Bug#1065831: document package specifiers for `upgrade`
(this reply has nothing to do with the bugreport in question) On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:00:56PM +0100, Miguel Angel Rojas wrote: > >> Julian provided an explanation in #74, > 20240312113620.ga1944...@debian.org > > I can't access this link.. It isn't a link, it is a message id of an email. Your mail client (or web frontend or whatever) should find the mail if you search for it – assuming you got that mail and haven't deleted it in the meantime of course. You can also make it a link by prepending https://lists.debian.org/, aka: https://lists.debian.org/20240312113620.ga1944...@debian.org That will search for the mail in Debians mailing list archives. Best regards David Kalnischkies signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1065831: document package specifiers for `upgrade`
Hi all, >> No. Without a package as an argument it won't. Thanks! You're right. Let me write it down here again: - "apt upgrade" (no argument) will never remove a package, only upgrade or install - "apt upgrade pkg_name" will remove, upgrade or install the required package to satisfy its dependencies. - "apt upgrade foo- bar+": advanced option that can be used to specifically removed or install packages. >> Julian provided an explanation in #74, 20240312113620.ga1944...@debian.org I can't access this link.. >> I'm not a Debian developer, never have been. Just someone who submitted a patch or two. And your comments have been really valuable in figuring out what's going on! Again, my confusion was because this was the first time I reported a bug AND several people jumped in the conversation! It is not usually the case ;) Regards
Bug#1065831: document package specifiers for `upgrade`
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 09:44:02AM +0100, Miguel Angel Rojas wrote: > Hi there, > > > If "apt upgrade" is saying that it removes packages, that is a bug, yes. > > @david: it is not a bug, apparently. > > To put everything in a nutshell: > >- "apt upgrade" can remove packages No. Without a package as an argument it won't. >- "apt upgrade" accepts specific packages to be upgraded To be installed if not installed yet, removed, downgraded or upgraded if already installed depending on your arguments. For example `apt upgrade foo- bar+ baz=version toto/archive' will remove foo, add bar, install, up- or downgrade baz and the same for toto and it will upgrade packages where it can. > Therefore, this behaviour is expected and documentation needs to be > modified. > > In the meantime, while the documentation is modified, can some developer > provide some explanation to the current "apt upgrade" behaviour? (*) Julian provided an explanation in #74, 20240312113620.ga1944...@debian.org > whereas `apt upgrade foo` first does the normal install argument handling and > then runs an upgrade, so `foo` could also be a new package that is not > currently installed to hint the solver if it is unable to find a solution. > (*) I'm a bit confused because I don't know which of the people involved in > this bug are actually a developer of the apt package ;) I'm not a Debian developer, never been. Just someone who submitted a patch or two. Cheers, Wesley
Bug#1065831: document package specifiers for `upgrade`
Hi all, >> (modifiers btw is not a good word. I guess it was never documented so far partly as this is a rather advanced feature and mainly because naming things is hard) yes, we brought it up in our conversation but I agree it was not directly related to the subject as it was an apt advanced option. But it was good because we were able to compare different situations (to spice things up). We even talked about "apt-get" and "aptitude" but I understand they are different commands and the purpose was not to compare behaviours among different tools. >> Well, does it really matter who is and who isn't? No, it doesn't as long as they have the right information ;) Of course, the more people involved in the issue, the better perspective we have on the problem. But it is important to know how apt is *currently* behaving to avoid misunderstanding and wrong assumptions (even from my side as well). We discovered that it is a documentation bug but my initial premise when I opened the bug was that the resolver wasn't working properly. With the right information, we usuallly get faster to the solution. Thank you all, guys! >> Nobody is born an APT developer, they are chosen based on their patch offerings! ;)
Bug#1065831: document package specifiers for `upgrade`
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 09:44:02AM +0100, Miguel Angel Rojas wrote: > > If "apt upgrade" is saying that it removes packages, that is a bug, yes. > > @david: it is not a bug, apparently. Yeah, but for different reasons. I know that exists & even use it frequently… but its two different things for me as the modifiers are from the user and as such always correct and intended while what upgrade performs later on has restrictions applied (again from the user). Having the same restrictions that upgrade has also apply for the modifiers would make them less useful and in some sense be second guessing the user as they asked for this to happen… (modifiers btw is not a good word. I guess it was never documented so far partly as this is a rather advanced feature and mainly because naming things is hard) So, I said "apt upgrade" meaning exactly that, not "apt upgrade foo-". That could be interpreted in slightly different ways, but given how our other commands behave it seems most sensible to interpret it as: After the upgrade, foo is not installed, which if foo is currently installed means remove it. More frequently it will mean through that foo should not be part of the solution (as in, it is e.g. a non-pick for resolving an or-dependency, so e.g. not installed as a NEW package). An alternative interpretation could have been: Do upgrade all but foo, but that can be achieved differently (e.g. foo/now) and would be rather specific for upgrade, while behaving differently elsewhere. And yes, "apt upgrade foo" can lead to bar being removed, which seems surprising at first, but that depends on the foo. If its e.g. exim vs postfix that is clear for the user based on what those packages represent. I just tried, "--no-remove" catches that, it also catches "foo-" through which I am not super-happy about and I think we have a bug report for open… but I could see that go either way and in any case that leads us further away from the initial topic. > In the meantime, while the documentation is modified, can some developer > provide some explanation to the current "apt upgrade" behaviour? (*) […] > (*) I'm a bit confused because I don't know which of the people involved in > this bug are actually a developer of the apt package ;) Well, does it really matter who is and who isn't? I suppose we could have a borderline philosophical discussion about what makes someone an APT developer given this is a muddily self-defined non-delegated accumulation of people who for some reason feel some sort of responsibility for and/or derive enjoyment from it; like most other teams in Debian. We could look at uploaders, changelog entries, commit history or access right on e.g. salsa… but if either of those provide the full picture? Anyway, I suppose for practical proposes you can think of Julian and me as main APT developers in terms of who do the most and as such stir it in recentish years. If you are asking if that behaviour was added intentionally: https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt/-/commit/d8a8f9d7f01c75a7bbad7a488bf359a94291d1de That said, you can be an APT developer, too: Propose the documentation text you had hoped to find in the first place. Nobody is born an APT developer, they are chosen based on their patch offerings… Best regards David Kalnischkies signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1065831: document package specifiers for `upgrade`
Hi there, > If "apt upgrade" is saying that it removes packages, that is a bug, yes. @david: it is not a bug, apparently. To put everything in a nutshell: - "apt upgrade" can remove packages - "apt upgrade" accepts specific packages to be upgraded Therefore, this behaviour is expected and documentation needs to be modified. In the meantime, while the documentation is modified, can some developer provide some explanation to the current "apt upgrade" behaviour? (*) Thanks (*) I'm a bit confused because I don't know which of the people involved in this bug are actually a developer of the apt package ;)
