dell product: OptiPlex 360
Posts: 521
Shay
Joined: 20 Apr 2015
#8
I have a account that I upload the graphics to.
And as I know bbcode, I hand code the link to the picture and it is shown here.

My guess, and I mean a guess, you either had a bad download or install.

And I do not know the command line to get it started. Sorry
Posts: 125
poorguy
Joined: 11 May 2016
#9
So I'm missing parts of my install it appears.

I'm about to give up on antiX-17.a3_386-full keerfa 22 April 2017.
I seem to be having bad installs across the last few of them. __{{emoticon}}__

I'm just going to kick this one to the curb to much PITA.

Thanks.
Last edited by poorguy on 02 Jul 2017, 05:51, edited 2 times in total.
Posts: 521
Shay
Joined: 20 Apr 2015
#10
It is working fine for me, but I have a new laptop.
Posts: 125
poorguy
Joined: 11 May 2016
#11
When Antix 17 first came out as a release it worked for me right out of the box and yes I had some issues and those never were solved but I decided to live with them.

It seems every install I have done lately gets worse and worse.
Other linux distros on the same desktop work flawless so no problem on my end.

Antix 16 works like a champ without complaints.
Antix 17 doesn't like my Dell desktops which are all Intel and that strikes me as strange as Linux in my experience has always worked well with Intel.

Thanks for all the help.
I'm to old and have no patience.
Posts: 148
figosdev
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
#12
why not just use antix 16 as your installer, and do upgrades from there?

...or an older version of antix 17.
Posts: 125
poorguy
Joined: 11 May 2016
#13
I new I was getting bad installs of antiX-17.a3_386-full.iso and sent it down the road.
I downloaded this version antiX-17.b1_386-full.iso (847.2 MB).

Created a bootable usb and installed and updated and everything appears to be there.
I knew there had to be a problem with my antiX-17.a3_386-full.iso as the more I used it the worse it became.

Anyway will see what this install does.
I hate it when things don't work.

I ain't got no patience and if I wanted to work on OS I would still be using Microsoft instead of Linux.

Life is good.
PoorGuy
Posts: 148
figosdev
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
#14
if I wanted to work on OS I would still be using Microsoft instead of Linux.
you know if you feel that way, you should at least be sticking to release points, right? youre literally using the beta version, like"trying" windows 95 before 98se comes out.

sometimes beta versions are fine. so far i cant tell a big difference in quality between 17 b1 and 16.2. but i didnt try the 17 a versions.
Posts: 125
poorguy
Joined: 11 May 2016
#15
figosdev wrote:
if I wanted to work on OS I would still be using Microsoft instead of Linux.
you know if you feel that way, you should at least be sticking to release points, right? youre literally using the beta version, like"trying" windows 95 before 98se comes out.

sometimes beta versions are fine. so far i cant tell a big difference in quality between 17 b1 and 16.2. but i didnt try the 17 a versions.
It was my understanding that this release"antiX-17.a3_386-full keerfa 22 April 2017" was a final release and not a beta release.
and if it is a beta release than it should be labelled a beta release.

This antiX-17.b1_x64-full keerfa 29 June 2017 is listed as"Testing" so I expect it to have problems.
Last edited by poorguy on 02 Jul 2017, 05:39, edited 1 time in total.