Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Ralf Mardorf:

ls -hAl/var/log/apt/


Thank you, that is very useful.

Using the GNOME System Log application I searched for something like 
this before starting this conversation, but the apt logs were not listed 
there. Do you thing this should be reported as a bug?





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Russ Allbery]

Alberto Salvia Novella  writes:

> The problem seems to be that the package manager does not make its basic
> functionality, which is to make clear for users which packages they wish
> to remove.

> For me it seems a minor problem that a console tool could be removed,
> compared with packages accumulating and no longer been able to tell which
> of those are really needed or not.

I completely disagree.  A package manager should default to retaining
packages in case they're useful, not default to removing them.  Removing
packages is far more destructive than keeping unused packages.

> Specially when the kind of user who uses the console is who could tell
> when this tool will be removed, and the package manager would list
> those.

There are multiple tools that do things like this.  I'm very happy with
how apt works now; I think it's correctly doing what it should in the
situation described in this thread.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Russ Allbery:
> I think it's correctly doing what it should in the situation
> described in this thread.

Okay, so what I said is what I saw. And deciding if it is true or not 
has always been your choice.



Ralf Mardorf:
> Seemingly you can't provide new arguments, so you should expect to
> get the same replies and perhaps some subscribers consider it as
> trolling or spamming, so that they don't read mails of this thread
> anymore.

If I disagreed with you, how much would you care?




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:03:16 +0100, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
>Ralf Mardorf:
> > Seemingly you can't provide new arguments, so you should expect to
> > get the same replies and perhaps some subscribers consider it as
> > trolling or spamming, so that they don't read mails of this thread
> > anymore.  
>
>If I disagreed with you, how much would you care?

1. You described an issue.

2. IIRC everybody agrees that this issue does exist, but that for a
majority of users it's not important, it's not really an issue and that
there is no good way to solve this, without risking to cause serious
annoyances.

3. IIRC perhaps somebody will add an undo function to a GUI. You could
consider to use the history to manually purge unwanted dependencies, so
you even don't need to write a script.

[root@moonstudio ~]# ls -hAl /var/log/apt/
total 1.3M
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 161K Dec 20 12:46 history.log
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  13K Aug  5 02:21 history.log.1.gz
-rw-r- 1 root adm  1.1M Dec 20 12:46 term.log
-rw-r- 1 root adm   40K Aug  5 02:21 term.log.1.gz

In the future you could install packages without recommended
dependencies you don't want to install, it was several times explained
how to do this.

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

David Kalnischkies:
> Your complain was after all that apt declares some packages you
> consider unused as used...

The problem seems to be that the package manager does not make its basic 
functionality, which is to make clear for users which packages they wish 
to remove.


For me it seems a minor problem that a console tool could be removed, 
compared with packages accumulating and no longer been able to tell 
which of those are really needed or not.


Specially when the kind of user who uses the console is who could tell 
when this tool will be removed, and the package manager would list those.



David Kalnischkies:
> Now read all the replies to your idea again and compare numbers.

Note point 6 at .




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Ralf Mardorf]

Hi Alberto,

seemingly you can't provide new arguments, so you should expect to get the  
same replies and perhaps some subscribers consider it as trolling or  
spamming, so that they don't read mails of this thread anymore.


On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 15:22:02 +0100, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:

David Kalnischkies:
 > Your complain was after all that apt declares some packages you
 > consider unused as used...

The problem seems to be that the package manager does not make its basic
functionality, which is to make clear for users which packages they wish
to remove.


A package manager's functionality is to remove packages, but not to know  
(and to make clear) what the user wishes to remove.
Apt has got no mind reading abilities, but apt provides options, such as  
"--no-install-recommends" and a configuration file, assumed it's not only  
temporarily wanted. Apt based GUIs such as Synaptic provide a  
configuration either, but I don't know if they are related to this issue.



http://tinyurl.com/q7rkpcg


aka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#Intentional_fallacies

Have you read it and compared with what you're doing? Consider also to read

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting

and compare it with what you're doing.

Regarding Ubuntu flavors I'm subscribed to this list and to
- Ubuntu users
- Xubuntu users
- Ubunbtu Studio users
- Ubuntu Studio devel
at least since month, to some lists since years and I was subscribed to at  
least

- Kubuntu user
- Debian user
too.

What you consider to be an issue, seems to be not an issue for others, I  
can't remember any thread about this subject. Changing the behavior of apt  
most likely would cause confusion and break the work-flow of many users,  
without providing a benefit.


A suggestion already was made, it might be possible to provide a very  
limited undo feature based on the log file, aka history. I wouldn't expect  
that somebody will program this, but you could write a script yourself, so  
no special programming abilities are needed.


Upstream and some other distros usually do not separate recommended and  
suggested dependencies, it's a Debian policy.


"Recommends

This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency.

The Recommends field should list packages that would be found together  
with this one in all but unusual installations.


Suggests

This is used to declare that one package may be more useful with one or  
more others. Using this field tells the packaging system and the user that  
the listed packages are related to this one and can perhaps enhance its  
usefulness, but that installing this one without them is perfectly  
reasonable." -  
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html


This policy has got advantages and drawbacks. One of the drawbacks is what  
you're experiencing as an issue, IOW it doesn't perfectly fits to  
everybody's needs. My favorite package management isn't apt. I prefer  
pacman over apt. However, you likely would prefer apt over pacman, but  
there might be another package management that fit better to your needs,  
than apt does.


IMO a distro should stay with it's policy and not change it to satisfy a  
minority of users of this distro. I don't expect Ubuntu/Debian to adopt  
the way pacman works, since it's made to fit to a completely different  
policy, for a completely different distro, with a completely different  
target group. For my needs I use another distro, to help Linux musicians I  
additionally use Ubuntu flavors. IMO you unlikely will find a more  
user-friendly distro than Ubuntu, this is at least the distro the so  
called averaged user (mentioned by you) prefers over other distros. It's  
very risky to change basics of a distro, especially if just a minority of  
users would benefit from such changes, that at the same time likely would  
confuse a majority of users.


Regards,
Ralf

--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[David Kalnischkies]

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 01:50:45AM +0100, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> Luis Felipe Tabera Alonso:
> David Kalnischkies:
> > It is not a good idea to perform autoremoves unattended for situations
> > in which you have installed A (gui) depends B (console) depends
> > C (data), but later decide that you don't like A.
> 
> What if:
> - "remove" removes a package and all the unused depends, recommends and
> suggests.

The problem is the word "unused" here. You have obviously a different
definition (which isn't implementable) than apt has, otherwise "apt
autoremove $pkg" would already do what you describe – your complain was
after all that apt declares some packages you consider unused as used…


> - but before removing asks the user to exclude packages from the removal,
> and from that moment marks those as installed by the user.

apt shows a list of packages which could be autoremoved as well as
a list of packages which will be removed after pressing yes. Preventing
a package to be considered for autoremove is as simple as installing it…
Asking the user to confirm each and every removal would end up being
pretty annoying very fast and if its something you don't want to train
users to do, its is brainlessly pressing yes a hundred times as the
important question nr 101 will surely be answered just as quick with yes
as well – potentially followed a split-second later by a "N!" but
its too late then.

Also note that we talked about "unattended" here. Who should answer all
those questions if the point of the exercise was to make autoremove do
its thing without asking any questions…


(And if you can't imagine that many removes, dist-upgrades can easy
include that much and thanks to the gcc5-transition this time around it
will be an especially big list)


> - "autoremove" only removes depends.

You will have to give slightly more details on this one as by itself,
that sentence makes no sense for me.


> David Kalnischkies:
> > After 6 years I think I have enough 'battle' experience to say that
> > even I have still ideas which look good on paper only... and its good
> > that others put a stop to such ideas before those ideas have a chance
> > to hurt me (and I can assure you, I implemented ideas which never
> > should have been and now taunt me by their mere existence).
> 
> Imagine that we have the perfect way to innovate. That we have decided
> slowly along with other people, the change is small, we have put it on test
> as prototype, and the outcome seems to be very positive.
> 
> Would that make us get rid of complains?

If you add free icecream and a cherry topping… maybe… that wasn't at all
what I was trying to say through, as implementing good ideas is
(comparatively) easy in free software. The hard part is figuring out the
good ideas as people tend to feel very attached to their own ideas and
can take it the wrong way if others tell them the idea isn't as good as
they believe - even if they provide examples and hard facts.


Imagine that you drive on the highway and a wrong-way driver crosses
your path. Then a second. And a third. And yet another…

How many wrong-way drivers does it take before you realize that maybe it
is you who is driving in the wrong direction? Now read all the replies
to your idea again and compare numbers.


Enough from me for this year & thread now through, so:
Happy "package management" days and best regards,

David Kalnichkies


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Ralf Mardorf:
> Do you think it would be a good idea if apt would provide a checklist
> that ask the user for each command 20 or 30 questions before it
> continues?

It could be that, instead of asking if to proceed, to write down 
packages to exclude.



Alberto Salvia Novella:
> What should "purge" do?

The same thing.


Alberto Salvia Novella:
> Would that make us get rid of complains?

Ralf Mardorf:
> What do you think?

99% of improvements I saw found some kind of hate against them, and the 
strong ones came from people that were not getting so much done.



Ralf Mardorf:
> This kind of user won't notice a few packages that were not removed.

The present behaviour leads to various desktop environments running 
simultaneously in the background, when no application really needs them.


This was suggested by a different user, and I just validated that it is 
very true.


Moreover: http://tinyurl.com/zdkrarz




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Ralf Mardorf]

Hi Alberto,

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 01:50:45 +0100, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
>What if:
>- "remove" removes a package and all the unused depends, recommends
>and suggests.
>- but before removing asks the user to exclude packages from the 
>removal, and from that moment marks those as installed by the user.
>- "autoremove" only removes depends.

What do you think would users say, who are using apt for more than 10
years? It also requires to rewrite scripts and programs based on apt.

>Would that make us get rid of complains?

What do you think?

What should "purge" do?

Btw. do you think it would be a good idea if apt would provide a
checklist that ask the user for each command 20 or 30 questions before
it continues?

Should there be an Ubuntu apt hat differs from the Debian apt?

What you are trying to do is making something proved more complicated,
less friendly for your averaged user and for power users.

1. Irresponsible users, IOW your averaged user who wants to use the
computer without learning how to use a computer, likely a refugee from
Windows, doesn't care. This user pushes a button to install software and
another button to remove it. This kind of user won't notice a few
packages that were not removed, but this kind of user would notice, if
software that wasn't explicitly removed is missing.

2. Self-responsible users, willing to learn how to use a computer in
the same way as they learned how to eat with forks and knifes, how to
use a washing machine etc., are simply aware how apt works without the
need to be power users and assumed they are pedantic or simply very
interested, they will learn more and more and become power users soon
or later.

Nobody, really nobody would benefit from changing apt this way.

I'm speaking for all Debian, Ubuntu, Debian derivatives and Ubuntu
derivatives user, they are all sitting in my room at the moment and bow
assent.

Regards,
Ralf

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Luis Felipe Tabera Alonso:

aptitude why $packagename


Oh! this is very useful!


David Kalnischkies:
> It is not a good idea to perform autoremoves unattended for situations
> in which you have installed A (gui) depends B (console) depends
> C (data), but later decide that you don't like A.

What if:
- "remove" removes a package and all the unused depends, recommends and 
suggests.
- but before removing asks the user to exclude packages from the 
removal, and from that moment marks those as installed by the user.

- "autoremove" only removes depends.


David Kalnischkies:
> After 6 years I think I have enough 'battle' experience to say that
> even I have still ideas which look good on paper only... and its good
> that others put a stop to such ideas before those ideas have a chance
> to hurt me (and I can assure you, I implemented ideas which never
> should have been and now taunt me by their mere existence).

Imagine that we have the perfect way to innovate. That we have decided 
slowly along with other people, the change is small, we have put it on 
test as prototype, and the outcome seems to be very positive.


Would that make us get rid of complains?




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[flocculant]

On 24/12/15 00:50, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:

[snip]

Imagine that we have the perfect way to innovate. That we have decided 
slowly along with other people, the change is small, we have put it on 
test as prototype, and the outcome seems to be very positive.


Would that make us get rid of complains?





of course not

tomorrow is another day
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Alexandre Detiste]

Le mardi 22 décembre 2015, 00:35:25 Robie Basak a écrit :
> I had always assumed that this is the risk you take by using autoremove
> and thus you need to pay attention to what you autoremove, which is for
> example why unattended-upgrades is sensible by not doing it by default.

Excepted that unattended-upgrades is changeing this behaviour right
now because some users got their /boot filled with many differents kernel images
over the time.

https://github.com/mvo5/unattended-upgrades/commit/25ff94915a9fc99058839d16761cf029896cbe05
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unattended-upgrades/+bug/1357093


*) "apt-get autoremove" should always be safe;
   one can use apt-mark manual to pin pakcages

*) "apt-get remove $(deborphan)" is more dangerous; and should be done manually;
and then one can also build fake empty packages with equivs to register some
-libs or -devel packages as needed by a local application.

Greets,

Alexandre

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[David Kalnischkies]

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 12:35:25AM +, Robie Basak wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 03:08:51PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > I'll repeat this one last time for you: If A suggests B, and you
> > install B in some way, you may have come to rely on the fact that A is
> > extended by B on your system. Automatically removing B could thus
> > cause an unexpected loss of functionality.
> 
> I understand your logic here. But doesn't the same logic apply to
> Depends? If B depends on A and you install B in some way, then you may
> have come to reply on the fact that A is extended by B on your system,
> etc.

What? A isn't extending B – B needs A to function, that is all. [What
you describe is maybe "Enhances", which is a sort-of reverse Suggests
(expect that there is no option to install them all by default… I wonder
what the point would be to install all iceweasel extensions)].


If you installed B either A was already installed or A was installed by
your request for B. Either way A will not be autoremoved (even if it was
at some point automatically installed to satisfy a dependency-relation
of C on A) as long as B is there (and/or C).

A package can only be autoremoved if it is auto-installed and isn't
a possible satisfier for a (Pre-)Depends/Recommends/Suggests relation
(or-group) of another package which isn't autoremovable.


> I had always assumed that this is the risk you take by using autoremove
> and thus you need to pay attention to what you autoremove, which is for
> example why unattended-upgrades is sensible by not doing it by default.

It is not a good idea to perform autoremoves unattended for situations
in which you have installed A (gui) depends B (console) depends
C (data), but later decide that you don't like A (gui) anymore as you
prefer using the console interface (B) directly. apt doesn't know that
you ended up using B directly - it still believes it was installing
B just for A, so after you removed A it will offer to autoremove B and C.

Not the end of the world of course: reinstalling B is easy if it got
removed and as long as you don't purge it it will be as it was before.
You are in danger of surprising the user through (what the hell
happend?!?  Where is B?) and it is possible it will occur to the user
that B is missing at a very inconvenient time (no internet or simply
uninstallable at the moment). Its easy to dismiss this as no real
problem, but if you ever experience this first hand your opinion might
change. The alternatives might be worse through.


> What makes Recommends and Suggests special?

They aren't special, that is the point. The only difference between
these relations is just if they will be installed by default (Depends,
Recommends), if apt allows you to remove it without removing the package
which has such a dependency-relation on it (Recommends, Suggests) and if
apt is allowed to break such a relation via autoremove (none).

There are options to change property one (you can't change it for
Depends of course) and three (ditto) and if I remember right e.g.
aptitude warns if you do two [something I want do implement for apt some
day].


apt tends to be *very* conservative with removes which is a common
complain - this thread is an example, the "usual" upgrade-problems if
a maintainer decided that a transitional package is probably not needed
is another. "Interestingly", if apt eventually decides to remove
a package that tends to cause people to complain as well…


We are open to ideas to improve apt, but apt is used by many people with
very different expectations, so an idea which looks like an obvious
no-brainer in your head might not survive contact with reality.
After 6 years I think I have enough 'battle' experience to say that even
I have still ideas which look good on paper only… and its good that
others put a stop to such ideas before those ideas have a chance to hurt
me (and I can assure you, I implemented ideas which never should have
been and now taunt me by their mere existence).


Best regards

David Kalnischkies


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Julian Andres Klode]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 04:10:31PM +0100, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> Julian Andres Klode:
> > If A suggests B, and you install B in some way, you may have come to
> > rely on the fact that A is extended by B on your system.
> > Automatically removing B could thus cause an unexpected loss of
> > functionality.
> 
> The point I do not understand is why after removing A, being A the only that
> recommends B from all the packages installed by the user, B is still
> considered needed.
> 
> Is it because a previously installed package recommends B but didn't install
> it? Or because the new set up makes the dependency tree to recommend itself?

Cycles are also possible, but less likely. Usually it is a Suggests from
another existing package, as I have explained about three times already.

I also wrote I am thinking about adding some kind of apt revert command
that allows you to revert entries from apt's history.log, which would allow
you to undo install commands.

But that's sort-of-dangerous in many cases (everything involving an
upgrade), and most likely only works for the latest change.

-- 
Julian Andres Klode  - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member

See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.

When replying, only quote what is necessary, and write each reply
directly below the part(s) it pertains to (`inline'). Thank you.

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Julian Andres Klode]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 04:37:40PM +0100, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> Julian Andres Klode:
> > Usually it is a Suggests from another existing package.
> 
> If I run "apt-cache depends gnome-shell", it says:
> Recommends: gdm
> Breaks: gdm
> 
> Is this normal, having a package both as recommended and as breaking?

It does not show you version numbers. gnome-shell recommends gdm,
because it works best with it, and breaks old gdm versions it does
not work with.

-- 
Julian Andres Klode  - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member

See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.

When replying, only quote what is necessary, and write each reply
directly below the part(s) it pertains to (`inline'). Thank you.

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Julian Andres Klode]

On 21 December 2015 at 14:59, Alberto Salvia Novella
 wrote:
> Julian Andres Klode:
>>
>> autoremove will remove all packages that no other package
>> PreDepends, Depends, Recommends, or Suggests.
>
>
> Probably the problem is the latest.
>
> Since I did not install other package apart from cortina, probably what is
> holding back gdm is a package already present in the system. Hold as
> suggested.
>
> Because the default behaviour is to automatically install recommended
> packages but not suggested ones, that is what is causing the mismatch.
>
> The expected behaviour is autoremove to keep packages from the sets that
> will install automatically, and to remove the rest. So to depend on the
> system configuration.
>

No it's not. I told you what the expected behavior is and the reasons
why it is the expected behavior. You can configure that differently if
you want to.

I'll repeat this one last time for you: If A suggests B, and you
install B in some way, you may have come to rely on the fact that A is
extended by B on your system. Automatically removing B could thus
cause an unexpected loss of functionality.

This is not going to be changed, so do not waste your time and
everyone elses time.

-- 
Julian Andres Klode  - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member

See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Abou Al Montacir]

On Mon, 2015-12-21 at 17:03 +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 04:57:39PM +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> > Hi Julian
> > 
> > On Mon, 2015-12-21 at 16:13 +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > > I also wrote I am thinking about adding some kind of apt revert command
> > > that allows you to revert entries from apt's history.log, which would
> > > allow
> > > you to undo install commands.
> > That will be really a great feature. I was always upset that apt(itude) does
> > not
> > have this feature. I was even thinking about a feature that allows you to
> > recover your system at a certain date based on snapshots.
> > The last time I was missing this is today. I updated ssh and suddenly I
> > could
> > not access anymore my github account due to my key was rejected. I would
> > loved
> > to aptitude revert instead of doing this manually.
> 
> In a lot of cases it won't work though. For example, reverting an
> upgrade is formally unsupported (so you'd need to answer yes to
> some warnings), and in any case, the old versions and packages
> still need to be available in your sources. Actually, anything
> where something other than an install happened (whether remove
> or upgrade) is a bit flaky.
I was more thinking about sid/testing users that stable users. So these people
should be experimented enough to be able to deal with warnings.
Normally one can always access snapshots to recover a given version of any
package so why should one have to have the old packages?
> A better option is to use snapshotting on the file system.
> 

Yes was thinking about putting / in a git repository and playing with
.gitignore, but maybe there are better solutions.
-- 
Cheers,
Abou Al Montacir

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Luis Felipe Tabera Alonso]

On lunes, 21 de diciembre de 2015 16:10:31 (CET) Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> Julian Andres Klode:
>  > If A suggests B, and you install B in some way, you may have come to
>  > rely on the fact that A is extended by B on your system.
>  > Automatically removing B could thus cause an unexpected loss of
>  > functionality.
> 
> The point I do not understand is why after removing A, being A the only
> that recommends B from all the packages installed by the user, B is
> still considered needed.

Just a note, if you want to know why the system insists on havin a specific 
package installed, you can try the command

aptitude why $packagename

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Julian Andres Klode]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 04:57:39PM +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> Hi Julian
> 
> On Mon, 2015-12-21 at 16:13 +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > I also wrote I am thinking about adding some kind of apt revert command
> > that allows you to revert entries from apt's history.log, which would allow
> > you to undo install commands.
> That will be really a great feature. I was always upset that apt(itude) does 
> not
> have this feature. I was even thinking about a feature that allows you to
> recover your system at a certain date based on snapshots.
> The last time I was missing this is today. I updated ssh and suddenly I could
> not access anymore my github account due to my key was rejected. I would loved
> to aptitude revert instead of doing this manually.

In a lot of cases it won't work though. For example, reverting an
upgrade is formally unsupported (so you'd need to answer yes to
some warnings), and in any case, the old versions and packages
still need to be available in your sources. Actually, anything
where something other than an install happened (whether remove
or upgrade) is a bit flaky.

A better option is to use snapshotting on the file system.

-- 
Julian Andres Klode  - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member

See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.

When replying, only quote what is necessary, and write each reply
directly below the part(s) it pertains to (`inline'). Thank you.

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Johannes Schauer]

Hi,

Quoting Julian Andres Klode (2015-12-21 13:43:41)
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 01:35:21PM +0100, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> > Julian Andres Klode:
> > > It just happens that some of the newly installed dependencies are also
> > > Suggested by other installed packages, and thus are not removed,
> > > because you might have installed the package in order to extend the
> > > functionality of another installed package suggesting it.
> > 
> > sudo apt-get install cortina -y
> > sudo apt-get purge cortina -y
> > sudo apt-get autoremove -y
> > 
> > Result: the recommended dependencies installed only during this operation
> > are not removed. Now we have the GNOME Display Manager, and also plenty of
> > extra wallpapers, among others.
> 
> This is intended. Some other packages that were previously installed
> merely suggest gdm, so the end result is that the package will stay
> installed.
> 
> If you don't want that, you can set 
>   APT::AutoRemove::SuggestsImportant
> to false.

it is maybe also worth mentioning that since apt 1.1.5 and fixing of Debian bug
#807413 this setting (AutoRemove::SuggestsImportant and
AutoRemove::RecommendsImportant) is semi-documented in
/usr/share/doc/apt/examples/configure-index.gz

cheers, josch


signature.asc
Description: signature
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Robie Basak]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 03:08:51PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> I'll repeat this one last time for you: If A suggests B, and you
> install B in some way, you may have come to rely on the fact that A is
> extended by B on your system. Automatically removing B could thus
> cause an unexpected loss of functionality.

I understand your logic here. But doesn't the same logic apply to
Depends? If B depends on A and you install B in some way, then you may
have come to reply on the fact that A is extended by B on your system,
etc.

I had always assumed that this is the risk you take by using autoremove
and thus you need to pay attention to what you autoremove, which is for
example why unattended-upgrades is sensible by not doing it by default.

What makes Recommends and Suggests special?


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 00:35:25 +, Robie Basak wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 03:08:51PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
>> I'll repeat this one last time for you: If A suggests B, and you
>> install B in some way, you may have come to rely on the fact that A
>> is extended by B on your system. Automatically removing B could thus
>> cause an unexpected loss of functionality.  
>
>I understand your logic here. But doesn't the same logic apply to
>Depends? If B depends on A and you install B in some way, then you may
>have come to reply on the fact that A is extended by B on your system,
>etc.
>
>I had always assumed that this is the risk you take by using autoremove
>and thus you need to pay attention to what you autoremove, which is for
>example why unattended-upgrades is sensible by not doing it by default.
>
>What makes Recommends and Suggests special?

They are optional dependencies. Software can run without optional
dependencies, just some options are missing if those dependencies
aren't installed. Hard dependencies are dependencies that are needed by
the software.

Recommended and suggested dependencies are Debian/Ubuntu terms for
optional dependencies. The default is that recommended dependencies are
automatically installed too and suggested dependencies are not
automatically installed.

There is something else to consider regarding upgrades, the difference
between upgrade (under no circumstances are currently installed
packages removed, nor are packages that are not already installed
retrieved and installed) and dist-upgrade (a "smart" conflict
resolution system, and it will attempt to upgrade the most important
packages at the expense of less important ones, if necessary).

However, claims to make it more user-friendly for some so called
"averaged" user are hard to fulfil, solutions always need to be
solutions based on the common ground. User-friendly doesn't mean that a
non restricted free operating system could be used without a learning
curve or without any self-responsibility.

Even if the package management would be able to read the mind of a
user, it only could do what's in the mind of the user.

The package management is unable to read the mind, but a user can
configure the package management not to use the defaults. The defaults
of Ubuntu try to fit to what is common ground of "averaged" users.

Somebody already pointed out, the only enhancement could be an undo
option based on the package management's log (history), but that could
become very tricky. I bet it will cause more trouble, than enhance
user-friendliness.
-- 
http://www.grundgesetz-gratis.de/

-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Oliver Grawert]

hi,
Am Montag, den 21.12.2015, 13:35 +0100 schrieb Alberto Salvia Novella:
> Julian Andres Klode:
>  > It just happens that some of the newly installed dependencies are
> also
>  > Suggested by other installed packages, and thus are not removed,
>  > because you might have installed the package in order to extend
> the
>  > functionality of another installed package suggesting it.
> 
> sudo apt-get install cortina -y
> sudo apt-get purge cortina -y
> sudo apt-get autoremove -y
> 
well, there is a very simple solution, do not use -y  :) 
apt will tell you what it installs and you have to explicitly agree to
this, these Y/N questions are there for a reason ... 

also, an "average user" as describer on the papercuts wiki should never
even have to use apt or a terminal.

ciao
oli


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Oliver Grawert:

well, there is a very simple solution, do not use -y  :)


> also, an "average user" as describer on the papercuts wiki should
> never even have to use apt or a terminal.

Isn't that the same as installing a package from the Software Center?




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Julian Andres Klode:

autoremove will remove all packages that no other package
PreDepends, Depends, Recommends, or Suggests.


Probably the problem is the latest.

Since I did not install other package apart from cortina, probably what 
is holding back gdm is a package already present in the system. Hold as 
suggested.


Because the default behaviour is to automatically install recommended 
packages but not suggested ones, that is what is causing the mismatch.


The expected behaviour is autoremove to keep packages from the sets that 
will install automatically, and to remove the rest. So to depend on the 
system configuration.





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Julian Andres Klode:
> It just happens that some of the newly installed dependencies are also
> Suggested by other installed packages, and thus are not removed,
> because you might have installed the package in order to extend the
> functionality of another installed package suggesting it.

sudo apt-get install cortina -y
sudo apt-get purge cortina -y
sudo apt-get autoremove -y

Result: the recommended dependencies installed only during this 
operation are not removed. Now we have the GNOME Display Manager, and 
also plenty of extra wallpapers, among others.



Ralf Mardorf at :
> autoremove could consider recommended dependencies as automatically
> installed, but likely already now some users complain that autoremove
> uninstalls software they still want to use.

So the root cause is in autoremove, not in the package management. Just 
taking one specimen using the above example:

- Installing cortina installs the gnome-shell as dependency
- gnome-shell installs gdm as recommended packages
- gdm installs the gnome-icon-theme as recommended package

So using autoremove without touching the recommended packages will leave 
plenty of stuff there, in a fashion that is costly to trace back.



Ralf Mardorf
> Already now some users complain that autoremove uninstalls software
> they still want to use.

I think that if an user wants to install something to stay there, they 
will do explicitly and not through a third package.


More surprising is that the "install" and "remove" buttons do not act on 
the same software.





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Julian Andres Klode:
> If A suggests B, and you install B in some way, you may have come to
> rely on the fact that A is extended by B on your system.
> Automatically removing B could thus cause an unexpected loss of
> functionality.

The point I do not understand is why after removing A, being A the only 
that recommends B from all the packages installed by the user, B is 
still considered needed.


Is it because a previously installed package recommends B but didn't 
install it? Or because the new set up makes the dependency tree to 
recommend itself?





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Julian Andres Klode:
> Usually it is a Suggests from another existing package.

If I run "apt-cache depends gnome-shell", it says:
Recommends: gdm
Breaks: gdm

Is this normal, having a package both as recommended and as breaking?




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss

Re: How shall I report a bug in the .deb packaging itself?

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Julian Andres Klode:

It does not show you version numbers. gnome-shell recommends gdm,
because it works best with it, and breaks old gdm versions it does
not work with.


Okay. Thank you.



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- 
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss