On 2017-06-28, David Wright <deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 'apt-get install <package>' will tell you why a package is being held
>> back (or, as discussed in another thread, will ask your permission to
>> install an extra package--or packages--in order to meet its dependencies).
>
> It's less risky to add the -s switch and just be a user, thus:
I wasn't aware of that.
> $ apt-get -s install <package>
However:
curty@einstein:~$ apt-get -s install bzflag
NOTE: This is only a simulation!
apt-get needs root privileges for real execution.
Keep also in mind that locking is deactivated,
so don't depend on the relevance to the real current
situation!
I suppose 'locking is deactivated, so don't depend on the relevance to the
real current situation!" might mean on a multi-user system on which the
administrator is fiddling with a package manager concurrently, the
output of your command might or might not reflect reality.
>>>> [Re: apt-get upgrade problem] >>> What?
> Attached…
So you were facetiously applying my query to the Woolf signature quote
(which I don't see and didn't think anybody was seeing and assumed was
being snipped by the list master along with all the other conformingly
formatted signatures).
> Cheers,
> David.
>
--
“Yeah yeah.” --Sidney Morgenbesser's retort to a speaker who said that although
there are many cases in which two negatives make a positive, he knew of no case
in which two positives made a negative.
