Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 29/05/08 at 13:24 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages
which are removed from the archive at some point, without an (enforced)
transition to a new package name. Users of such
Hi.
Le jeudi 29 mai 2008 à 13:24 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt a écrit :
Heya,
For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages
which are removed from the archive at some point, without an (enforced)
transition to a new package name. Users of such packages keep them
Le lundi 02 juin 2008 à 11:22 +0200, Olivier Berger a écrit :
Hi.
SNIP
Of course, I hope there's an explanation in this very case of why ntp
and update-manager got removed... and any hints would be welcome too ;)
For the records, I have some bits of response : asking the maintainers,
I
Hello,
Make sure I think dpkg is a great tool..
home:/root# echo $(grep -c dpkg .bash_history)/$(wc -l .bash_history)
40/502
On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 05:06 +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 21:37:28 +0200, Franklin PIAT wrote:
I suggest to modify dpkg so it refuse to install
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 06:17:44PM +0200, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
James Vega wrote:
As of version 0.4.11, this does happen. From the NEWS file:
* Command-line updates in aptitude will now list packages that are
newly obsolete. This doesn't work when a source
Wolf Wiegand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages
which are removed from the archive at some point, without an (enforced)
transition to a new package name. Users of such packages keep them
around, usually
Hi,
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Wolf Wiegand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe it should be mandatory to always have a transition package for
packages which are being removed from the archives? For example, when
package X_0.1 is to be removed from the archive, there has to be a
Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ssh test-box
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade
tests
ssh live-server
apt-get update
... sometimes gets a slightly different package list
Oh, yes. That's certainly true.
The only time we use apt-get is as a convenience when testing different
On Fri May 30 2008 10:20:51 Russ Allbery wrote:
Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All packages on live servers and workstations are installed with dpkg
-i to ensure we're using a tested combination. We could manually copy
the package lists or apt-get install foo=x.y.z but dpkg -i is more
Heya,
For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages
which are removed from the archive at some point, without an (enforced)
transition to a new package name. Users of such packages keep them
around, usually never noticing the fact that no security (or other)
support is
On 29/05/08 at 13:24 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Heya,
For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages
which are removed from the archive at some point, without an (enforced)
transition to a new package name. Users of such packages keep them
around, usually
Le jeudi 29 mai 2008 à 13:24 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt a écrit :
Heya,
For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages
which are removed from the archive at some point, without an (enforced)
transition to a new package name. Users of such packages keep them
around,
/me seems to remember a fairly recent discussion about this...
Right: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/03/msg00354.html
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Our current package management doesn't handle this case at all, so we
That is not entirely true: aptitude (and also dselect) does
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 01:24:59PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
The probably easiest way would be to make apt whine on all packages
that are not available in any version at one of the locations
specified in sources.list. This trivial solution sucks, because
locally created packages [1]
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 29/05/08 at 13:24 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages
which are removed from the archive at some point, without an (enforced)
transition to a new package name. Users of such
Hello,
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt schrieb:
For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages
which are removed from the archive at some point, without an (enforced)
transition to a new package name. Users of such packages keep them
around, usually never noticing the fact that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/29/08 08:01, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 29/05/08 at 13:24 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages
which are removed from the
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 02:40:07PM +0200, Kai Wasserbäch wrote:
And for me that is enough, though a automatic notification by
aptitude, when a package is added to that category would be nice.
As of version 0.4.11, this does happen. From the NEWS file:
* Command-line updates in aptitude will
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 05/29/08 08:01, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I usually run 'apt-show-versions | grep -v uptodate' to find them. The
remaining list is short enough to be analyzed manually.
I don't think normal users do that -
James Vega wrote:
As of version 0.4.11, this does happen. From the NEWS file:
* Command-line updates in aptitude will now list packages that are
newly obsolete. This doesn't work when a source is removed and
all its packages become obsolete, for technical reasons.
Hmm. New Debian
* Stefano Zacchiroli [Thu, 29 May 2008 14:18:35 +0200]:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 01:24:59PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
The probably easiest way would be to make apt whine on all packages
that are not available in any version at one of the locations
specified in sources.list. This
On 29-May-08, 07:07 (CDT), Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Our current package management doesn't handle this case at all, so we
That is not entirely true: aptitude (and also dselect) does clearly display
obsolete and locally built packages in a separate
Steve Greenland wrote:
Aptitude shows a group of obsolete and locally created packages.
However, it doesn't distinguish between them, as far as I can tell,
which is what Marc (and I) would like.
There really is no current way to do this. Case in point: if you use
wget and dpkg -i to install
CCing debian-dpkg for obvious reasons.
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 14:18 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 01:24:59PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
The probably easiest way would be to make apt whine on all packages
that are not available in any version at one of the
On Thu May 29 2008 12:37:28 Franklin PIAT wrote:
Using `dpkg -i` really is insane as far as security is concerned :
The above statement is false.
Many people do extra levels of testing before
rolling out updates with dpkg -i. With apt-get
you never know when the package lists will be updated.
Hi,
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages
which are removed from the archive at some point, without an (enforced)
transition to a new package name. Users of such packages keep them
around, usually never noticing the fact that no
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
Our current package management doesn't handle this case at all, so we
might need to fix this - we just need to decide how. The probably
easiest way would be to make apt whine on all packages that are not
available in any version at one of the locations specified
Hello,
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 14:40 +0200, Kai Wasserbäch wrote:
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt schrieb:
For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages
which are removed from the archive at some point, without an (enforced)
transition to a new package name. Users of such
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
One could create dummy transition packages that `provides` the removed
package :
or conflict with them in a suported-lenny package.
But I think obsolete packages can be mail-warned in security reports just
like vrms or something. PAckages needing patches
Yes, this could be solved by having APT (probably) store the origin of the
package when installing. Then, for example, if an APT front-end realizes
while updating package index files that a package coming from Debian is not
available anymore from Debian sources, the user could be prompted.
--
Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Many people do extra levels of testing before
rolling out updates with dpkg -i. With apt-get
you never know when the package lists will be updated.
Uh... the package lists are updated when you run apt-get update. I must
be missing something.
--
Russ
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 21:37:28 +0200, Franklin PIAT wrote:
I suggest to modify dpkg so it refuse to install package, unless the
option --insecure is specified. Such option's manpage description
would be :
That'd be mostly just annoying for no actual benefit. It would break
existing
On Thu May 29 2008 16:58:41 Russ Allbery wrote:
Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Many people do extra levels of testing before
rolling out updates with dpkg -i. With apt-get
you never know when the package lists will be updated.
Uh... the package lists are updated when you run apt-get
33 matches
Mail list logo
