Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Vi, 23 mar 12, 01:27:38, Chris Bannister wrote:
> 
> Admittedly, you probably still need libdvdcss2 etc.

I'd miss xbmc.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Tom H]

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Jochen Spieker  wrote:
> Chris Bannister:
>>
>> I suppose that ultimately all you'd need is libav (ffmpeg is
>> "now/will be" deprecated)
>
> Oh, didn't know that.

>From a recent -devel post [1]:



> Actually, ffmpeg changed names to libav recently. The latter is in
> Debian (unstable), not yet in debian-multimedia.org's unstable
> repository.

Not exactly: Libav is a _fork_ of FFmpeg.



More at [2] and [3] (and probably many other places...).

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/03/msg00361.html
[2] http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2011-March/109225.html
[3] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTIwNw


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=szksjk-zaw+xdguok5a0z-luhfrmzv_wecrfqcrtpb...@mail.gmail.com

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Jochen Spieker]

Chris Bannister:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 04:24:18PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>> Chris Bannister:
>>> 
>>> I didn't know about handbrake-cli and looks like it might replace
>>> "videotrans" and "lxdvdrip" 
>> 
>> From what I can tell from their package descriptions: not quite. I
>> usually dump DVD contents using 'mplayer -dumpstream' and then encode
> 
>  You have to watch the whole thing each time? 

No, -dumpstream can use full drive speed without showing the movie.

>> the resulting directory structure using HandBrakeCLI (yes, the binary
>> name has capitals in it!). HandBrake's strength lies more in the
>> encoding part, not in DVD ripping/backup.
> 
> I suppose that ultimately all you'd need is libav (ffmpeg is 
> "now/will be" deprecated)

Oh, didn't know that.

> dvdauthor, and genisoimage/growisofs or would that be libav, vim ?

Usually, I don't author DVDs. I just want them in H.264 on my disk.

J.
-- 
I hate myself but have no clear idea why.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Chris Bannister]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 04:24:18PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> Chris Bannister:
> > 
> > I didn't know about handbrake-cli and looks like it might replace
> > "videotrans" and "lxdvdrip" 
> 
> From what I can tell from their package descriptions: not quite. I
> usually dump DVD contents using 'mplayer -dumpstream' and then encode

 You have to watch the whole thing each time? 

> the resulting directory structure using HandBrakeCLI (yes, the binary
> name has capitals in it!). HandBrake's strength lies more in the
> encoding part, not in DVD ripping/backup.

I suppose that ultimately all you'd need is libav (ffmpeg is 
"now/will be" deprecated) dvdauthor, and genisoimage/growisofs or would
that be libav, vim ?

-- 
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
   -- Napoleon Bonaparte


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120324021142.GB1818@tal

to be root or not to be root (was ... Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not)

[Chris Bannister]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 04:16:32PM +, Curt wrote:
> On 2012-03-22, Chris Bannister  wrote:
> 
> > root@tal:~# apt-cache policy libavformat-extra-53
> 
> You don't have to be root to do that, did you know?

True, I normally have a tty open for root anyway and the tty where I
have logged into as my normal user may be "in use" i.e. reading mail.

And because it is a deliberate action typing "alt x" then I tend to be
subconsiously aware that I am now in root mode, and tend to be extra
careful. :)

And yes, I know screen. :)

Also, putting:

PS1='${debian_chroot:+($debian_chroot)}\[\033[01;31m\]\u@\h\[\033[00m\]:\[\033[01;34m\]\w\[\033[00m\]\$'

inside root's .bashrc displays the prompt in RED for even more warning
stimuli.

Plus, I get annoyed with those "permission denied" errors.

Although being in the admin group helps avoid most of them.

> Just an observation because I use apt-cache frequently and it's
> convenient (and potentially less dangerous for slippery fingers) not to
> be obliged to su to root every time I do. 

Not sure what damage typing "apt-cache" can do. :)

-- 
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
   -- Napoleon Bonaparte


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120324013315.GA1818@tal

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Curt]

On 2012-03-22, Chris Bannister  wrote:

> root@tal:~# apt-cache policy libavformat-extra-53

You don't have to be root to do that, did you know?

Just an observation because I use apt-cache frequently and it's
convenient (and potentially less dangerous for slippery fingers) not to
be obliged to su to root every time I do. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrnjmp8g6.2or.cu...@einstein.electron.org

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Jochen Spieker]

Chris Bannister:
> 
> I didn't know about handbrake-cli and looks like it might replace
> "videotrans" and "lxdvdrip" 

From what I can tell from their package descriptions: not quite. I
usually dump DVD contents using 'mplayer -dumpstream' and then encode
the resulting directory structure using HandBrakeCLI (yes, the binary
name has capitals in it!). HandBrake's strength lies more in the
encoding part, not in DVD ripping/backup.

J.
-- 
I am worried that my dreams pale in comparison beside TV docu-soaps.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Chris Bannister]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 02:10:13PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> I reaklly like handbrake-cli, that's why I had to keep d-m.org in the
> end. 

I've only removed d-m.org from my laptop. The desktop running Lenny
still and where I burn DVD/CD will still have to have d-m.org.

I didn't know about handbrake-cli and looks like it might replace
"videotrans" and "lxdvdrip" 

-- 
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
   -- Napoleon Bonaparte


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120323142005.GB13546@tal

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Chris Bannister]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 05:01:57PM +0100, Alberto Fuentes wrote:
> On 21/03/12 07:08, Chris Bannister wrote:
> >Remember, Aptitude's "resolver system" is different to apt-get's
> 
> I think the problem is not the the resolver (apt-get and aptitude
> should get dependences about the same if not problem found, and
> therefore "aptitude full-upgrade" should do the same as "apt-get
> dist-upgrade" thats it, bring all packages up to date following the
> pinning system and install and remove packaged when needed.

It seems so simple doesn't it.

> Im not sure (nor im sure how to check it if thats the case) but I
> think it may have to do with the database of how packages where
> installed. If you install some packages with aptitude and others
> with apt-get and then remove a third one with aptitude again, MAYBE
> the auto and manual installation flag in some packages goes crazy as
> they are handled in separate db (AAFAIK)

That used to be the case.

If you do some research (duckduckgo.com¹ can help here) you will find
that a) package dependency resolution is not an easy task and b) apt-get
and aptitude no longer use different databases.

¹ http://donttrack.us/

-- 
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
   -- Napoleon Bonaparte


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120323130942.GA13546@tal

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Pierre Frenkiel]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Alberto Fuentes wrote:


look at this, is interesting

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=401835


  this is  more than 5 years old. It would be interesting to check wether this
  bug has been fixed, but the answer of march 2007 is not encouraging.

--
Pierre Frenkiel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1203231317430.10...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Alberto Fuentes]

look at this, is interesting

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=401835


On 22/03/12 17:49, Jochen Spieker wrote:

Pierre Frenkiel:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote:


I didn't have that problem. Is it reproducible?


yes. I tried apt-get several times before shifting to aptitude.
Is the difference coming from the fact that you are on amd64 and I am on 
i386?
I'll try later on my laptop which has a amd64 processor.


You could also try removing ffmpeg on your i386 machine again (or
upgrading to Marillat's version) and install the specific version again.
I assume apt-get developers might be interested in that.


Sure, if you only use packages from there that are available from
Debian, too. But I use other packages as well. Whether Marillat's use of
the epoch qualifies as cheating is a question I cannot answer.


   This results in completely by-passing the pinning settings.


No it doesn't, my pinning works fine. Christian Marillat at least uses
documented behaviour in order to make sure that every user uses only his
versions, even if Debian currently ships newer upstream versions.

The policy says, the epoch "is provided to allow mistakes in the version
numbers of older versions of a package, and also a package's previous
version numbering schemes, to be left behind."

I don't know much about these things, but that doesn't sound like
Christian Marillat uses the epoch in a way that was intended by the
policy's authors. But then again, he is maintaining his own repository
and nobody can force him to adhere to the policy.


   Of course, the excuse is to avoid dependencies problems, but I imagine
   that the maintainers of the official repos are also able to manage 
dependencies
   for the packages they provide


Debian maintainers are not interested in making sure their libavcodec
works with Marillat's ffmpeg and vice versa.

J.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f6c3a0d.4020...@qindel.com

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Jochen Spieker]

Pierre Frenkiel:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> 
>> I didn't have that problem. Is it reproducible?
> 
>yes. I tried apt-get several times before shifting to aptitude.
>Is the difference coming from the fact that you are on amd64 and I am on 
> i386?
>I'll try later on my laptop which has a amd64 processor.

You could also try removing ffmpeg on your i386 machine again (or
upgrading to Marillat's version) and install the specific version again.
I assume apt-get developers might be interested in that.

>> Sure, if you only use packages from there that are available from
>> Debian, too. But I use other packages as well. Whether Marillat's use of
>> the epoch qualifies as cheating is a question I cannot answer.
> 
>   This results in completely by-passing the pinning settings.

No it doesn't, my pinning works fine. Christian Marillat at least uses
documented behaviour in order to make sure that every user uses only his
versions, even if Debian currently ships newer upstream versions.

The policy says, the epoch "is provided to allow mistakes in the version
numbers of older versions of a package, and also a package's previous
version numbering schemes, to be left behind."

I don't know much about these things, but that doesn't sound like
Christian Marillat uses the epoch in a way that was intended by the
policy's authors. But then again, he is maintaining his own repository
and nobody can force him to adhere to the policy.

>   Of course, the excuse is to avoid dependencies problems, but I imagine
>   that the maintainers of the official repos are also able to manage 
> dependencies
>   for the packages they provide

Debian maintainers are not interested in making sure their libavcodec
works with Marillat's ffmpeg and vice versa.

J.
-- 
In this bunker there are women and children. There are no weapons.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Pierre Frenkiel]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote:


I didn't have that problem. Is it reproducible?


   yes. I tried apt-get several times before shifting to aptitude.
   Is the difference coming from the fact that you are on amd64 and I am on 
i386?
   I'll try later on my laptop which has a amd64 processor.


Sure, if you only use packages from there that are available from
Debian, too. But I use other packages as well. Whether Marillat's use of
the epoch qualifies as cheating is a question I cannot answer.


  This results in completely by-passing the pinning settings.
  Of course, the excuse is to avoid dependencies problems, but I imagine
  that the maintainers of the official repos are also able to manage 
dependencies
  for the packages they provide

--
Pierre Frenkiel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1203221705540.18...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Jochen Spieker]

Pierre Frenkiel:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> 
>> In order to "downgrade" from 5:0.7.11-0.1 to 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 you need to
>> tun 'apt-get install ffmpeg=4:0.8-2~bpo60+1'.
> 
> this is an example where aptitude is superior to apt-get:
> with apt-get install (or dist-install), I went into some kind of
> infinite loop of dependencies, while "aptitude install ffmpeg=4:0.8-2~bpo60+1'
> worked.

I didn't have that problem. Is it reproducible?

> But then, what is the use of pinning to 1 the Unofficial Multimedia Packages ?
> It seems that if Marillat cheats about the version number, the solution is to 
> get rid of
> the debian-multimedia.org repo.

Sure, if you only use packages from there that are available from
Debian, too. But I use other packages as well. Whether Marillat's use of
the epoch qualifies as cheating is a question I cannot answer.

J.
-- 
I worry about people thinking I have lost direction.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Brad Rogers]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:49:42 +0100
Jochen Spieker  wrote:

Hello Jochen,

> The "epoch" (the version number prefix, before the ':') is used to
> explicitly enforce this. 4:x is always older than 5:y. Christian
> Marillat does this on purpose. I don't know his reasons.

Some of the software in his repos is also available from the normal
Debian streams.  There can be differences between them.  DMO uses the
epoch number to ensure preference is given to the DMO repos to avoid
potential problems.

At least, that's my understanding of it.

-- 
 Regards  _
 / )   "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)radnever immediately apparent"
It's becoming an obsession
Teenage Depression - Eddie & The Hot Rods


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Pierre Frenkiel]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote:


idem with "aptitude full-upgrade"


The "epoch" (the version number prefix, before the ':') is used to
explicitly enforce this. 4:x is always older than 5:y. Christian
Marillat does this on purpose. I don't know his reasons.

In order to "downgrade" from 5:0.7.11-0.1 to 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 you need to
tun 'apt-get install ffmpeg=4:0.8-2~bpo60+1'.


   this is an example where aptitude is superior to apt-get:
   with apt-get install (or dist-install), I went into some kind of
   infinite loop of dependencies, while "aptitude install 
ffmpeg=4:0.8-2~bpo60+1'
   worked.
   But then, what is the use of pinning to 1 the Unofficial Multimedia Packages 
?
   It seems that if Marillat cheats about the version number, the solution is 
to get rid of
   the debian-multimedia.org repo.

--
Pierre Frenkiel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1203221607520.21...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Jochen Spieker]

Pierre Frenkiel:
> 
>ffmpeg:
>  Installed: 5:0.7.11-0.1
>  Candidate: 5:0.7.11-0.1
>  Version table:
> *** 5:0.7.11-0.1 0
>  1 http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ squeeze/main i386 Packages
>100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 0
>100 http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports/ 
> squeeze-backports/main i386 Packages
> 4:0.7.2-1~bpo60+1 0
>100 http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports/ 
> squeeze-backports/main i386 Packages
> 4:0.5.6-3 0
>500 http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ squeeze/main i386 Packages
>500 http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates/main i386 Packages
> 
> So, it seems that apt-get is not aware that 4:0.8 is newer than 5:0.7
> idem with "aptitude full-upgrade"

The "epoch" (the version number prefix, before the ':') is used to
explicitly enforce this. 4:x is always older than 5:y. Christian
Marillat does this on purpose. I don't know his reasons.

In order to "downgrade" from 5:0.7.11-0.1 to 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 you need to
tun 'apt-get install ffmpeg=4:0.8-2~bpo60+1'.

J.
-- 
I wish I could achieve a 'just stepped out of the salon' look more
often. Or at least once.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Pierre Frenkiel]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote:



/etc/apt/preferences.d/00multimedia:

Package: *
Pin: release o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages
Pin-Priority: 1


I tried that, but then, apt-get dist-upgrade proposed to upgrade
8 packages, but not ffmpeg, although I have:

==> apt-cache policy ffmpeg

   ffmpeg:
 Installed: 5:0.7.11-0.1
 Candidate: 5:0.7.11-0.1
 Version table:
*** 5:0.7.11-0.1 0
 1 http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ squeeze/main i386 Packages
   100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 0
   100 http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports/ 
squeeze-backports/main i386 Packages
4:0.7.2-1~bpo60+1 0
   100 http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports/ 
squeeze-backports/main i386 Packages
4:0.5.6-3 0
   500 http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ squeeze/main i386 Packages
   500 http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates/main i386 Packages

So, it seems that apt-get is not aware that 4:0.8 is newer than 5:0.7
idem with "aptitude full-upgrade"

--
Pierre Frenkiel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1203221511130.15...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Jochen Spieker]

Chris Bannister:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 04:54:39PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>> 
>> Sometimes aptitude's TUI is really useful. Like yesterday, when I
>> down-pinned debian-multimedia.org and wanted to replace all packages
>> from there with their official Debian counterparts (if possible).
> 
> Mmmm, interesting. I've just removed debian-multimedia.org  from my
> sources list completely.

That was an intermediate step I took. That way, I could just look at
aptitude's list of "Obsolete and Locally Created Packages" in order to
identify d-m.org packages. And during that process I got rid of several
hundred MB of other obsolete packages as well.

> I'm now running completely packages from the
> main Debian repository. Admittedly that is just mplayer2 and ffmpeg.

I reaklly like handbrake-cli, that's why I had to keep d-m.org in the
end. BTW, if anyone is interested in an appropriate pinning section
(took me a few tries):

/etc/apt/preferences.d/00multimedia:

Package: *
Pin: release o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages
Pin-Priority: 1

And BTW2: For stable, ffmpeg from backports is currently *newer* than
ffmpeg from d-m.org:

# apt-cache policy ffmpeg
ffmpeg:
  Installed: 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1
  Candidate: 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1
  Version table:
 5:0.7.11-0.1 0
  1 http://ftp.uni-kl.de/debian-multimedia/ squeeze/main amd64 Packages
 *** 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 0
100 http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-backports/ squeeze-backports/main 
amd64 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
 4:0.7.2-1~bpo60+1 0
100 http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-backports/ squeeze-backports/main 
amd64 Packages
 4:0.5.6-3 0
500 http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/ squeeze/main amd64 Packages
500 http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates/main amd64 Packages

It's just the epoch that makes Marillat's version look more current.

J.
-- 
I am on the payroll of a company to whom I owe my undying gratitude.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Chris Bannister]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 04:54:39PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> 
> Sometimes aptitude's TUI is really useful. Like yesterday, when I
> down-pinned debian-multimedia.org and wanted to replace all packages
> from there with their official Debian counterparts (if possible).

Mmmm, interesting. I've just removed debian-multimedia.org  from my
sources list completely. I'm now running completely packages from the
main Debian repository. Admittedly that is just mplayer2 and ffmpeg.

root@tal:~# apt-cache policy libavformat-extra-53
libavformat-extra-53:
  Installed: 4:0.8.0.1+b1
  Candidate: 4:0.8.0.1+b1
  Version table:
 *** 4:0.8.0.1+b1 0
500 http://ftp.nz.debian.org/debian/ wheezy/main i386 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

root@tal:~# apt-cache policy libavformat53
libavformat53:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 4:0.8-2
  Version table:
  4:0.8-2 0
 500 http://ftp.nz.debian.org/debian/ wheezy/main i386 Packages

Admittedly, you probably still need libdvdcss2 etc.

See:
http://wiki.debian.org/MultimediaCodecs

-- 
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
   -- Napoleon Bonaparte


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120322122737.GB2006@tal

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Alberto Fuentes]

On 21/03/12 07:08, Chris Bannister wrote:

Remember, Aptitude's "resolver system" is different to apt-get's


I think the problem is not the the resolver (apt-get and aptitude should 
get dependences about the same if not problem found, and therefore 
"aptitude full-upgrade" should do the same as "apt-get dist-upgrade" 
thats it, bring all packages up to date following the pinning system and 
install and remove packaged when needed.


Im not sure (nor im sure how to check it if thats the case) but I think 
it may have to do with the database of how packages where installed. If 
you install some packages with aptitude and others with apt-get and then 
remove a third one with aptitude again, MAYBE the auto and manual 
installation flag in some packages goes crazy as they are handled in 
separate db (AAFAIK)


my 2 cents...

greets
aL


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f69fb75.8050...@qindel.com

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Jochen Spieker]

Camaleón:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:08:29 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> 
>> Remember, Aptitude's "resolver system" is different to apt-get's
> 
> That's why I prefer to refresh both "separately". apt-get was happy with 
> the current db state while aptitude wasn't.

From what I know, I have trouble understanding why 'aptitude update'
fixed anything for you. But we probably need a developer to clear things
up.

>> P.S. I don't use aptitude but use apt-get whereas Jochen AFAIR use
>> aptitude.
> 
> I neither use aptitude unless something goes wrong. Aptitude seems very 
> powerful an capable but for me, it provides too many options that I 
> barely use or pay attention to.

JFTR, I use apt-get nowadays as well. At least most of the time. The
simple reason is that it performs a few things faster than aptitude
(update, upgrade without upgradeable packages).

Sometimes aptitude's TUI is really useful. Like yesterday, when I
down-pinned debian-multimedia.org and wanted to replace all packages
from there with their official Debian counterparts (if possible).

Probably the most useful command for aptitude is 'keep-all'. It clears
any additional status concerning installations and removals that
aptitude keeps (and apt-get doesn't know about).

J.
-- 
In idle moments I remember former lovers with sentimental tenderness.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Camaleón]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:08:29 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:45:51PM +, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:10:07 +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>> 
>> > Camaleón:
>> 
>> (...)
>> 
>> >> Did you first update the packages database?
>> >> 
>> >> apt-get update
>> >> aptitude update
>> > 
>> > apt-get and aptitude both use the same package database. Running the
>> > 'udpate' for both of them is not required.
>> 
>> I just run "apt-get upgrade" and said there was nothing to do while
>> running "aptitude upgrade" wanted to do very (I mean *very*) weird
>> things, such as removing a bunch of packages. After updating aptitude
>> database all went smooth...
> 
> And you had already done an "apt-get update" before this happened?

Nope. Neither did it for "aptitude".

> Remember, Aptitude's "resolver system" is different to apt-get's

That's why I prefer to refresh both "separately". apt-get was happy with 
the current db state while aptitude wasn't.

> P.S. I don't use aptitude but use apt-get whereas Jochen AFAIR use
> aptitude.

I neither use aptitude unless something goes wrong. Aptitude seems very 
powerful an capable but for me, it provides too many options that I 
barely use or pay attention to.

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jkcs6v$lch$6...@dough.gmane.org

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Chris Bannister]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:45:51PM +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:10:07 +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
> 
> > Camaleón:
> 
> (...)
> 
> >> Did you first update the packages database?
> >> 
> >> apt-get update
> >> aptitude update
> > 
> > apt-get and aptitude both use the same package database. Running the
> > 'udpate' for both of them is not required.
> 
> I just run "apt-get upgrade" and said there was nothing to do while 
> running "aptitude upgrade" wanted to do very (I mean *very*) weird 
> things, such as removing a bunch of packages. After updating aptitude 
> database all went smooth...

And you had already done an "apt-get update" before this happened?

Remember, Aptitude's "resolver system" is different to apt-get's

P.S. I don't use aptitude but use apt-get whereas Jochen AFAIR use
aptitude.

-- 
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
   -- Napoleon Bonaparte


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120321060828.GC28749@tal

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Tom H]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Lisi  wrote:
> On Monday 19 March 2012 14:17:44 Bonno Bloksma wrote:
>>
>> It is either a normal apt-get upgrade or an aptitude full-upgrade. But
>> why.?
>
> Because they are not the same?  If they were identical there would be no point
> in having the two of them.

No matter how different apt-get and aptitude are, it's reasonable to
expect that, if there's a candidate for upgrading mysql-common, that
both "apt-get upgrade" and "aptitude safe-upgrade" will install it;
and if one of them wouldn't install them, it would be apt-get because,
unlike "apt-get upgrade", "aptitude safe-upgrade" is liberal and will
install new packages to satisfy dependencies.

It would've been interesting to see the output of "apt-cache policy
mysql-common" and "aptitude search -F '%c%a%M %p %v %V' mysql-common"
to see whether the aptitude search would have shown a different value
for "%v" and "%V".


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=syxdm0bn4qt7pomkvowtycigreg8e92a_zaz2a8z9w...@mail.gmail.com

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Lisi]

On Monday 19 March 2012 16:39:13 Jochen Spieker wrote:
> Lisi:
> > On Monday 19 March 2012 12:32:19 Jochen Spieker wrote:
> >> The OP has explicitly has explicitly stated that he/she is interested in
> >> the reason for the behaviour. Work-arounds are too easy. :)
> >
> > It's NOT a workaround.  It is correct usage.
>
> Sure it is correct usage, but it hides the reason of aptitude's
> behaviour from our understanding.
>
> > In aptitude if you want
> > _everything_ upgraded, you have to say so,  otherwise it will
> > safe-upgrade and nothing will be removed, and some things will not be
> > updated.
>
> And we are interested to know what these "some things" are in this case.
>
> > The reason for the behavior is apt-get != aptitude.
>
> That explanation is not very exhaustive.
>
> J.

I don't understandwhy you expect them to be identical.  Different aplications 
are usually dissimilar.  But you could always write to the aptitude 
maintainers and the apt maintainers and ask them why tney differ on that 
particular point.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201203191838.08566.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Jochen Spieker]

Lisi:
> On Monday 19 March 2012 12:32:19 Jochen Spieker wrote:
>> 
>> The OP has explicitly has explicitly stated that he/she is interested in
>> the reason for the behaviour. Work-arounds are too easy. :)
> 
> It's NOT a workaround.  It is correct usage.

Sure it is correct usage, but it hides the reason of aptitude's
behaviour from our understanding.

> In aptitude if you want 
> _everything_ upgraded, you have to say so,  otherwise it will safe-upgrade 
> and nothing will be removed, and some things will not be updated.

And we are interested to know what these "some things" are in this case.

> The reason for the behavior is apt-get != aptitude.

That explanation is not very exhaustive.

J.
-- 
If I was a supermodel I would give all my cocaine to the socially
excluded.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Camaleón]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:17:44 +, Bonno Bloksma wrote:

> To answer most questions asked:

(...)

Would have been better to reply to every message separately...

> 3)
> The last time I ran a full-upgrade was when I upgraded from Lenny. I
> think this system started out as an Etch system years ago. I'd like to
> think the aptitude full-upgrade (or apt-get dist-upgrade) is only to be
> used when doing major upgrades. But ~# aptitude full-upgrade
> The following packages will be upgraded:
>   mysql-common
> 1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
> Need to get 69.6 kB of archives. After unpacking 57.3 kB will be freed.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]n

So "full-upgrade" worked. Curious.

> 5)
> Aptitude upgrade with the -v (or -vv or -vvv) switch gives not much more
> info, just: Current status: 0 broken [+0], 1 update [+0], 16431 new
 ^
> [+0].

There is "one" update available. Next time you can open aptitude and 
manually browse the available package to gather more information on why 
is not going to be updated.

> So it seems the update is present on my system and ready to be
> installed, just not by a normal aptitude upgrade. It is either a normal
> apt-get upgrade or an aptitude full-upgrade. But why.?
> 
> I will just do an apt-get upgrade now.

There must be a good reason (and I bet this deserves a full reading¹), 
but I never use aptitude unless apt-get goes crazy and wants to do weird 
things :-)

¹http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jk7k83$6c2$1...@dough.gmane.org

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Lisi]

On Monday 19 March 2012 14:17:44 Bonno Bloksma wrote:
> It is either a normal apt-get upgrade or an aptitude full-upgrade. But
> why.?

Because they are not the same?  If they were identical there would be no point 
in having the two of them.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201203191518.48615.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Lisi]

On Monday 19 March 2012 12:32:19 Jochen Spieker wrote:
> Lisi:
> > Surely it is worth following the earlier suggestion and doing an
> > "aptitude full-upgrade" before trying more complicated things?
>
> The OP has explicitly has explicitly stated that he/she is interested in
> the reason for the behaviour. Work-arounds are too easy. :)
>
> J.

It's NOT a workaround.  It is correct usage.   In aptitude if you want 
_everything_ upgraded, you have to say so,  otherwise it will safe-upgrade 
and nothing will be removed, and some things will not be updated.  I am 
suggesting using correct aptitude procedure before trying workarounds. 

The reason for the behavior is apt-get != aptitude.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201203191513.31560.lisi.re...@gmail.com

RE: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Bonno Bloksma]

To answer most questions asked:

>>> Did you first update the packages database?
>>> 
>>> apt-get update
>>> aptitude update
>> 
>> apt-get and aptitude both use the same package database. Running the 
>> 'udpate' for both of them is not required.
>
> I just run "apt-get upgrade" and said there was nothing to do while running 
> "aptitude upgrade" wanted to do very 
> (I mean *very*) weird things, such as removing a bunch of packages. After 
> updating aptitude database all went smooth...
>

1)
My systems are all Squeeze. 

2)
~# cat /etc/apt/sources.list
deb http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/ squeeze main contrib non-free
deb-src http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/ squeeze main contrib non-free

deb http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates main contrib non-free
deb-src http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates main contrib non-free

# Squeeze-updates, previously known as 'volatile'
deb http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/ squeeze-updates main contrib non-free
deb-src http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/ squeeze-updates main contrib non-free

3)
The last time I ran a full-upgrade was when I upgraded from Lenny. I think this 
system started out as an Etch system years ago.
I'd like to think the aptitude full-upgrade (or apt-get dist-upgrade) is only 
to be used when doing major upgrades. But
~# aptitude full-upgrade
The following packages will be upgraded:
  mysql-common
1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 69.6 kB of archives. After unpacking 57.3 kB will be freed.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]n

4)
The command
~# aptitude search " ~ahold"
gave no output so there are no held packages in aptitude. I tested that the 
last time just before doing the dist-upgrade and I never hold packages unless 
there is a VERY good reason.

But remember the aptitude upgrade gave
  No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed.
  0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
So there is that
  ... and 1 not upgraded.
In that line. For some reason aptitude will not upgrade that 1 component.

5)
Aptitude upgrade with the -v (or -vv or -vvv) switch gives not much more info, 
just:
Current status: 0 broken [+0], 1 update [+0], 16431 new [+0].


6)
~# apt-cache showpkg mysql-common
Package: mysql-common
Versions:
5.1.61-0+squeeze1 
(/var/lib/apt/lists/security.debian.org_dists_squeeze_updates_main_binary-i386_Packages)
 Description Language:
 File: 
/var/lib/apt/lists/security.debian.org_dists_squeeze_updates_main_binary-i386_Packages
  MD5: 562d254c602f89e4390e28f6362283c8

5.1.49-3 
(/var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.nl.debian.org_debian_dists_squeeze_main_binary-i386_Packages)
 (/var/lib/dpkg/status)
 Description Language:
 File: 
/var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.nl.debian.org_debian_dists_squeeze_main_binary-i386_Packages
  MD5: 562d254c602f89e4390e28f6362283c8


Reverse Depends:
  libmysqlclient15off,mysql-common 5.0.51a-24+lenny5
  mysql-server-5.1,mysql-common 5.1.61-0+squeeze1
  mysql-client-5.1,mysql-common 5.1.61-0+squeeze1
  libmysqlclient16,mysql-common 5.1.61-0+squeeze1
  mysql-server-5.1,mysql-common 5.1.49-3
  mysql-client-5.1,mysql-common 5.1.49-3
  libmysqlclient16,mysql-common 5.1.49-3
Dependencies:
5.1.61-0+squeeze1 - mysql-common-4.1 (0 (null)) mysql-common-4.1 (0 (null))
5.1.49-3 - mysql-common-4.1 (0 (null)) mysql-common-4.1 (0 (null))
Provides:
5.1.61-0+squeeze1 - mysql-common-4.1
5.1.49-3 - mysql-common-4.1
Reverse Provides:

So it seems the update is present on my system and ready to be installed, just 
not by a normal aptitude upgrade.
It is either a normal apt-get upgrade or an aptitude full-upgrade. But why.?

I will just do an apt-get upgrade now.

Bonno Bloksma

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Camaleón]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:10:07 +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:

> Camaleón:

(...)

>> Did you first update the packages database?
>> 
>> apt-get update
>> aptitude update
> 
> apt-get and aptitude both use the same package database. Running the
> 'udpate' for both of them is not required.

I just run "apt-get upgrade" and said there was nothing to do while 
running "aptitude upgrade" wanted to do very (I mean *very*) weird 
things, such as removing a bunch of packages. After updating aptitude 
database all went smooth...

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jk79pv$6c2$1...@dough.gmane.org

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Jochen Spieker]

Lisi:
> 
> Surely it is worth following the earlier suggestion and doing an "aptitude 
> full-upgrade" before trying more complicated things?

The OP has explicitly has explicitly stated that he/she is interested in
the reason for the behaviour. Work-arounds are too easy. :)

J.
-- 
Ultimately, the Millenium Dome is a spectacular monument of the
doublethink of our times.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Lisi]

On Monday 19 March 2012 12:10:07 Jochen Spieker wrote:
> Camaleón:
> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:58:12 +, Bonno Bloksma wrote:
> >> Version: 5.1.49-3
> >> Priority: optional
> >> Section: database
> >> []
>
> Is this a squeeze system? -Then you should make sure you have
> security.debian.org in your sources.list. The current version from s.d.o
> is 5.1.61-0+squeeze1.
>
> You may want to post the output of 'apt-cache policy'.
>
> >> However, now apt-get wants to install an update but aptitude will not.
>
> aptitude why-not mysql-common
>
> > Did you first update the packages database?
> >
> > apt-get update
> > aptitude update
>
> apt-get and aptitude both use the same package database. Running the
> 'udpate' for both of them is not required.
>
> What's still separated, AFAIK, is the 'hold' mechanism. Bonno, you could
> try 'aptitude unhold mysql-common' and see whether aptitude wants to
> upgrade now.

Surely it is worth following the earlier suggestion and doing an "aptitude 
full-upgrade" before trying more complicated things?

Lisi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201203191220.19465.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Jochen Spieker]

Camaleón:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:58:12 +, Bonno Bloksma wrote:
> 
>> Version: 5.1.49-3
>> Priority: optional
>> Section: database
>> []

Is this a squeeze system? -Then you should make sure you have
security.debian.org in your sources.list. The current version from s.d.o
is 5.1.61-0+squeeze1.

You may want to post the output of 'apt-cache policy'.

>> However, now apt-get wants to install an update but aptitude will not.

aptitude why-not mysql-common

> Did you first update the packages database?
> 
> apt-get update
> aptitude update

apt-get and aptitude both use the same package database. Running the
'udpate' for both of them is not required.

What's still separated, AFAIK, is the 'hold' mechanism. Bonno, you could
try 'aptitude unhold mysql-common' and see whether aptitude wants to
upgrade now.

J.
-- 
I wish I could achieve a 'just stepped out of the salon' look more
often. Or at least once.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Camaleón]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:58:12 +, Bonno Bloksma wrote:

> On 2 of my machines I have mysql-common installed
> 
> # aptitude show mysql-common
> Package: mysql-common
> State: installed
> Automatically installed: no
> Version: 5.1.49-3
> Priority: optional
> Section: database
> []
> 
> However, now apt-get wants to install an update but aptitude will not.

(...)

Did you first update the packages database?

apt-get update
aptitude update

Then, I would try to make them more verbose:

apt-get -V upgrade
aptitude -vvv upgrade

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jk74gd$6c2$5...@dough.gmane.org

Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

[Rares Aioanei]

On 03/19/2012 11:58 AM, Bonno Bloksma wrote:

Hi,

On 2 of my machines I have mysql-common installed

[...]
As we don't know what kind of setup you're having (stable, bpo, testing, 
unstable...), it's hard to tell what's up. How about aptitude dist-upgrade?


--
Rares Aioanei


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f67144b.6020...@gmail.com