[Aptitude-devel] Bug#1064969: apt: can't upgrade with aptitude

[Simon Richter]

Hi,

On 2/28/24 23:49, Vincent Lefevre wrote:


# aptitude install apt
The following packages will be upgraded:
   apt{b} apt-doc
2 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 180 not upgraded.
Need to get 1622 kB of archives. After unpacking 0 B will be used.
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
  apt : Depends: libapt-pkg6.0t64 (>= 2.7.12+nmu1) but it is not going to be 
installed
  apt-utils : Depends: apt (= 2.7.12) but 2.7.12+nmu1 is to be installed
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:

  Keep the following packages at their current version:
1) apt [2.7.12 (now, testing)]


That is a valid possible resolution. Presumably, if you reject this 
resolution, it will instead propose to upgrade apt-utils, install 
libapt-pkg6.0t64 and remove libapt-pkg6.0.


Since that is a larger change, the conservative proposal comes first.

apt-utils has a versioned dependency on apt, which means upgrading apt 
alone (which you requested) breaks another "unrelated" package. There 
has been some debate that resolvers should favour upgrading all binaries 
that are built from the same source together, but that has not been 
implemented yet, and it is unclear if that would have changed anything here.



So, I suppose that this is also the case for aptitude: if aptitude
cannot upgrade just because of a rename, then this is a problem in
the involved packages.


Note that you haven't requested an "upgrade" (which would likely have 
worked, because it would have switched both apt and apt-utils to the new 
version, and the remaining involved packages were automatically 
installed as dependencies of the packages being upgraded).


   Simon

___
Aptitude-devel mailing list
Aptitude-devel@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#1064958: Even if there was finally a choice

[Dan Jacobson]

Also even if at the 31st choice we finally get to keep all,
the next day we will still be facing the same problem.

Yes, usually it is just a temporary situation. Upstream was just in the
middle of sending out some packages, etc. But even so,
not for one minute should users be left digging for the 31st choice.

So they should always have a "k" option.

___
Aptitude-devel mailing list
Aptitude-devel@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#1065006: Letter each choice question

[Dan Jacobson]

Package: aptitude
Version: 0.8.13-5+b1
Severity: wishlist

In #1064958 we see the usual choice after choice.

Well how about number each choice as it is shown to the user?

With letters, so as not to confuse them with the numbers being shown.

Not just for debugging purposes, but for everyday use.

It always feels good to have letters, even only after one or two. So why
not all?

So instead of each
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:

Say
M) The following actions will resolve these dependencies:

N) The following actions will resolve these dependencies:

etc.

And after 26 double the letters or something.

___
Aptitude-devel mailing list
Aptitude-devel@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#1064958: Even if there was finally a choice

[Dan Jacobson]

There it finally was, way down at like the 31st choice.

Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] n
XX. The following actions will resolve these dependencies:

 Keep the following packages at their current version:
1) apt [2.7.12 (now)]
2) apt-utils [2.7.12 (now)]
3) at-spi2-core [2.50.0-1+b1 (now)]
4) gir1.2-atk-1.0 [2.50.0-1+b1 (now)]
5) libglib2.0-bin [2.78.4-1 (now)]
6) libpam-modules [1.5.2-9.1+b1 (now)]
7) libpam-modules-bin [1.5.2-9.1+b1 (now)]



Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] n

First, there should be choice numbers shown, at point XX above.
Then in fact I could even easily say what choice it was. 31 is a guess.
OK, I'll file a separate bug about that.

Second, I was going too fast, with n RET n RET and ended up skipping
over it!

Thus we see you still need a "k" choice!

Sure, you are saying "hurry and send us the exact state of the package
system so we can recreate the issue."

But I'm saying it doesn't matter. Even if there was only one or two
choices before the all-keep choice popped up, there should always be my
proposed "k" option available.

And yes, "Well just use aptitide install ~U... _... ..._"
I am sure there are tons of workarounds. But that doesn't matter,
there still should be my proposed "k" short circuit choice!

___
Aptitude-devel mailing list
Aptitude-devel@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#1064969: apt: can't upgrade with aptitude

[Vincent Lefevre]

On 2024-02-28 18:32:20 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> OK, but it appears that now, there are *many* other packages in
> a similar situation, and sometimes, aptitude wants to remove a
> potentially important package (see below). The resolution should
> be automatic in case of package rename.
> 
> # aptitude install libglib2.0-dev

I would add that in this apparently more complex case, apt
(e.g. "apt install libglib2.0-dev" or "apt dist-upgrade") is
far worse than aptitude as it wants to remove wine32:i386.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre  - Web: 
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: 
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

___
Aptitude-devel mailing list
Aptitude-devel@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#1064969: apt: can't upgrade with aptitude

[Wesley Schwengle]

Hi Vincent,

I'm having similar problems, but I think it may be related to the t64 
upgrade that is going on. I get the following when doing aptitude 
full-upgrade:


13 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 4 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 5759 kB of archives. After unpacking 1241 kB will be freed.
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 openvpn : Depends: libpam0t64 (>= 0.99.7.1) but it is not going to be 
installed
 libglib2.0-dev-bin : Depends: libglib2.0-0 (= 2.78.4-2) but 2.78.4-1 
is installed
 evince : Depends: libevdocument3-4t64 (= 45.0-2) but it is not going 
to be installed
  Depends: libevview3-3t64 (= 45.0-2) but it is not going to be 
installed
 apt : Depends: libapt-pkg6.0t64 (>= 2.7.12+nmu1) but it is not going 
to be installed
 libglib2.0-bin : Depends: libglib2.0-0 (= 2.78.4-2) but 2.78.4-1 is 
installed
 libglib2.0-dev : Depends: libglib2.0-0t64 (= 2.78.4-2) but it is not 
going to be installed
 libpam-modules : PreDepends: libdb5.3t64 but it is not going to be 
installed
  PreDepends: libpam0t64 (>= 1.4.1) but it is not going 
to be installed
 libdb5.3-dev : Depends: libdb5.3t64 (= 5.3.28+dfsg2-4.1) but it is not 
going to be installed
Depends: libdb5.3 (= 5.3.28+dfsg2-4.1) but 
5.3.28+dfsg2-4+b1 is installed
 gir1.2-atk-1.0 : Depends: libatk1.0-0t64 (>= 2.49.90) but it is not 
going to be installed
 libpam-modules-bin : Depends: libpam0t64 (>= 0.99.7.1) but it is not 
going to be installed
 xmlsec1 : Depends: libxmlsec1t64 (>= 1.2.35) but it is not going to be 
installed
   Depends: libxmlsec1t64-openssl (>= 1.2.31) but it is not 
going to be installed

 db5.3-util : Depends: libdb5.3t64 but it is not going to be installed
  Depends: libdb5.3 (= 5.3.28+dfsg2-4.1) but 
5.3.28+dfsg2-4+b1 is installed
 apt-utils : Depends: libapt-pkg6.0t64 (>= 2.7.12+nmu1) but it is not 
going to be installed

The following actions will resolve these dependencies:

  Remove the following packages:
1)  libapt-pkg6.0 [2.7.12 (now, testing, unstable)]
2)  libatk1.0-0 [2.50.0-1+b1 (now, testing, unstable)]
3)  libdb5.3 [5.3.28+dfsg2-4+b1 (now, testing, unstable)]
4)  libevdocument3-4 [45.0-1+b1 (now, testing, unstable)]
5)  libglib2.0-0 [2.78.4-1 (now, testing, unstable)]
6)  libglib2.0-0:i386 [2.78.4-1 (now, testing, unstable)]
7)  libpam0g [1.5.2-9.1+b1 (now, testing, unstable)]
8)  libxmlsec1 [1.2.38-1+b1 (now, testing, unstable)]

  Install the following packages:
9)  libapt-pkg6.0t64 [2.7.12+nmu1 (unstable)]
10) libatk1.0-0t64 [2.50.0-1.1 (unstable)]
11) libdb5.3t64 [5.3.28+dfsg2-4.1 (unstable)]
12) libevdocument3-4t64 [45.0-2 (unstable)]
13) libevview3-3t64 [45.0-2 (unstable)]
14) libglib2.0-0t64 [2.78.4-2 (unstable)]
15) libglib2.0-0t64:i386 [2.78.4-2 (unstable)]
16) libpam0t64 [1.5.3-4 (unstable)]
17) libxmlsec1t64 [1.2.39-4 (unstable)]
18) libxmlsec1t64-openssl [1.2.39-4 (unstable)]

  Downgrade the following packages:
19) libgspell-1-2 [1.12.2-1+b1 (now, testing, unstable) -> 1.8.4-1 
(oldstable)]
20) libgspell-1-common [1.12.2-1 (now, testing, unstable) -> 1.8.4-1 
(oldstable)]


It starts with the following resolution:
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:

  Remove the following packages:
1)  libapt-pkg6.0 [2.7.12 (now, testing, unstable)]
2)  libatk1.0-0 [2.50.0-1+b1 (now, testing, unstable)]
3)  libdb5.3 [5.3.28+dfsg2-4+b1 (now, testing, unstable)]
4)  libevdocument3-4 [45.0-1+b1 (now, testing, unstable)]
5)  libglib2.0-0 [2.78.4-1 (now, testing, unstable)]
6)  libglib2.0-0:i386 [2.78.4-1 (now, testing, unstable)]
7)  libpam0g [1.5.2-9.1+b1 (now, testing, unstable)]
8)  libxmlsec1 [1.2.38-1+b1 (now, testing, unstable)]

  Install the following packages:
9)  libapt-pkg6.0t64 [2.7.12+nmu1 (unstable)]
10) libatk1.0-0t64 [2.50.0-1.1 (unstable)]
11) libdb5.3t64 [5.3.28+dfsg2-4.1 (unstable)]
12) libevdocument3-4t64 [45.0-2 (unstable)]
13) libevview3-3t64 [45.0-2 (unstable)]
14) libglib2.0-0t64 [2.78.4-2 (unstable)]
15) libglib2.0-0t64:i386 [2.78.4-2 (unstable)]
16) libpam0t64 [1.5.3-4 (unstable)]
17) libxmlsec1t64 [1.2.39-4 (unstable)]
18) libxmlsec1t64-openssl [1.2.39-4 (unstable)]

  Downgrade the following packages:
19) libgspell-1-2 [1.12.2-1+b1 (now, testing, unstable) -> 1.8.4-1 
(oldstable)]
20) libgspell-1-common [1.12.2-1 (now, testing, unstable) -> 1.8.4-1 
(oldstable)]


After a couple of "No's" to the solutions aptitude gives me I get at 
this stage:


The following actions will resolve these dependencies:

  Remove the following packages:
1)  libapt-pkg6.0 [2.7.12 (now, testing, unstable)]
2)  libatk1.0-0 [2.50.0-1+b1 (now, testing, unstable)]
3)  libdb5.3 [5.3.28+dfsg2-4+b1 (now, testing, unstable)]
4)  libevdocument3-4 [45.0-1+b1 (now, testing, unstable)]
5)  libglib2.0-0 [2.78.4-1 

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#1064969: apt: can't upgrade with aptitude

[Vincent Lefevre]

On 2024-02-28 17:28:51 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2024-02-28 15:49 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > So, I suppose that this is also the case for aptitude: if aptitude
> > cannot upgrade just because of a rename, then this is a problem in
> > the involved packages.
> 
> No, in this case it is a problem with aptitude's resolver which
> manifests itself due to the following configuration setting:
> 
> > Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost "safety, removals";
> 
> This does cause aptitude to hold apt back by default, rather than
> remove libapt-pkg6.0.

The goal of this configuration setting (which was given in the
debian-user list in the past) was to prevent aptitude from removing
packages with no replacement (e.g. firefox, libreoffice, and so on).
Here, the libapt-pkg6.0 package has been renamed. I hope that you
can understand that this is a completely different situation.

> You can press 'n' at the prompt, the next solution aptitude then
> suggests is to upgrade apt.

OK, but it appears that now, there are *many* other packages in
a similar situation, and sometimes, aptitude wants to remove a
potentially important package (see below). The resolution should
be automatic in case of package rename.

# aptitude install libglib2.0-dev
The following packages will be REMOVED:
  libglib2.0-dev-bin{u}
The following packages will be upgraded:
  libglib2.0-data libglib2.0-dev{b}
2 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove and 61 not upgraded.
Need to get 2865 kB of archives. After unpacking 716 kB will be freed.
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 libglib2.0-dev : Depends: libglib2.0-0t64 (= 2.78.4-2) but it is not going to 
be installed
  Depends: libglib2.0-bin (= 2.78.4-2) but 2.78.4-1 is 
installed and it is kept back
  Depends: libglib2.0-dev-bin (= 2.78.4-2) but it is not going 
to be installed
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:

 Keep the following packages at their current version:
1) libglib2.0-dev [2.78.4-1 (now, testing)]
2) libglib2.0-dev-bin [2.78.4-1 (now, testing)]

Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] n
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:

 Remove the following packages:
1) libglib2.0-0 [2.78.4-1 (now, testing, unstable)]
2) libglib2.0-0:i386 [2.78.4-1 (now, testing, unstable)]
3) libglib2.0-bin [2.78.4-1 (now, testing)]

 Install the following packages:
4) libglib2.0-0t64 [2.78.4-2 (unstable)]
5) libglib2.0-0t64:i386 [2.78.4-2 (unstable)]
6) libglib2.0-bin:i386 [2.78.4-2 (unstable)]

 Upgrade the following packages:
7) libglib2.0-dev-bin [2.78.4-1 (now, testing) -> 2.78.4-2 (unstable)]

AFAIK, replacing libglib2.0-bin by libglib2.0-bin:i386 is not
equivalent.

With an explicit package list, aptitude immediately gives an
acceptable solution:

$ aptitude install -s libglib2.0-dev libglib2.0-bin libglib2.0-dev-bin 
libglib2.0-0t64 libglib2.0-0t64:i386
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  libglib2.0-0t64 libglib2.0-0t64:i386 
The following packages will be REMOVED:
  libglib2.0-0{a} libglib2.0-0:i386{a} 
The following packages will be upgraded:
  libglib2.0-bin libglib2.0-data libglib2.0-dev libglib2.0-dev-bin 

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre  - Web: 
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: 
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

___
Aptitude-devel mailing list
Aptitude-devel@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: Re: Bug#1064969: apt: can't upgrade with aptitude

[Debian Bug Tracking System via Aptitude-devel]

Processing control commands:

> severity -1 normal
Bug #1064969 [aptitude] aptitude: can't upgrade apt due to rename of library 
package
Severity set to 'normal' from 'serious'

-- 
1064969: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1064969
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

___
Aptitude-devel mailing list
Aptitude-devel@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#1064969: apt: can't upgrade with aptitude

[Sven Joachim via Aptitude-devel]

Control: severity -1 normal

On 2024-02-28 15:49 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:

> Source: apt
> Version: 2.7.12+nmu1
> Severity: serious
>
> While there are no upgrade issues with apt itself (according
> to "apt install -s apt"), aptitude does not want to upgrade
> apt automatically, while this just appears to be a package
> rename:
>
> # aptitude install apt
> The following packages will be upgraded:
>   apt{b} apt-doc
> 2 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 180 not upgraded.
> Need to get 1622 kB of archives. After unpacking 0 B will be used.
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>  apt : Depends: libapt-pkg6.0t64 (>= 2.7.12+nmu1) but it is not going to be 
> installed
>  apt-utils : Depends: apt (= 2.7.12) but 2.7.12+nmu1 is to be installed
> The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
>
>  Keep the following packages at their current version:
> 1) apt [2.7.12 (now, testing)]
>
> I don't know whether this is actually an issue with aptitude, but at
>
>   https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1059068#15
>
> David Kalnischkies says:
> | You should really know this by now as that isn't your first report, but
> | okay: Upgrade problems are NEVER a problem to be solved in apt,
> | they are ALWAYS a problem in the involved packages. NO EXCEPTIONS.
>
> So, I suppose that this is also the case for aptitude: if aptitude
> cannot upgrade just because of a rename, then this is a problem in
> the involved packages.

No, in this case it is a problem with aptitude's resolver which
manifests itself due to the following configuration setting:

> Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost "safety, removals";

This does cause aptitude to hold apt back by default, rather than remove
libapt-pkg6.0.  You can press 'n' at the prompt, the next solution
aptitude then suggests is to upgrade apt.

Cheers,
   Sven

___
Aptitude-devel mailing list
Aptitude-devel@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: Re: Bug#1064969: apt: can't upgrade with aptitude

[Debian Bug Tracking System via Aptitude-devel]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> found 1064969 0.8.13-5
Bug #1064969 [aptitude] apt: can't upgrade with aptitude
Marked as found in versions aptitude/0.8.13-5.
> retitle 1064969 aptitude: can't upgrade apt due to rename of library package
Bug #1064969 [aptitude] apt: can't upgrade with aptitude
Changed Bug title to 'aptitude: can't upgrade apt due to rename of library 
package' from 'apt: can't upgrade with aptitude'.
> --
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
1064969: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1064969
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

___
Aptitude-devel mailing list
Aptitude-devel@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#1064969: apt: can't upgrade with aptitude

[Vincent Lefevre via Aptitude-devel]

On 2024-02-28 15:56:56 +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> aptitude is not our chosen tool for distribution upgrades, as such
> failures there are not release critical for the packages. So while
> this is release critical for aptitude, it's a wishlist bug for apt
> that probably would end up being closed.
> 
> I do believe the correct syntax for aptitude would be to use
> 
> aptitude upgrade apt
> 
> though

OK, though this is much slower. But still, apt is not upgraded
with this solution (and there is no way to choose another action
manually):

# aptitude upgrade apt
Resolving dependencies...
The following packages have been kept back:
  apt
No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed.
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 182 not upgraded.
Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 0 B will be used.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre  - Web: 
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: 
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

___
Aptitude-devel mailing list
Aptitude-devel@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: Re: Bug#1064969: apt: can't upgrade with aptitude

[Debian Bug Tracking System via Aptitude-devel]

Processing control commands:

> reassign -1 aptitude
Bug #1064969 [src:apt] apt: can't upgrade with aptitude
Bug reassigned from package 'src:apt' to 'aptitude'.
No longer marked as found in versions apt/2.7.12+nmu1.
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1064969 to the same values 
previously set

-- 
1064969: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1064969
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

___
Aptitude-devel mailing list
Aptitude-devel@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#1064958: Add k for keep all shown: [Y/n/q/k?]

[Dan Jacobson via Aptitude-devel]

Package: aptitude
Version: 0.8.13-5+b1
Severity: wishlist

Imagine there are 1000 different combinations of

Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] n
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:

 Remove the following packages:
1) libapt-pkg6.0 [2.7.12 (now, unstable)]
2) libglib2.0-0 [2.78.4-1 (now, unstable)]

 Install the following packages:
3) libapt-pkg6.0t64 [2.7.12+nmu1 (unstable)]
4) libglib2.0-0t64 [2.78.4-2 (unstable)]

 Keep the following packages at their current version:
5) at-spi2-core [2.50.0-1+b1 (now)]
6) gir1.2-atk-1.0 [2.50.0-1+b1 (now)]
7) libpam-modules [1.5.2-9.1+b1 (now)]
8) libpam-modules-bin [1.5.2-9.1+b1 (now)]


Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?]

each of which we don't like. Well the only way to get out of it is
nn(500)n and finally q.

But q means we can't do the rest of the upgrade.

So there should be an additional "k" choice, to keep all shown,
and just proceed with the rest of the upgrade which isn't affected by
these shown.

___
Aptitude-devel mailing list
Aptitude-devel@alioth-lists.debian.net
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel