Bug#268697: dist-upgrade not explained in manpage
tag 268697 + patch thanks On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 08:07:30AM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote: The main problem is that aptitude's dist-upgrade is not terribly well defined (neither is apt-get's dist-upgrade, if it comes to that). It basically means try hard to upgrade stuff, even if you have to install new packages or remove packages, but the decisions about how to resolve dependency problems are made by apt's dependency resolver, which is fairly deep black magic. Basically what happens is that everything is marked for upgrade, and then apt is called in to fix any remaining problems. apt is told to avoid breaking holds and to preserve deletions. It looks like it doesn't give instructions to preserve currently-installed packages or to preserve upgrades, but neither does apt's dist-upgrade (there's probably a reason for that, but if I ever knew it I've forgotten it). It's actually somewhat obscure to me why they produce different results at all. So to sum up, the only way I can see to document it that doesn't get into hairy technical details is dist-upgrade will try harder than upgrade to upgrade all installed packages, installing or removing packages as necessary. aptitude's dist-upgrade has the additional feature that you can specify extra package actions, like this: aptitude dist-upgrade pkg1+ pkg2- ... Well, attached is my best effort at a patch, given the difficult situation. :) -- G. Branden Robinson| The National Security Agency is Debian GNU/Linux | working on the Fourth Amendment [EMAIL PROTECTED] | thing. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Phil Lago, Deputy XD, CIA diff -urN aptitude-0.2.15.9.OFFICIAL/debian/changelog aptitude-0.2.15.9/debian/changelog --- aptitude-0.2.15.9.OFFICIAL/debian/changelog 2005-04-19 23:40:18.366248220 -0500 +++ aptitude-0.2.15.9/debian/changelog 2005-04-20 00:15:52.206638461 -0500 @@ -1,3 +1,13 @@ +aptitude (0.2.15.9-2.1) local; urgency=low + + * Local version to implement manpage patch. + + * doc/en/manpage.xml: Document dist-upgrade command, note its +not-well-understood status, and advise apt-get refugees to use upgrade +instead. (Closes: #268697) + + -- Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:41:35 -0500 + aptitude (0.2.15.9-2) unstable; urgency=low * Merge from upstream to svn HEAD (r2931): diff -urN aptitude-0.2.15.9.OFFICIAL/doc/en/manpage.xml aptitude-0.2.15.9/doc/en/manpage.xml --- aptitude-0.2.15.9.OFFICIAL/doc/en/manpage.xml 2004-12-03 19:40:48.0 -0500 +++ aptitude-0.2.15.9/doc/en/manpage.xml2005-04-20 01:20:45.994701006 -0500 @@ -269,11 +269,11 @@ /varlistentry varlistentry - termliteralupgrade/literal/term + termliteralupgrade, dist-upgrade/literal/term listitem para - Upgrades installed packages to their most recent + Upgrade installed packages to the most recent available version. Installed packages will not be removed unless they are unused (see the section quotelink linkend='secAutoInstall'Managing Automatically @@ -287,6 +287,15 @@ these constraints, it will be kept at its current version. /para + + para + literaldist-upgrade/literal tries harder to upgrade + packages; applicationapt-get/application users accustomed + to its literaldist-upgrade/literal command will likely want + to use aptitude;'s literalupgrade/literal command instead; + see quotelink linkend='secManBugs'Bugs/link/quote + below. + /para /listitem /varlistentry @@ -768,6 +777,15 @@ /variablelist /refsect1 + refsect1 id='secManBugs' +titleBugs/title + +paraliteraldist-upgrade/literal does not behave in a terribly +well-defined fashion. The decisions about how to resolve dependency +problems are made by apt;'s problem resolver, which is fairly deep +black magic./para + /refsect1 + refsect1 titleSee Also/title signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#268697: dist-upgrade not explained in manpage
Regarding the advice to avoid dist-upgrade...I was half-asleep when you brought that up, and I think I may have given bad advice as a result. dist-upgrade can cause problems, but if you don't use it from time to time you're guaranteed to end up with some stale packages (due to stuff that simply can't be upgraded without installing or removing packages). I'll probably try a slightly different angle on this. Any comments on the attached patch? Daniel -- /--- Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] --\ | Put no trust in cryptic comments. | \-- (if (not (understand-this)) (go-to http://www.schemers.org)) ---/ Index: doc/en/manpage.xml === --- doc/en/manpage.xml (revision 3013) +++ doc/en/manpage.xml (working copy) @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ arg choice='plain'forget-new/arg arg choice='plain'update/arg arg choice='plain'upgrade/arg + arg choice='plain'dist-upgrade/arg /group /cmdsynopsis @@ -291,6 +292,27 @@ /varlistentry varlistentry + termliteraldist-upgrade/literal/term + + listitem + para + Upgrades installed packages to their most recent version, + removing or installing packages as necessary. This + command is less conservative than + literalupgrade/literal and thus more likely to perform + unwanted actions. Users are advised to either use + literalupgrade/literal instead or to carefully inspect + the list of packages to be installed and removed. + /para + + para + See quotelink linkend='secManBugs'BUGS/link/quote + below. + /para + /listitem + /varlistentry + + varlistentry termliteralforget-new/literal/term listitem @@ -768,6 +790,20 @@ /variablelist /refsect1 + refsect1 id='secManBugs' +titleBugs/title + +paraliteraldist-upgrade/literal does not behave in a +terribly well-defined or well-understood fashion. The decisions +about how to resolve dependency problems are made by apt;'s +problem resolver, which is fairly deep black magic. Furthermore, +the problem resolver is not aware of aptitude;'s automatic +removal of obsolete packages, which can lead it to choose truly +terrible solutions to its problems (such as removing all of KDE to +resolve a broken dependency in a single package). +/para + /refsect1 + refsect1 titleSee Also/title pgp8VSQF3Cw2m.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#268697: dist-upgrade not explained in manpage
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 09:45:08AM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote: Regarding the advice to avoid dist-upgrade...I was half-asleep when you brought that up, and I think I may have given bad advice as a result. dist-upgrade can cause problems, but if you don't use it from time to time you're guaranteed to end up with some stale packages (due to stuff that simply can't be upgraded without installing or removing packages). I'll probably try a slightly different angle on this. Any comments on the attached patch? No, it looks fine to my, except that dist-upgrade was already in the command synopsis (in alphabetical order). Thank you! -- G. Branden Robinson| Do not attempt to disprove the Debian GNU/Linux | four-colour theorem on your flag! [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Josh Parsons http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#268697: dist-upgrade not explained in manpage
Package: aptitude Version: 0.2.15.9-2 Followup-For: Bug #268697 Can I beg and plead for this bug to be fixed, pleease? :) I'd be happy to help write a patch, except for the fact that I don't actually understand precisely what dist-upgrade does. I know only these things: * It doesn't work exactly like apt-get dist-upgrade. * It will hold back packages that aptitude upgrade does not. If you want to corner me in IRC some time and brain dump, I can try to come up with a patch to the manpage. Let me know what I can do to help. -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing') Architecture: powerpc (ppc) Kernel: Linux 2.6.9-powerpc-smp Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Versions of packages aptitude depends on: ii apt [libapt-pkg-libc6.3-5-3 0.5.28.6 Advanced front-end for dpkg ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-21 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libgcc1 1:3.4.3-12 GCC support library ii libncurses5 5.4-4Shared libraries for terminal hand ii libsigc++-1.2-5c102 1.2.5-4 type-safe Signal Framework for C++ ii libstdc++5 1:3.3.5-12 The GNU Standard C++ Library v3 -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#268697: dist-upgrade not explained in manpage
On Monday 18 April 2005 03:21 am, Branden Robinson wrote: Can I beg and plead for this bug to be fixed, pleease? :) I'd be happy to help write a patch, except for the fact that I don't actually understand precisely what dist-upgrade does. I know only these things: * It doesn't work exactly like apt-get dist-upgrade. * It will hold back packages that aptitude upgrade does not. If you want to corner me in IRC some time and brain dump, I can try to come up with a patch to the manpage. Let me know what I can do to help. The main problem is that aptitude's dist-upgrade is not terribly well defined (neither is apt-get's dist-upgrade, if it comes to that). It basically means try hard to upgrade stuff, even if you have to install new packages or remove packages, but the decisions about how to resolve dependency problems are made by apt's dependency resolver, which is fairly deep black magic. Basically what happens is that everything is marked for upgrade, and then apt is called in to fix any remaining problems. apt is told to avoid breaking holds and to preserve deletions. It looks like it doesn't give instructions to preserve currently-installed packages or to preserve upgrades, but neither does apt's dist-upgrade (there's probably a reason for that, but if I ever knew it I've forgotten it). It's actually somewhat obscure to me why they produce different results at all. So to sum up, the only way I can see to document it that doesn't get into hairy technical details is dist-upgrade will try harder than upgrade to upgrade all installed packages, installing or removing packages as necessary. aptitude's dist-upgrade has the additional feature that you can specify extra package actions, like this: aptitude dist-upgrade pkg1+ pkg2- ... Daniel -- /--- Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] --\ | That we should wish to cast him down and have no one in his place | |is not a thought that occurs to his mind. That we should wish to | |destroy the Ring itself has not yet entered into his darkest dream. | | -- Gandalf Grayhame | \ Evil Overlord, Inc: http://www.eviloverlord.com --/ pgpqTOBQVVkG7.pgp Description: PGP signature
