Re: APT::Default-Release doesn't seem to affect upgrades
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 12:57:23PM -0700, Jamin W. Collins wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:39:09PM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote: > > We have a winner. Every single package that I checked that apt-get -s > > said was from unstable had the same version in testing and unstable. > > Which entry is first in your sources.list (unstable or testing)? > unstable is first. But putting it last doesn't change the output of apt-get -s. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: APT::Default-Release doesn't seem to affect upgrades
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 08:10:27PM +, Carlos Sousa wrote: > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:57:23 -0700 Jamin W. Collins wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:39:09PM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote: > > > We have a winner. Every single package that I checked that > > > apt-get -s said was from unstable had the same version in testing > > > and unstable. > > > > Which entry is first in your sources.list (unstable or testing)? > > apt-get will use the unstable source even if it comes last, e.g. when > downloading from the testing source fails, for some reason. I saw it > happen before my eyes once. Humbling experience... Right, "when downloading from the testing source fails". However, it will use the first matching source with the desired version top to bottom. So, even if testing would have worked fine, if unstable is listed first it will always pull from unstable for packages who have the same version in both testing and unstable. -- Jamin W. Collins To be nobody but yourself when the whole world is trying it's best night and day to make you everybody else is to fight the hardest battle any human being will fight. -- E.E. Cummings -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: APT::Default-Release doesn't seem to affect upgrades
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:57:23 -0700 Jamin W. Collins wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:39:09PM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote: > > We have a winner. Every single package that I checked that apt-get -s > > said was from unstable had the same version in testing and unstable. > > Which entry is first in your sources.list (unstable or testing)? apt-get will use the unstable source even if it comes last, e.g. when downloading from the testing source fails, for some reason. I saw it happen before my eyes once. Humbling experience... -- Carlos Sousa http://vbc.dyndns.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: APT::Default-Release doesn't seem to affect upgrades
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:39:09 -0800 Ross Boylan wrote: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:46:20AM +, Carlos Sousa wrote: > > > > It also may be the case that the version in unstable is the same as the > > version in testing, in which case apt-get will get the package from > > either testing or unstable, since it's the same. > > > I'd almost file a wishlist bug about it, but as I recall there was > quite a stack of more pressing issues for apt. To me, that behaviour is a feature. The package is exactly the same anyway, and if your testing sources are unavailable for some reason you still get to install the package (as long as some unstable source is available). > Thanks, Carlos. Glad to be of help. -- Carlos Sousa http://vbc.dyndns.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: APT::Default-Release doesn't seem to affect upgrades
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:39:09PM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote: > We have a winner. Every single package that I checked that apt-get -s > said was from unstable had the same version in testing and unstable. Which entry is first in your sources.list (unstable or testing)? -- Jamin W. Collins Linux is not The Answer. Yes is the answer. Linux is The Question. - Neo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: APT::Default-Release doesn't seem to affect upgrades
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:46:20AM +, Carlos Sousa wrote: > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:57:31 -0800 Ross Boylan wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:14:17AM +, Carlos Sousa wrote: > > > > > > You can do 'apt-cache policy | less' and check that the priorities > > > assigned to the various sources are the ones you think you've specified. > > > I once had a syntax error in the preferences file and apt completely > > > disregarded the file. Possibly your case? > > Don't think so. apt-cache policy shows one unstable entry, priority > > 50. > > > > Maybe there is an upgrade that depends on an uninstalled package that > > is only in unstable. And then the presence of that package pulls in > > others? > > It also may be the case that the version in unstable is the same as the > version in testing, in which case apt-get will get the package from > either testing or unstable, since it's the same. > > Easy enough to check both theories. Do an 'apt-cache policy ' > for the packages that are being pulled from unstable, and check the > versions in either distribution. > > Cheers, > We have a winner. Every single package that I checked that apt-get -s said was from unstable had the same version in testing and unstable. I'd almost file a wishlist bug about it, but as I recall there was quite a stack of more pressing issues for apt. Thanks, Carlos. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: APT::Default-Release doesn't seem to affect upgrades
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 22:57:31 -0800 Ross Boylan wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:14:17AM +, Carlos Sousa wrote: > > > > You can do 'apt-cache policy | less' and check that the priorities > > assigned to the various sources are the ones you think you've specified. > > I once had a syntax error in the preferences file and apt completely > > disregarded the file. Possibly your case? > Don't think so. apt-cache policy shows one unstable entry, priority > 50. > > Maybe there is an upgrade that depends on an uninstalled package that > is only in unstable. And then the presence of that package pulls in > others? It also may be the case that the version in unstable is the same as the version in testing, in which case apt-get will get the package from either testing or unstable, since it's the same. Easy enough to check both theories. Do an 'apt-cache policy ' for the packages that are being pulled from unstable, and check the versions in either distribution. Cheers, -- Carlos Sousa http://vbc.dyndns.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: APT::Default-Release doesn't seem to affect upgrades
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:33:08AM -0700, Jamin W. Collins wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:57:31PM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote: > > Don't think so. apt-cache policy shows one unstable entry, priority > > 50. > > > > Maybe there is an upgrade that depends on an uninstalled package that > > is only in unstable. And then the presence of that package pulls in > > others? > > > > Some results: > > apt-get upgrade does nothing > > apt-get -t unstable upgrade pulls in lots > > apt-get dist-upgrade wants to upgrade > > gaim gedit ghex gnome-session gnomeicu grip libdate-calc-perl libfnlib0 > > libgnomedb-dev > > libgnomedb0 libgtk2.0-0 libhtml-format-perl libmail-mbox-messageparser-perl > > libofx0c102 > > libqt2 libxft2 libxine1 pan > > and install quite a few new packages. > > apt-get -t unstable dist-upgrade is massive > > This is all as expected. With the first you've asked apt to _upgrade_ > your system. The man page states the following for _upgrade_: > >under no circumstances are currently installed packages removed, >or packages not already installed retrieved and installed > > With the second you've changed your default release to unstable, thereby > increasing it's priority for this run to 990. As a result, it's going > to attempt to upgrade everything that's already installed to the version > available in unstable. > > With the last command you've asked apt to _dist-upgrade_ which is > defined in the man page as: > >in addition to performing the function of upgrade, also intelligently >handles changing dependencies with new versions of packages; apt-get >has a "smart" conflict resolution system, and it will attempt to >upgrade the most important packages at the expense of less important >ones if necessary. > It was mostly as I expected, but the part that is surprising to me is that apt-get -s dist-upgrade pulled in unstable packages when unstable was pinned at 50. I did offer one theory above, but don't have much confidence in it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: APT::Default-Release doesn't seem to affect upgrades
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:57:31PM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote: > Don't think so. apt-cache policy shows one unstable entry, priority > 50. > > Maybe there is an upgrade that depends on an uninstalled package that > is only in unstable. And then the presence of that package pulls in > others? > > Some results: > apt-get upgrade does nothing > apt-get -t unstable upgrade pulls in lots > apt-get dist-upgrade wants to upgrade > gaim gedit ghex gnome-session gnomeicu grip libdate-calc-perl libfnlib0 > libgnomedb-dev > libgnomedb0 libgtk2.0-0 libhtml-format-perl libmail-mbox-messageparser-perl > libofx0c102 > libqt2 libxft2 libxine1 pan > and install quite a few new packages. > apt-get -t unstable dist-upgrade is massive This is all as expected. With the first you've asked apt to _upgrade_ your system. The man page states the following for _upgrade_: under no circumstances are currently installed packages removed, or packages not already installed retrieved and installed With the second you've changed your default release to unstable, thereby increasing it's priority for this run to 990. As a result, it's going to attempt to upgrade everything that's already installed to the version available in unstable. With the last command you've asked apt to _dist-upgrade_ which is defined in the man page as: in addition to performing the function of upgrade, also intelligently handles changing dependencies with new versions of packages; apt-get has a "smart" conflict resolution system, and it will attempt to upgrade the most important packages at the expense of less important ones if necessary. -- Jamin W. Collins Linux is not The Answer. Yes is the answer. Linux is The Question. - Neo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: APT::Default-Release doesn't seem to affect upgrades
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:14:17AM +, Carlos Sousa wrote: > > Please keep your postings to the list. Thanks. Sure. > > On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:51:01 -0800 Ross Boylan wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:53:21PM +, Carlos Sousa wrote: > > > > > > As extra precaution, Ross can disable apt-get from getting packages from > > > unstable unless explicitly told to by creating /etc/apt/preferences > > > with the lines: > > > > > >Package: * > > >Pin: release a=unstable > > >Pin-Priority: 25 > > > > > > 25 may be replaced by any other number below 100. > > > > > Oddly, I tried that, and it didn't completely work. Here's my > > preferences file: > > > > Explanation: Try to prevent unstable from creeping in > > Package: * > > Pin: release a=unstable > > Pin-Priority: 50 > > > > When I do apt-get -s dist-upgrade it still pulls in lots of unstables. > > Works fine here. What is that "Explanation:" line? Are you sure it's > supported syntax? Yes, I discovered it while reading the man page when # didn't work. And I noticed different behavior with it than #, so it seems the file was processed. > You can do 'apt-cache policy | less' and check that the priorities > assigned to the various sources are the ones you think you've specified. > I once had a syntax error in the preferences file and apt completely > disregarded the file. Possibly your case? Don't think so. apt-cache policy shows one unstable entry, priority 50. Maybe there is an upgrade that depends on an uninstalled package that is only in unstable. And then the presence of that package pulls in others? Some results: apt-get upgrade does nothing apt-get -t unstable upgrade pulls in lots apt-get dist-upgrade wants to upgrade gaim gedit ghex gnome-session gnomeicu grip libdate-calc-perl libfnlib0 libgnomedb-dev libgnomedb0 libgtk2.0-0 libhtml-format-perl libmail-mbox-messageparser-perl libofx0c102 libqt2 libxft2 libxine1 pan and install quite a few new packages. apt-get -t unstable dist-upgrade is massive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: APT::Default-Release doesn't seem to affect upgrades
Please keep your postings to the list. Thanks. On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:51:01 -0800 Ross Boylan wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:53:21PM +, Carlos Sousa wrote: > > > > As extra precaution, Ross can disable apt-get from getting packages from > > unstable unless explicitly told to by creating /etc/apt/preferences > > with the lines: > > > >Package: * > >Pin: release a=unstable > >Pin-Priority: 25 > > > > 25 may be replaced by any other number below 100. > > > Oddly, I tried that, and it didn't completely work. Here's my > preferences file: > > Explanation: Try to prevent unstable from creeping in > Package: * > Pin: release a=unstable > Pin-Priority: 50 > > When I do apt-get -s dist-upgrade it still pulls in lots of unstables. Works fine here. What is that "Explanation:" line? Are you sure it's supported syntax? You can do 'apt-cache policy | less' and check that the priorities assigned to the various sources are the ones you think you've specified. I once had a syntax error in the preferences file and apt completely disregarded the file. Possibly your case? Regards, -- Carlos Sousa http://vbc.dyndns.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: APT::Default-Release doesn't seem to affect upgrades
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:53:21PM +, Carlos Sousa wrote: > On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:59:44 -0700 Jamin W. Collins wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 12:25:06AM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote: > > > ... > > > APT::Default-Release "testing"; > > > in apt.conf. I do not have an apt/preferences file. > > > > > > When I tried apt-get upgrade (or dist-upgrade) it wanted to upgrade a > > > bunch of packages, all from unstable. > > > > You've probably installed one (or more) package(s) with version(s) newer > > than that available in testing but older than that available in > > unstable. With a Default-Release of "testing" you've set the priority > > for "testing" packages to 990, and all other releases that your system > > knows about to 500. The problem is that installed versions that only > > exist in /var/lib/dpkg/status get a priority of 100. > > As extra precaution, Ross can disable apt-get from getting packages from > unstable unless explicitly told to by creating /etc/apt/preferences > with the lines: > >Package: * >Pin: release a=unstable >Pin-Priority: 25 > > 25 may be replaced by any other number below 100. > Oddly, I tried that, and it didn't completely work. Here's my preferences file: Explanation: Try to prevent unstable from creeping in Package: * Pin: release a=unstable Pin-Priority: 50 When I do apt-get -s dist-upgrade it still pulls in lots of unstables. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: APT::Default-Release doesn't seem to affect upgrades
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:59:44 -0700 Jamin W. Collins wrote: > On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 12:25:06AM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote: > > ... > > APT::Default-Release "testing"; > > in apt.conf. I do not have an apt/preferences file. > > > > When I tried apt-get upgrade (or dist-upgrade) it wanted to upgrade a > > bunch of packages, all from unstable. > > You've probably installed one (or more) package(s) with version(s) newer > than that available in testing but older than that available in > unstable. With a Default-Release of "testing" you've set the priority > for "testing" packages to 990, and all other releases that your system > knows about to 500. The problem is that installed versions that only > exist in /var/lib/dpkg/status get a priority of 100. As extra precaution, Ross can disable apt-get from getting packages from unstable unless explicitly told to by creating /etc/apt/preferences with the lines: Package: * Pin: release a=unstable Pin-Priority: 25 25 may be replaced by any other number below 100. -- Carlos Sousa http://vbc.dyndns.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: APT::Default-Release doesn't seem to affect upgrades
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 12:25:06AM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote: > I have a testing system (with a few items built from unstable > sources), and just added unstable to my apt sources.list. As > recommended in the HOWTO, I put > APT::Default-Release "testing"; > in apt.conf. I do not have an apt/preferences file. > > When I tried apt-get upgrade (or dist-upgrade) it wanted to upgrade a > bunch of packages, all from unstable. I tried commenting out unstable > from my sources.list, and apt-get upgrade becomes a no-op. > > I expected apt would not use unstable unless I explicitly told it to. > What am I missing? You've probably installed one (or more) package(s) with version(s) newer than that available in testing but older than that available in unstable. With a Default-Release of "testing" you've set the priority for "testing" packages to 990, and all other releases that your system knows about to 500. The problem is that installed versions that only exist in /var/lib/dpkg/status get a priority of 100. This means that if the installed version is newer than what is in testing and older than what is in unstable, unstable is seen as a desirable upgrade. Now, when you preform and "apt-get upgrade" it will pull the newer version of the package from unstable _if_ there are new packages that are needed that wouldn't be upgraded of their own accord. > Many of the packages to be upgraded were from mozilla, which is > something I did build from source. So I could sort of see this > drawing from unstable, even if I don't understand why. But others are > definitely not like that, e..g, gnome-pim, install-doc, openuniverse. > > As a side mystery, > # apt-show-versions -a gnome-pin Perhaps you mean "gnome-pim"? To get a better idea of why a package is being upgraded from a specific release take a look at the output of "apt-cache policy $package". -- Jamin W. Collins Linux is not The Answer. Yes is the answer. Linux is The Question. - Neo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
APT::Default-Release doesn't seem to affect upgrades
I have a testing system (with a few items built from unstable sources), and just added unstable to my apt sources.list. As recommended in the HOWTO, I put APT::Default-Release "testing"; in apt.conf. I do not have an apt/preferences file. When I tried apt-get upgrade (or dist-upgrade) it wanted to upgrade a bunch of packages, all from unstable. I tried commenting out unstable from my sources.list, and apt-get upgrade becomes a no-op. I expected apt would not use unstable unless I explicitly told it to. What am I missing? Many of the packages to be upgraded were from mozilla, which is something I did build from source. So I could sort of see this drawing from unstable, even if I don't understand why. But others are definitely not like that, e..g, gnome-pim, install-doc, openuniverse. As a side mystery, # apt-show-versions -a gnome-pin Not installed No stable version No testing version No unstable version gnome-pin not installed: No available versions But it is installed. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
