On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 11:40:01AM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 10:12:33PM -0400, Wesley Schwengle wrote:
> > I do not know what the bug here is, it could be one of these options:
> >
> > 1) apt-get/apt upgrade accepts packages to upgrade where the docs state it
>
Control: retitle -1 document package specifiers for `upgrade`
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 10:12:33PM -0400, Wesley Schwengle wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 11:32:24PM +0100, Miguel Angel Rojas wrote:
> > > I see. It looks like `apt upgrade ' behaves as `apt install
> > > '. Which (to me) is
Control: retitle -1 apt upgrade : it removes packages when it
shouldn't.
The case you mentioned is a tricky one, yes: *apt upgrade foo+ bar-* (I
really don't know how apt handles it internally but having this option is
very useful. Of course, I wouldn't remove it).
I think it makes a lot of
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 11:32:24PM +0100, Miguel Angel Rojas wrote:
> > I see. It looks like `apt upgrade ' behaves as `apt install
> > '. Which (to me) is unexpected behaviour, as the man page is
> quite
> >clear on its behaviour (man 8 apt-get):
>
> Well, clearly it shouldn’t. To begin with,
> I see. It looks like `apt upgrade ' behaves as `apt install
> '. Which (to me) is unexpected behaviour, as the man page is
quite
>clear on its behaviour (man 8 apt-get):
Well, clearly it shouldn’t. To begin with, “apt install” should mark a
package as manual installed while “apt upgrade”
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 10:48:53PM +0100, Miguel Angel Rojas wrote:
> Hi Wesley, David,
>
> > You keep saying `apt upgrade' yet your command was `apt full-upgrade'.
>
> Yes, maybe it didn't express itself properly. After your suggestion about
> not using "apt full-upgrade" during this t64
Hi Wesley, David,
> You keep saying `apt upgrade' yet your command was `apt full-upgrade'.
Yes, maybe it didn't express itself properly. After your suggestion about
not using "apt full-upgrade" during this t64 migration, I followed your
advice and used only "apt upgrade" for individual upgrades.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 05:09:47PM +0100, Miguel Angel Rojas wrote:
> Yes, it is confusing for me too. Without considering this t64 migration,
> “apt upgrade” should *NOT* remove any package (just upgrading a package to
> a newer version or install new dependencies). But it is removing packages
>
Hi Miguel,
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 05:09:47PM +0100, Miguel Angel Rojas wrote:
> > I do not know, at times I'm also wondering why it doesn't do it, but I
> didn't
> > take time to look at the code to understand what the resolver is doing.
> Also,
> > it was sort of expected. I think we can
Hi Wesley,
Good conversation here. Let me give you some comments from my side:
> No, there is (or was) something going on with the dependencies of
gdm-minimal
> for sure. I think it is related to libdebuginfod1, which has a t64
variant.
> This one has a dependency to libelf1 and libdw1. Now the
Hello Miguel,
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 09:50:12AM +0100, Miguel Angel Rojas wrote:
> >This problem isn't because of apt, the problem is that gdb-minimal/gdb
> > dependencies cannot be satified. A full-upgrade is the equivalent of a
> > dist-upgrade which will remove packages to resolve the
Hi Wesley,
>This problem isn't because of apt, the problem is that gdb-minimal/gdb
> dependencies cannot be satified. A full-upgrade is the equivalent of a
> dist-upgrade which will remove packages to resolve the dependencies. The
> problem you are facing is the t64 transition[1][2] where not
On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 02:13:34PM +0100, Miguel Angel wrote:
> # apt full-upgrade
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree... Done
> Reading state information... Done
> Calculating upgrade... Error!
> Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
>
Package: apt
Version: 2.7.13+b1
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: mianro...@gmail.com
# apt full-upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Error!
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
14 matches
Mail list logo
