[Aptitude-devel] Bug#809347: Bug#809347: mention try second identical run

[Axel Beckert]

Hi Jidanni,

積丹尼 Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Aptitude has a neat feature that I am not sure is documented on the man
> page:
> 
> In the case that some of the packages cannot be retrieved, a second run
> of aptitude will install the ones that can!

Indeed.

> So perhaps on the man page mention that a second identical run of e.g.,
> safe-upgrade, full-upgrade, will proceed to install available packages
> that a first run couldn't.

But safe-upgrade and full-upgrade are the wrong examples. They do this
anyway. Also "apt upgrade" and friends do this. That's the idea of all
"upgrade" subcommands: Upgrade (more or less) all upgradable
packages -- independent of if there was a try to upgrade them before.

The nice thing is that aptitude stores installation wishes in general
and the next action will also fulfil them.

E.g. if for "aptitude install pkg1 pkg2" the installation of pkg2
fails, another "aptitude install" without further parameters will try
to install pkg2 again.

Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert , http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-|  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE

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

[Aptitude-devel] Uhvatite svojih -30% popusta uz promo kod

[Konceptich]

Uhvatite svojih -30% popusta uz promo kod news05 Konceptich webshop �

Image:
http://www.konceptich.com/media/django-summernote/newsletter/36/images/index.jpg
E-mail se ne prikazuje ispravno?

Pogledajte ga u vašem browseru





Dobili ste jedinstveni kod za popust, kojeg možete iskoristiti pri kupnji na 
web shopu:

GAKQBZTM

Iznos popusta je: 30.00%.

Kod za popust vrijedi do: : 10. 1. 2016. 23:59.

Možete se odjaviti s newslettera klikom na sljedeći link:


http://www.konceptich.com/newsletter/unsubscribe/aptitude-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org___
Aptitude-devel mailing list
Aptitude-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: tagging 475802

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

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

> tags 475802 + pending
Bug #475802 [aptitude] aptitude: [i18n] usability deficiency in Yes/No prompts, 
others
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
475802: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=475802
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: Re: Bug#809184: "aptitude changelog" aborts with "Illegal instruction"

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tag -1 -moreinfo
Bug #809184 [aptitude] "aptitude changelog" aborts with "Illegal instruction"
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.

-- 
809184: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=809184
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#809184: Bug#809184: "aptitude changelog" aborts with "Illegal instruction"

[Axel Beckert]

Control: tag -1 -moreinfo

Hi Bjarni,

thanks for the detailed information! That will help us to track this
issue down.

Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert , http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-|  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE

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

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#563297: [aptitude] warn when changes affect large subtrees

[Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]

Control: retitle -1 aptitude: warn when changes affect large subtrees
Control: tags -1 + wontfix
Control: close -1


Hi,

2010-01-01 19:53 C Sights:

Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.1.3-3
Severity: normal

Hi,
If 'm' or 'M' is pushed while a category (e.g. "Installed Packages") is
highlighted, all packages in that category are either marked as manually
installed ('m') or automatically installed ('M').
This could be a nice feature, but at the same time it can destroy a lot 
of
information about how and why a package is on the system.  E.g. the first time
I fat fingered 'm' I saw that all the packages were marked as manually
installed, but didn't know that I had caused it.  Then I exited aptitude
normally and the changes were saved.  Now I have craploads of libraries marked
as manually installed.  Yuck.
Perhaps an intervening confirmation or a message saying "you have 
pushed 'm'
while selecting a category, thereby marking multiple packages as manually
installed, to revert to previous markings, push 'z'".


I've been considering this request, and I think that it would be mostly
clutter and an annoying feature than an actual help.  (Warning every
time would enrage many users relying on this behaviour, and providing
alternatives has other tradeoffs, see below).


The reason why I think that this extra "feature" would not be of much
help is because the consequences of mass-marking packages are reversable
and, in any case, marking itself is not very destructive from what I can
see, for several reasons:

- For one, there's the generic "Undo" operation, which would have helped
 in this case to revert the bad keypress, and it's been present for
 quite a few years.

- Marking itself is not a very dangerous operation, because any
 operation like "Upgrade", "Install", "Purge", etc., or marking the
 package as automatically installed (and thus triggering a possible
 deletion) need confirmation before proceeding, so people can reverse
 the actions before the real-deal (which is a requirement in aptitude).

- If the action that triggered this was to mark all installed packages
 of section "libs" as manually installed, rather than automatically
 installed, the solution is simple: press "M" again, as originally
 intended.  Doing "m" and "M" again would not have any difference
 compated to only marking "M" in the first place.

 This is not a contrived or ad-hoc example -- most operations on a set
 packages show the same property, only the last action is preserved.
 It doesn't matter much if one presses other keys before, only the last
 one prevails (m/M are independent from install/upgrade/etc, but
 reverse each other's actions).  If one wants to mark all as
 "[m]anually installed" and presses "auto[M]atically" installed by
 mistake, then "m" again, it results in the same as if pressing "m"
 without the mistake.  If one wants to upgrade and presses "purge" and
 then "upgrade", it is the same as pressing "upgrade".

 In the case that there are some quirks of the implementation
 (e.g. with recommends/suggests), it can be fixed as per point #2.



Regarding warning every time as being annoying, if we don't want to warn
every time, and instead just have a configurable option to disable it,
we would have to spend still more time implementing, further cluttering
the available options, documenting and translating it, and maintaining
it over the years.

This is true for every feature, of course, but when I try to weight the
pros and cons (including value/effort ratio) comparing it to many other
things that need to be done to fix wrong behaviours of aptitude or
improve it in other ways, I think that this would be towards the very
bottom.


Since this is just days short of 6 years old, and I don't see it being
addressed any time soon even if somebody does think that it would be
positive to implement it, so I am marking as +wontfix and closing for
the reasons stated above.


Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo 

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

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: Re: [aptitude] warn when changes affect large subtrees

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> retitle -1 aptitude: warn when changes affect large subtrees
Bug #563297 [aptitude] aptitude: warn when changes effect large subtrees
Changed Bug title to 'aptitude: warn when changes affect large subtrees' from 
'aptitude: warn when changes effect large subtrees'
> tags -1 + wontfix
Bug #563297 [aptitude] aptitude: warn when changes affect large subtrees
Added tag(s) wontfix.
> close -1
Bug #563297 [aptitude] aptitude: warn when changes affect large subtrees
Marked Bug as done

-- 
563297: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=563297
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#793307: marked as done (aptitude: Add a confirmation for changing 'automatic' flag)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Tue, 29 Dec 2015 13:43:15 +
with message-id <20151229134311.ga30...@reva.itsari.org>
and subject line Re: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#793307: Bug#793307: aptitude: Add a 
confirmation for changing 'automatic' flag
has caused the Debian Bug report #793307,
regarding aptitude: Add a confirmation for changing 'automatic' flag
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
793307: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=793307
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.11-1+b1
Severity: wishlist

Dear Maintainer,

I occasionally pressed 'm' button when 'All installed packages' item was
choosen, so all my packages were marked as manually installed. 'm' is placed
right under 'j' which is often used for navigation, so occasional
presses on it is a real problem for me. Please, add some kind of
confirmation for changing package 'automatic' flag with 'm' button.
Also, I saw some bugs when aptitude forgets 'automatic' flag for some
packages and I thought some of them may be inspited by occasional 'm' press.


-- Package-specific info:
Terminal: rxvt-unicode
$DISPLAY is set.
which aptitude: /usr/bin/aptitude

aptitude version information:
aptitude 0.6.11 compiled at Nov  8 2014 13:34:39
Compiler: g++ 4.9.1
Compiled against:
  apt version 4.12.0
  NCurses version 5.9
  libsigc++ version: 2.4.0
  Gtk+ support disabled.
  Qt support disabled.

Current library versions:
  NCurses version: ncurses 5.9.20150516
  cwidget version: 0.5.17
  Apt version: 4.12.0

aptitude linkage:
linux-vdso.so.1 (0x7ffefdbc2000)
libapt-pkg.so.4.12 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libapt-pkg.so.4.12 
(0x7f8c8d223000)
libncursesw.so.5 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libncursesw.so.5 
(0x7f8c8cfed000)
libtinfo.so.5 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtinfo.so.5 
(0x7f8c8cdc3000)
libsigc-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libsigc-2.0.so.0 
(0x7f8c8cbbd000)
libcwidget.so.3 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libcwidget.so.3 
(0x7f8c8c8a7000)
libsqlite3.so.0 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libsqlite3.so.0 
(0x7f8c8c5d9000)
libboost_iostreams.so.1.55.0 => 
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libboost_iostreams.so.1.55.0 (0x7f8c8c3c1000)
libxapian.so.22 => /usr/lib/libxapian.so.22 (0x7f8c8bfaa000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpthread.so.0 
(0x7f8c8bd8d000)
libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6 
(0x7f8c8ba81000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libm.so.6 (0x7f8c8b78)
libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libgcc_s.so.1 
(0x7f8c8b56a000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x7f8c8b1c1000)
libutil.so.1 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libutil.so.1 (0x7f8c8afbe000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libdl.so.2 (0x7f8c8adba000)
libz.so.1 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libz.so.1 (0x7f8c8ab9f000)
libbz2.so.1.0 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libbz2.so.1.0 
(0x7f8c8a98f000)
liblzma.so.5 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/liblzma.so.5 (0x7f8c8a76c000)
librt.so.1 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/librt.so.1 (0x7f8c8a564000)
libuuid.so.1 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libuuid.so.1 (0x7f8c8a35f000)
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x7f8c8dbe5000)

-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (99, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 3.16.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=ru_RU.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=ru_RU.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

Versions of packages aptitude depends on:
ii  aptitude-common   0.6.11-1
ii  libapt-pkg4.121.0.9.10
ii  libboost-iostreams1.55.0  1.55.0+dfsg-4
ii  libc6 2.19-19
ii  libcwidget3   0.5.17-2
ii  libgcc1   1:5.1.1-14
ii  libncursesw5  5.9+20150516-2
ii  libsigc++-2.0-0c2a2.4.1-1
ii  libsqlite3-0  3.8.10.2-1
ii  libstdc++65.1.1-14
ii  libtinfo5 5.9+20150516-2
ii  libxapian22   1.2.21-1

Versions of packages aptitude recommends:
ii  aptitude-doc-en [aptitude-doc]  0.6.11-1
ii  libparse-debianchangelog-perl   1.2.0-5
ii  sensible-utils  0.0.9

Versions of packages aptitude suggests:
ii  apt-xapian-index  0.47
pn  debtags   
ii  tasksel   3.32

-- no debconf information
--- End 

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: Re: aptitude: explicit selection of less-scored version is sticky

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tags -1 + moreinfo unreproducible
Bug #252264 [aptitude] aptitude: explicit selection of less-scored version is 
sticky
Added tag(s) moreinfo and unreproducible.

-- 
252264: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=252264
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: Re: Bug#809184: "aptitude changelog" aborts with "Illegal instruction"

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tag -1 + unreproducible
Bug #809184 [aptitude] "aptitude changelog" aborts with "Illegal instruction"
Added tag(s) unreproducible.

-- 
809184: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=809184
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#809347: mention try second identical run

[積丹尼 Dan Jacobson]

Package: aptitude
Version: 0.7.5-3
Severity: wishlist

Aptitude has a neat feature that I am not sure is documented on the man
page:

In the case that some of the packages cannot be retrieved, a second run
of aptitude will install the ones that can!

e.g., offline, with half the needed packages for a safe-upgrade already
in /var/cache/apt/archives, a first run of
# aptitude safe-upgrade
will get
42 packages upgraded, 27 newly installed, 12 to remove and 40 not upgraded.
Need to get 16.6 MB/33.0 MB of archives. After unpacking 5,960 kB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]
E: Failed to fetch http://freei386.deb: Temporary failure resolving 
'free.nchc.org.tw'
E: Unable to correct for unavailable packages
Current status: 0 (+0) broken, 82 (+0) upgradable, 50004 (+0) new.

But a second identical run of
# aptitude safe-upgrade
will install the ones available, (and then at the end mention
E: Failed to fetch http://freei386.deb: Temporary failure resolving 
'free.nchc.org.tw'
Current status: 0 (+0) broken, 51 (-31) upgradable, 50004 (+0) new.
)

So perhaps on the man page mention that a second identical run of e.g.,
safe-upgrade, full-upgrade, will proceed to install available packages
that a first run couldn't.

And the "E: Unable to correct for unavailable packages" isn't then
entirely true, and should be changed to also mention "Try running me again...".

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

[Aptitude-devel] Приветствую

[Сментина1936]

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

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#809184: "aptitude changelog" aborts with "Illegal instruction"

[Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]

Control: tags -1 + moreinfo


Hi Bjarni and Paul,

2015-12-28 02:25 Paul Wise:

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 01:57:25 + Bjarni Ingi Gislason wrote:


   aptitude changelog apt ...


Does this always produce the same outcome?


   Output was "Illegal instruction" with a return value of 132.

...

Architecture: i386 (i586)


There are some things that would help the aptitude maintainers figure
out what the problem is:

Send the output of this command:

cat /proc/cpuinfo

Enable the debug repo, install debug symbols, gdb and make a backtrace:

Create this file:

/etc/apt/sources.list.d/04-debian-debug.sources

Put this line in it:

deb http://debug.mirrors.debian.org/debian-debug/ unstable-debug main

Update the apt cache:

sudo apt-get update

Install the gdb debugger and debug symbols:

sudo apt-get install gdb aptitude-dbg libapt-pkg5.0-dbgsym libboost1.58-dbg 
libc6-dbg libncursesw5-dbg libgcc1-dbg libsqlite3-0-dbg libstdc++6-5-dbg 
libtinfo5-dbg libxapian22v5-dbg

Run the debugger and get a crash trace:

gdb -batch -n -ex 'set height 0' -ex run -ex bt -ex 'thread apply all bt full' 
--args aptitude changelog apt



As Paul says it would be interesting to know about this, to know exactly
what's causing the program to abort.  I don't have access to machines
with i386+unstable right now.

This looks like a case of miscompilation of some package (e.g. the
compiler using wrong machine code).

If the package being miscompiled was aptitude itself, it would probably
abort in many other places, not only with the "changelog" operation --
which is a minuscule part of aptitude.  But one never knows, so it would
be good to pin-point which library or code-path is causing this.


Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo 

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

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: Re: "aptitude changelog" aborts with "Illegal instruction"

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tags -1 + moreinfo
Bug #809184 [aptitude] "aptitude changelog" aborts with "Illegal instruction"
Added tag(s) moreinfo.

-- 
809184: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=809184
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: Re: Bug#488081: aptitude: prefers to take from experimental than unstable

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tags -1 + moreinfo
Bug #488081 [aptitude] aptitude: prefers to take from experimental than unstable
Added tag(s) moreinfo.

-- 
488081: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=488081
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#488081: aptitude: prefers to take from experimental than unstable

[Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]

Control: tags -1 + moreinfo


Hi,

2008-06-26 14:49 Daniel Burrows:

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:24:58AM +0200, Yann Dirson  was 
heard to say:

Package: aptitude
Version: 0.4.11.4-1, 0.4.11.6-1

With today's updates, sid's wengophone requires "libgnutls26 (>=
2.4.0-0)", not satisfied by lenny, but by unstable (2.4.0-2) and
experimental (2.4.0-1), which poses a problem to aptitude after selecting
everything for upgrade.  In that case, for some strange reason the
packages from experimental are considered better than the more recent ones
in unstable !  Note the identical aptitude scores, despite apt assigning
correct scores to the versions:

# LC_ALL=C apt-cache policy libgnutls26
libgnutls26:
  Installed: 2.2.5-1
  Candidate: 2.2.5-1
  Version table:
 2.4.0-2 0
500 http://ftp.fr.debian.org unstable/main Packages
 2.4.0-1 0
  1 http://ftp.debian.org ../project/experimental/main Packages
 *** 2.2.5-1 0
990 http://ftp.fr.debian.org testing/main Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status


 aptitude considers all "extra" (i.e., non-default) versions to be equal
when scoring dependency solutions.  That's probably what's happening
here.


I think that the behaviour has been changed since the version of the
original report, and aptitude better respects priorities set in
apt_preferences (lots of changes for 0.6.* and some for 0.7.* series).

Did you observe similar problems lately?  I haven't observed them myself
even if occasionally mixing release suites (inc. experimental), nor saw
recent reports about similar problems (but hidden among the still
hundreds of open bug reports, who knows).


The rest of the discussion in the bug report is a bit out of scope with
respect to the the original report.  Even if the underlying issue wasn't
fixed while this bug report stayed behind not closed (which is what I
think that it happened), I don't think that there's much that we can do
by now to guess what the original maintainer had in mind.


Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo 

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

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#542264: aptitude: Strange messages from dependency resolver

[Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]

Control: tags -1 + moreinfo


Hi Frank,

2009-09-15 20:58 Frank Küster:

Daniel Burrows  wrote:


  What does the version of aptitude in experimental do here?


(with packages with slightly changed depends)

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 texlive-base: Conflicts: texlive-base-bin but it is not installable
 texlive-latex-recommended: Conflicts: texlive-base-bin but it is not 
installable
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:

Upgrade the following packages:
texlive-base [2007.dfsg.2-4 (unstable, now) -> 2009~svn14580-1~1 (tl2009-pre)]
texlive-latex-recommended [2007.dfsg.2-4 (unstable, now) -> 2009~svn14580-1~1 
(tl2009-pre)]

Score is -10

So the only change is that now the  is replaced by the name of the
private repository. Which *does* help me, since it tells me that the
repository "http://localhost tl2009-pre/" is taken, not
"http://localhost experimental/main", probably because of the
experimental.

Or not.

# cat /etc/apt/preferences
Package: *
Pin: release a=experimental
Pin-Priority: 600
# apt-cache policy texlive-base
texlive-base:
 Installed: 2007.dfsg.2-4
 Candidate: 2009~svn14580-1~4
 Version table:
2009~svn14580-1~4 0
   500 http://localhost experimental/main Packages
2009~svn14580-1~1 0
   500 http://localhost tl2009-pre/ Packages
*** 2007.dfsg.2-4 0
   500 http://localhost sid/main Packages
   100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
# aptitude full-upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Reading extended state information
Initializing package states... Done
Reading task descriptions... Done
The following packages are BROKEN:
 texlive-base texlive-latex-recommended
The following NEW packages will be installed:
 fragmaster{a} libkpathsea5{a} luatex{a} texlive-binaries{a} texlive-doc-si{a} 
texlive-lang-arabic{a}
 texlive-lang-latvian{a} texlive-lang-lithuanian{a} texlive-luatex{a}
The following packages will be REMOVED:
 dvipdfmx{u} lcdf-typetools{u} libkpathsea-dev{u} tex4ht{u} tex4ht-common{u} 
texlive-base-bin{a}
 texlive-lang-arab{u} texlive-lang-manju{u}
The following packages will be upgraded:
 context lmodern tex-common texlive-bibtex-extra texlive-common 
texlive-doc-base texlive-doc-bg texlive-doc-cs+sk
 texlive-doc-de texlive-doc-el texlive-doc-en texlive-doc-es texlive-doc-fi 
texlive-doc-fr texlive-doc-it
 texlive-doc-ja texlive-doc-ko texlive-doc-mn texlive-doc-nl texlive-doc-pl 
texlive-doc-pt texlive-doc-ru
 texlive-doc-th texlive-doc-tr texlive-doc-uk texlive-doc-vi texlive-doc-zh 
texlive-extra-utils texlive-font-utils
 texlive-fonts-extra texlive-fonts-extra-doc texlive-fonts-recommended 
texlive-fonts-recommended-doc
 texlive-formats-extra texlive-full texlive-games texlive-generic-extra 
texlive-generic-recommended
 texlive-humanities texlive-humanities-doc texlive-lang-african 
texlive-lang-armenian texlive-lang-croatian
 texlive-lang-cyrillic texlive-lang-czechslovak texlive-lang-danish 
texlive-lang-dutch texlive-lang-finnish
 texlive-lang-french texlive-lang-german texlive-lang-greek texlive-lang-hebrew 
texlive-lang-hungarian
 texlive-lang-indic texlive-lang-italian texlive-lang-latin 
texlive-lang-mongolian texlive-lang-norwegian
 texlive-lang-other texlive-lang-polish texlive-lang-portuguese 
texlive-lang-spanish texlive-lang-swedish
 texlive-lang-tibetan texlive-lang-ukenglish texlive-lang-vietnamese 
texlive-latex-base texlive-latex-base-doc
 texlive-latex-extra texlive-latex-extra-doc texlive-latex-recommended-doc 
texlive-latex3 texlive-math-extra
 texlive-metapost texlive-metapost-doc texlive-music texlive-omega 
texlive-pictures texlive-pictures-doc
 texlive-plain-extra texlive-pstricks texlive-pstricks-doc texlive-publishers 
texlive-publishers-doc
 texlive-science texlive-science-doc texlive-xetex
The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
 ghostscript lacheck latex-cjk-all latex-sanskrit prosper ps2eps texpower tipa 
ttf-freefont ttf-gfs-artemisia
 ttf-gfs-baskerville ttf-gfs-bodoni-classic ttf-gfs-didot-classic ttf-gfs-gazis 
ttf-gfs-neohellenic
 ttf-gfs-solomos ttf-gfs-theokritos ttf-sil-gentium xindy
89 packages upgraded, 9 newly installed, 8 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 904MB of archives. After unpacking 625MB will be used.
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 texlive-base: Conflicts: texlive-base-bin but it is not installable
 texlive-latex-recommended: Conflicts: texlive-base-bin but it is not 
installable
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:

Upgrade the following packages:
texlive-base [2007.dfsg.2-4 (unstable, now) -> 2009~svn14580-1~1 (tl2009-pre)]
texlive-latex-recommended [2007.dfsg.2-4 (unstable, now) -> 2009~svn14580-1~1 
(tl2009-pre)]

Score is -10

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

Why does it not try to upgrade to 1~4 which apt-cache says is a candidate?

BTW, "apt-get dist-upgrade" does not complain about any problems. And it
currently downloads the 

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#809184: Bug#809184: "aptitude changelog" aborts with "Illegal instruction"

[Axel Beckert]

Control: tag -1 + unreproducible

Hi,

Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> I don't have access to machines with i386+unstable right now.

I just tried it (with apt 1.1.9 being installed) and can't reproduce
it. Works fine for me.

(That box wasn't online when the bug report was filed, so I couldn't
check immediately.)

Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert , http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-|  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE

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

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#809347: Bug#809347: mention try second identical run

[Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]

2015-12-29 17:55 Axel Beckert:

Hi Jidanni,

積丹尼 Dan Jacobson wrote:

Aptitude has a neat feature that I am not sure is documented on the man
page:

In the case that some of the packages cannot be retrieved, a second run
of aptitude will install the ones that can!


Indeed.


So perhaps on the man page mention that a second identical run of e.g.,
safe-upgrade, full-upgrade, will proceed to install available packages
that a first run couldn't.


But safe-upgrade and full-upgrade are the wrong examples. They do this
anyway. Also "apt upgrade" and friends do this. That's the idea of all
"upgrade" subcommands: Upgrade (more or less) all upgradable
packages -- independent of if there was a try to upgrade them before.

The nice thing is that aptitude stores installation wishes in general
and the next action will also fulfil them.

E.g. if for "aptitude install pkg1 pkg2" the installation of pkg2
fails, another "aptitude install" without further parameters will try
to install pkg2 again.


All this is documented in the man page, I think:


 install
 ...

 As a special case, “install” with no arguments will act on any
 stored/pending actions.

 Note

 Once you enter Y at the final confirmation prompt, the “install”
 command will modify aptitude's stored information about what actions
 to perform.

 Therefore, if you issue (e.g.) the command “aptitude install foo bar”
 and then abort the installation once aptitude has started downloading
 and installing packages, you will need to run “aptitude remove foo
 bar” to cancel that order.


 safe-upgrade && full-upgrade
 ...

 If no s are listed on the command line, aptitude will attempt
 to upgrade every package that can be upgraded. Otherwise, aptitude
 will attempt to upgrade only the packages which it is instructed to
 upgrade. The s can be extended with suffixes in the same
 manner as arguments to aptitude install, so you can also give
 additional instructions to aptitude here; for instance, aptitude
 safe-upgrade bash dash- will attempt to upgrade the bash package and
 remove the dash package.



Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo 

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

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: Re: aptitude: TUI reselects just removed packages for installation

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> tags -1 + moreinfo unreproducible
Bug #570492 [aptitude] aptitude: TUI reselects just removed packages for 
installation
Added tag(s) moreinfo and unreproducible.

-- 
570492: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=570492
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: owner 121313

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

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

> owner 121313 !
Bug #121313 [aptitude] aptitude: Seems to hide package manager errors and fails 
to install packages mysteriously
Bug #139615 [aptitude] doesn't return non-zero from errors
Bug #174090 [aptitude] aptitude doesn't report fatal errors
Bug #445035 [aptitude] exit code always successful
Bug #516161 [aptitude] aptitude has unpredictable state following network error
Bug #529925 [aptitude] aptitude should exit non-zero on error
Owner changed from Daniel Hartwig  to Manuel A. Fernandez 
Montecelo .
Owner changed from Daniel Hartwig  to Manuel A. Fernandez 
Montecelo .
Owner changed from Daniel Hartwig  to Manuel A. Fernandez 
Montecelo .
Owner changed from Daniel Hartwig  to Manuel A. Fernandez 
Montecelo .
Owner changed from Daniel Hartwig  to Manuel A. Fernandez 
Montecelo .
Owner changed from Daniel Hartwig  to Manuel A. Fernandez 
Montecelo .
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
121313: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=121313
139615: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=139615
174090: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=174090
445035: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=445035
516161: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=516161
529925: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=529925
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: owner 576212

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

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

> owner 576212 !
Bug #576212 [aptitude] aptitude: continues without prompt when installing 
non-existent packages
Owner changed from Daniel Hartwig  to Manuel A. Fernandez 
Montecelo .
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
576212: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=576212
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: owner 798320

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

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

> owner 798320 !
Bug #798320 [aptitude] aptitude: returns 0 (success) exit code when no packages 
found
Owner recorded as Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo .
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
798320: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=798320
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#809184: "aptitude changelog" aborts with "Illegal instruction"

[Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]

2015-12-29 17:48 Bjarni Ingi Gislason:

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 10:25:07AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 01:57:25 + Bjarni Ingi Gislason wrote:

>   aptitude changelog apt ...

Does this always produce the same outcome?



 Yes, at least three times.


>   Output was "Illegal instruction" with a return value of 132.
...
> Architecture: i386 (i586)

There are some things that would help the aptitude maintainers figure
out what the problem is:

Send the output of this command:

cat /proc/cpuinfo



processor   : 0
vendor_id   : AuthenticAMD
cpu family  : 5
model   : 8
model name  : AMD-K6(tm) 3D processor
stepping: 12
cpu MHz : 331.579
cache size  : 64 KB
fdiv_bug: no
f00f_bug: no
coma_bug: no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level : 1
wp  : yes
flags   : fpu vme de pse tsc msr cx8 pge mmx syscall 3dnow k6_mtrr 
vmmcall
bogomips: 663.15
clflush size: 32
cache_alignment : 32
address sizes   : 32 bits physical, 32 bits virtual
power management:


Enable the debug repo, install debug symbols, gdb and make a backtrace:

Create this file:

/etc/apt/sources.list.d/04-debian-debug.sources



 Error from apt-get.

 The line must end with ".list"


Put this line in it:

deb http://debug.mirrors.debian.org/debian-debug/ unstable-debug main



 Error from apt-get.

 The URL may not end with "/".


Update the apt cache:

sudo apt-get update

Install the gdb debugger and debug symbols:

sudo apt-get install gdb aptitude-dbg libapt-pkg5.0-dbgsym libboost1.58-dbg 
libc6-dbg libncursesw5-dbg libgcc1-dbg libsqlite3-0-dbg libstdc++6-5-dbg 
libtinfo5-dbg libxapian22v5-dbg

Run the debugger and get a crash trace:

gdb -batch -n -ex 'set height 0' -ex run -ex bt -ex 'thread apply all bt full' 
--args aptitude changelog apt



 Running just "aptitude" shows no error (no command issued except "q").

 Running "aptitude changelog" (no furter arguments) returns normally
with no output.

 Running "aptitude changelog apt" in a writable directory gives a core
dump.

 "gdb --core=core" shows:

Script started on þri 29. des 2015, kl. 04.08.33 GMT
$ gdb --core=core
GNU gdb (Debian 7.10-1) 7.10
Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later 
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.  Type "show copying"
and "show warranty" for details.
This GDB was configured as "i586-linux-gnu".
Type "show configuration" for configuration details.
For bug reporting instructions, please see:
.
Find the GDB manual and other documentation resources online at:
.
For help, type "help".
Type "apropos word" to search for commands related to "word".
[New LWP 4270]
[New LWP 4261]
[New LWP 4268]
Core was generated by `aptitude changelog apt'.
Program terminated with signal SIGILL, Illegal instruction.
#0  0xb6f5216f in ?? ()
[Current thread is 1 (LWP 4270)]
(gdb) quit
$ exit
exit

Script done on þri 29. des 2015, kl. 04.10.11 GMT


 The gdb trace reports:


Script started on þri 29. des 2015, kl. 04.11.05 GMT
$ gdb -batch -n -ex 'set height 0' -ex run -ex bt -ex 'thread apply all bt 
full' --args aptitude changelog apt
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
Using host libthread_db library "/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libthread_db.so.1".
[New Thread 0xb435bb40 (LWP 4317)]
[New Thread 0xb3b5bb40 (LWP 4318)]
[New Thread 0xb335bb40 (LWP 4319)]
[New Thread 0xb2b5bb40 (LWP 4320)]

Program received signal SIGILL, Illegal instruction.
[Switching to Thread 0xb335bb40 (LWP 4319)]
0xb7bf216f in boost::filesystem::path::m_parent_path_end 
(this=this@entry=0xb335afc4) at libs/filesystem/src/path.cpp:348
348 libs/filesystem/src/path.cpp: No such file or directory.
#0  0xb7bf216f in boost::filesystem::path::m_parent_path_end 
(this=this@entry=0xb335afc4) at libs/filesystem/src/path.cpp:348
#1  0xb7bf238a in boost::filesystem::path::parent_path 
(this=this@entry=0xb335afc4) at libs/filesystem/src/path.cpp:353
#2  0xb7beb3f8 in boost::filesystem::detail::create_directories (p=..., ec=0x0) 
at libs/filesystem/src/operations.cpp:940
#3  0x801b5e51 in boost::filesystem::create_directories (p=...) at 
/usr/include/boost/filesystem/operations.hpp:523
#4  get_download_cache () at ../../../../src/generic/apt/apt.cc:571
#5  0x801da21a in aptitude::(anonymous 
namespace)::download_thread::cache_lookup_thread::process_job 
(job=std::shared_ptr (empty) 0xb5f020b0, this=0xb335b308) at 
../../../../src/generic/apt/download_queue.cc:567
#6  aptitude::util::job_queue_thread >::run (this=this@entry=0xb5f06304) at 

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#809347: Bug#809347: mention try second identical run

[積丹尼 Dan Jacobson]

MAFM>  safe-upgrade && full-upgrade
MAFM>  ...

MAFM>  If no s are listed on the command line, aptitude will attempt
MAFM>  to upgrade every package that can be upgraded. Otherwise, aptitude
MAFM>  will attempt to upgrade only the packages which it is instructed to
MAFM>  upgrade. The s can be extended with suffixes in the same
MAFM>  manner as arguments to aptitude install, so you can also give
MAFM>  additional instructions to aptitude here; for instance, aptitude
MAFM>  safe-upgrade bash dash- will attempt to upgrade the bash package and
MAFM>  remove the dash package.

Well this should also mention how
# aptitude safe-upgrade
# aptitude safe-upgrade

or

# aptitude full-upgrade
# aptitude full-upgrade

will do more sometimes than just the single versions.
Because else the reader must somehow read between the lines to figure it
out.
It would be nice if all children would know that flushing the toilet
twice sometimes helps, but some will just give up after the first
failure.

Especially upon seeing
"E: Unable to correct for unavailable packages"
they might abandon hope. So maybe that should also say
"E: Unable to correct for unavailable packages. Maybe try running again..."

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

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: tagging 576212

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

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

> tags 576212 + pending
Bug #576212 [aptitude] aptitude: continues without prompt when installing 
non-existent packages
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
576212: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=576212
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: tagging 302784

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

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

> tags 302784 + pending
Bug #302784 [aptitude] aptitude: md5 check not caught
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
302784: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=302784
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: owner 445034

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

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

> owner 445034 !
Bug #445034 [aptitude] ignores version specification in "install pkg=ver"
Bug #590686 [aptitude] aptitude returns success (0) on failure to install
Bug #592818 [aptitude] aptitude returns with exit code 0 even if install of a 
certain version of package fails
Owner changed from Daniel Hartwig  to Manuel A. Fernandez 
Montecelo .
Owner changed from Daniel Hartwig  to Manuel A. Fernandez 
Montecelo .
Owner changed from Daniel Hartwig  to Manuel A. Fernandez 
Montecelo .
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
445034: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=445034
590686: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=590686
592818: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=592818
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: tagging 121313

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

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

> tags 121313 + pending
Bug #121313 [aptitude] aptitude: Seems to hide package manager errors and fails 
to install packages mysteriously
Bug #139615 [aptitude] doesn't return non-zero from errors
Bug #174090 [aptitude] aptitude doesn't report fatal errors
Bug #445035 [aptitude] exit code always successful
Bug #516161 [aptitude] aptitude has unpredictable state following network error
Bug #529925 [aptitude] aptitude should exit non-zero on error
Added tag(s) pending.
Added tag(s) pending.
Added tag(s) pending.
Added tag(s) pending.
Added tag(s) pending.
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
121313: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=121313
139615: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=139615
174090: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=174090
445035: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=445035
516161: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=516161
529925: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=529925
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: owner 639789

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

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

> owner 639789 !
Bug #639789 [aptitude] aptitude: Should pause and ask user before continuing 
when some downloads failed
Owner changed from Daniel Hartwig  to Manuel A. Fernandez 
Montecelo .
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
639789: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=639789
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: tagging 639789

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

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

> tags 639789 + pending
Bug #639789 [aptitude] aptitude: Should pause and ask user before continuing 
when some downloads failed
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
639789: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=639789
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: severity of 798320 is important

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

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

> severity 798320 important
Bug #798320 [aptitude] aptitude: returns 0 (success) exit code when no packages 
found
Severity set to 'important' from 'normal'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
798320: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=798320
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#252264: marked as done (aptitude: explicit selection of less-scored version is sticky)

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Tue, 29 Dec 2015 21:13:06 +0100
with message-id <20151229201305.gz10...@sym.noone.org>
and subject line Re: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#252264: aptitude: explicit selection 
of less-scored version is sticky
has caused the Debian Bug report #252264,
regarding aptitude: explicit selection of less-scored version is sticky
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
252264: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=252264
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.2.14.1-2
Severity: normal

On my sarge box, if I explicitely select for installation a sid version of a
package that is already uptodate according to sarge, and then later (same
session, no install run in between) change my mind and reselect the sarge
version, then aptitude still considers the sid version as being the one to
install.  IOW, it is the sid version appearing in the "available version"
column, if I hit '+' the sid version gets selected, and if I insist on
keeping the sarge version the package appears in the 'get' listing as an
ordinary package for which a new version is available in sarge, but for
which upgrade was not requested.

After the other packages get upgraded, and cache gets refreshed, the
behaviour is back to normal... at one detail: 2 packages suggested by an
installed one are now selected for automatic installation, although I don't
think they were here before, and I did not select them explicitely.  Rather,
IIRC they were pulled by one sid-only package I had tagged for install
before changing my mind, and I'm quite sure they were untagged when I
deselected that sid package (qdvdauthor, from Christian Marillat's
repository).

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (90, 'experimental'), (90, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.24-smp
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C

Versions of packages aptitude depends on:
ii  apt [libapt-pkg-libc6.3-5-3 0.5.25   Advanced front-end for dpkg
ii  libc6   2.3.2.ds1-12 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii  libgcc1 1:3.3.3-9GCC support library
ii  libncurses5 5.4-3Shared libraries for terminal hand
ii  libsigc++-1.2-5c102 1.2.5-1  Type-safe Signal Framework for C++
ii  libstdc++5  1:3.3.3-9The GNU Standard C++ Library v3

-- no debconf information

-- 
Yann Dirson |Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
Debian-related:  |   Support Debian GNU/Linux:
Pro: |  Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratuity
 http://ydirson.free.fr/| Check 

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 0.6.8.2-1

Hi,

Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> >On my sarge box, if I explicitely select for installation a sid version of a
> >package that is already uptodate according to sarge, and then later (same
> >session, no install run in between) change my mind and reselect the sarge
> >version, then aptitude still considers the sid version as being the one to
> >install.  IOW, it is the sid version appearing in the "available version"
> >column, if I hit '+' the sid version gets selected, and if I insist on
> >keeping the sarge version the package appears in the 'get' listing as an
> >ordinary package for which a new version is available in sarge, but for
> >which upgrade was not requested.
> >
> >After the other packages get upgraded, and cache gets refreshed, the
> >behaviour is back to normal...

Sounds familiar, indeed.

> I am not sure if I follow 100% the steps here, since the descriptions
> are a bit vague and somewhat difficult to parse for me...

It's probably clearer what he means if you ran into this in the past,
too. :-)

If you rebuilt the view (pressing "l" and then Enter without changing
the value) usually moved that package into the "upgradable packages"
section and stayed there.

> but I was trying to upgrade iceweasel to different versions of
> unstable and experimental several times and the behaviour was the
> expected one.

The package iceweasel is a good example to test and I can no more
reproduce that behaviour in neither Sid nor Wheezy (oldstable;
aptitude 0.6.8.2-1) which was quite well known to me (but never
considered an issue, more a little peculiarity.

I though could reproduce this behaviour in Debian Squeeze
(oldoldstable; aptitude 0.6.3), taking debsums from backports as
example:

i A  debsums  336 kB   2.0.48+nmu3