Re: apt-get upgrade problem on Jessie

[Elimar Riesebieter]

* rhkra...@gmail.com  [2018-12-25 09:21 -0500]:

[...] 
> But now I'm at this point:
> 
> root@s31:~# apt-get upgrade
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> Calculating upgrade... Done
> The following packages have been kept back:
>   firmware-linux-nonfree
> 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
> root@s31:~#
> 
> I don't know that I'm worried about that, but if someone knows what I need
> to do, I'll try it.

# apt update && apt dist-upgrade

Elimar
-- 
  Excellent day for drinking heavily.
  Spike the office water cooler;-)

Re: apt-get upgrade problem on Jessie

[Patrick Bartek]

On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 09:21:39 -0500
rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

> [snip]
> 
> But now I'm at this point:
> 
> root@s31:~# apt-get upgrade
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> Calculating upgrade... Done
> The following packages have been kept back:
>   firmware-linux-nonfree
> 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
> root@s31:~#
> 
> I don't know that I'm worried about that, but if someone knows what I need
> to do, I'll try it.


apt-get dist-upgrade will install "held back" packages.

Also, routinely using apt-get autoclean (or clean) will clean out all
cached downloaded packages from previous upgrades.

B

Re: apt-get upgrade problem on Jessie

[tomas]

On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 09:21:39AM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks for the reply, it helped a lot -- I seem to have one problem remaining 
> (below).

[...]

> df told me that /var was at 100%, and /boot was at 98%.

"apt-get autoclean" or its more drastic sibling "apt-get clean" might be
of some help in those cases (the difference being that autoclean removes
just obsolete cached packages while clean removes also current packages).

They remove cached package files (for installed packages), i.e. you'll at
most incur the penalty of re-downloading a package file should you decide
to reinstall a package.

Cheers
-- tomás 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: apt-get upgrade problem on Jessie

[rhkramer]

Thanks for the reply, it helped a lot -- I seem to have one problem remaining 
(below).

On Monday, December 24, 2018 06:22:58 PM Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
> You need to
> # apt install firmware-realtek

Ok, I did the apt-get install firmware-realtek and that got rid of the
complaints about the 8168.

> 
> > gzip: stdout: No space left on device
> 
> It seems that there is some space missing on your hard drive. What
> tells:
> 
> $ df -h

df told me that /var was at 100%, and /boot was at 98%.

I did some drastic deletions in /var, and then tried upgrade again and it
became apparent that I had deleted some essential directories and files,
but the error messages told me what they were so I recreated them.

Aside: I should increase the size of /var and maybe /boot -- they both (of 
similar size) seem very adequate in my Wheezy system (still in service).

And then, ran apt-get upgrade again and the problems and that got rid of the 
problems with: 

 linux-image-3.16.0-7-amd64
 linux-image-amd64
 initramfs-tools

(I feel much better now that the linux images are installed.)

But now I'm at this point:

root@s31:~# apt-get upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
  firmware-linux-nonfree
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
root@s31:~#

I don't know that I'm worried about that, but if someone knows what I need
to do, I'll try it.

Re: apt-get upgrade problem on Jessie

[rhkramer]

Thanks very much -- that helped a lot -- there is one outstanding problem, 
but, for various reasons, I don't have time for a full reply atm -- I'll try 
to reply more fully tomorrow or the day after.

On Monday, December 24, 2018 06:22:58 PM Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
> * rh kramer  [2018-12-24 18:10 -0500]:
> > On my Jessie system, for something like the last 2 to 3 months, I've been
> > getting an error like the following whenever I do an apt-get update /
> > apt-get upgrade cycle.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > Ok, it looks like I have the r8169 as I see this:
> > 
> > r8169  68066  0
> 
> [...]
> 
> > W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/rtl_nic/rtl8168d-1.fw for
> > module r8169
> 
> $ apt-file search rtl8168d-1.fw
> firmware-realtek: /lib/firmware/rtl_nic/rtl8168d-1.fw
> 
> You need to
> # apt install firmware-realtek
> 
> > gzip: stdout: No space left on device
> 
> It seems that there is some space missing on your hard drive. What
> tells:
> 
> $ df -h
> 
> ?
> 
> Elimar

Re: apt-get upgrade problem on Jessie

[Elimar Riesebieter]

* rh kramer  [2018-12-24 18:10 -0500]:

> On my Jessie system, for something like the last 2 to 3 months, I've been
> getting an error like the following whenever I do an apt-get update /
> apt-get upgrade cycle.

[...]

> Ok, it looks like I have the r8169 as I see this:
> 
> r8169  68066  0

[...]

> W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/rtl_nic/rtl8168d-1.fw for module
> r8169

$ apt-file search rtl8168d-1.fw
firmware-realtek: /lib/firmware/rtl_nic/rtl8168d-1.fw

You need to
# apt install firmware-realtek
> 
> gzip: stdout: No space left on device

It seems that there is some space missing on your hard drive. What
tells:

$ df -h

?

Elimar
-- 
  Excellent day for drinking heavily.
  Spike the office water cooler;-)

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Fungi4All]

> From: a...@cityscape.co.uk
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 18:21:15 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
>> Fungi4All composed on 2017-07-19 17:39 (UTC-0400):
>> > > 27 upgraded, 3 newly installed, 0 to remove and 2 not upgraded.
>> > Need to get 68.5 MB of archives.> After this operation, 242 MB of 
>> > additional disk space will be used.
>> > Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
>> > Abort.
>>
>> > $ sudo apt-get upgrade
>> ...
>> > 25 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 4 not upgraded.
>> > Need to get 21.1 MB of archives.
>> > After this operation, 145 kB of additional disk space will be used.
>> > Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
>> > Abort.
>>
>> Prezactly! ;-)
> The different results with apt upgrade as opposed to apt-get upgrade
> are due to apt installing new packages, something which apt-get will
> not do. Use apt-get dist-upgrade for that. The end result is the same.

I took your advise and used apt-get only across 4 Debian editions.
It did not stop systemd from being installed all on its own.
I started with 7, pretty minimal sysV and runit, slim, openbox, midori,
2-3 lxde pieces to save time and hustle, tried to go to 8. Every step
systemd was installing I would take it off before I would restart. I couldn't
even get the kernel to install properly. I would restore the initial 7 and
tried to go to 9. Same ol, same ol. Testing  I gave up and didn't even
try to go straight to sid :)
I thought maybe I can build a devuan. I would lose net-manager all the
time and with wifi it became the impossible task to achieve.
I don't remember how many times I had to remove firefox, deluge,
and some other commercial "free" software.
So much for the apt-get not installing shit on its own.
But if it was that easy it wouldn't have taken Devuan so long to get it
done.

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[David Wright]

On Fri 21 Jul 2017 at 00:43:08 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
> Joe Pfeiffer composed on 2017-07-20 15:38 (UTC-0600):
> 
> > David Wright  wrote:
> 
> >> On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 14:57:50 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
> 
> >>> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?
> 
> >> I did. Where does it say that?
> 
> > The closest thing to that statement I've encountered is in the Debian
> > Administrator's Handbook, "apt is a second command-line based front end
> > provided by APT which overcomes some design mistakes of apt-get."  It
> > doesn't quite say it's preferred, but it does say why the author of the
> > handbook thinks it's superior.
> 
> > https://debian-handbook.info/browse/stable/sect.apt-get.html
> > section 6.2
> 
> The handbook paragraph following that quoted above includes this:
> 
>   "The most recommended interface, apt,..."
> 
> It only says apt is the cmdline interface that followed apt-get, not when it
> followed, but I think "overcomes design mistakes of apt-get" is enough to
> justify saying that apt is generally preferred to apt-get.

In §6,2 I actually _can't_ see where the author says it's superior.
I _can_ see that a substitution s/apt-get/apt/ has been made in
the newer version of the handbook (actually published just after
jessie was released) and in stretch's Installation Guide.

For a gloss on the "design mistakes" statement, see
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=818560
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/270511/how-is-apt-the-new-and-improved-apt-get

Cheers,
David.

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Patrick Bartek]

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:48:17 +0200 Dejan Jocic 
wrote:

> On 20-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:48:17 +0200 Dejan Jocic 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > If you have minimal install, why do you suspect that something is
> > > wrong, rather to suppose that all is fine and that simply there
> > > was no security updates for your install? It is stable now, and
> > > as far as i can remember, all those security updates we did have
> > > of lately were somehow tied for graphical part, plus apache and
> > > ngninx. Apart for security updates, tough luck of getting some
> > > other updates on stable. And "everything worked fine" on your
> > > install of Stretch RC2 because it was still testing and there was
> > > much more updates then?
> > 
> > That was my first thought.  And as I used a Stable net-install disk
> > for my first tests of Stable, the system would have been up-to-date
> > after the install. But it's been two weeks since that time.  I've
> > added X, a window manager, utilities, apps, etc.  Based on my past
> > experience, historically, there should have been some fixes.  I've
> > never come across any such new release -- Debian or others -- that
> > didn't need a plethora of fixes in those few days to a month
> > after.  Or perhaps Stretch is bug free.  Or as I said in another
> > post: Maybe the maintainers are taking a vacation.
> > 
> > As far as RC2:  I dist-upgraded it to Stable in the course of my
> > tests. And as soon as it hit stable, apt-get upgrades ceased
> > producing anything for a week.  So, I downloaded the Stable
> > net-install CD for a new install to see if there was any
> > differences.
> > 
> > B
> > 
> 
> Yes, but did you really check if security updates debian stable had
> during those 2 weeks included packages that you have installed, or
> not? Your past experience is past, this is another install. Just take
> look at security updates and compare, there is no much philosophy
> there:
> 
> https://www.debian.org/security/
> 
> Look under recent advisories.

I will check.  Thanks.

B

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Dejan Jocic]

On 20-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:48:17 +0200 Dejan Jocic 
> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > If you have minimal install, why do you suspect that something is
> > wrong, rather to suppose that all is fine and that simply there was
> > no security updates for your install? It is stable now, and as far as
> > i can remember, all those security updates we did have of lately were
> > somehow tied for graphical part, plus apache and ngninx. Apart for
> > security updates, tough luck of getting some other updates on stable.
> > And "everything worked fine" on your install of Stretch RC2 because
> > it was still testing and there was much more updates then?
> 
> That was my first thought.  And as I used a Stable net-install disk
> for my first tests of Stable, the system would have been up-to-date
> after the install. But it's been two weeks since that time.  I've added
> X, a window manager, utilities, apps, etc.  Based on my past
> experience, historically, there should have been some fixes.  I've
> never come across any such new release -- Debian or others -- that
> didn't need a plethora of fixes in those few days to a month after.  Or
> perhaps Stretch is bug free.  Or as I said in another post: Maybe the
> maintainers are taking a vacation.
> 
> As far as RC2:  I dist-upgraded it to Stable in the course of my tests.
> And as soon as it hit stable, apt-get upgrades ceased producing
> anything for a week.  So, I downloaded the Stable net-install CD for a
> new install to see if there was any differences.
> 
> B
> 

Yes, but did you really check if security updates debian stable had
during those 2 weeks included packages that you have installed, or not?
Your past experience is past, this is another install. Just take look at
security updates and compare, there is no much philosophy there:

https://www.debian.org/security/

Look under recent advisories.

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Patrick Bartek]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:55:15 + (UTC) david...@freevolt.org wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> 
> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week.  Can install
> > apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc.  I
> > find this unusual.
> 
> And so, understandably, you feel prompted to seek confirmation that
> there have, in fact, been no updates applicable to your system.

Of course.  But I did do searches to see if something like this has
occured before,

> I have a somewhat minimal[1] amd64 stretch system too, and examining
> /var/log/apt/history.log indicates that the most recent date there
> were upgrades available for an already installed package was on
> 2017-07-09:
> 
>Start-Date: 2017-07-09  hh:mm:ss
>Commandline: /usr/bin/apt-get upgrade
>Upgrade: libdns-export162:amd64 (1:9.10.3.dfsg.P4-12.3,
> [snip]
> In principle, the fewer packages you have installed, the more likely
> there will be such apparent "dry spells".

This was my first thought, too.  But after installing X, window
manager, utilities, apps, and two weeks with nothing, it struck my
"this is out of the ordinary" bone.  Never have any of my Debian
installs gone that long without some upgrade activity, particularly
after an initial Stable release.

> > Did a mail list archive search for this, but didn't find
> > anything specific. Or did I miss the solution?
> 
> It seems to me that the first step is determining whether there exists
> a problem to be solved.

Hence, my contacting the list. Right now, even with the advice I've
gotten, I can't find anything wrong system or configure-wise.

> Hope this helps.

Thanks for your response.

B

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Patrick Bartek]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:48:17 +0200 Dejan Jocic 
wrote:

> On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:47:27 -0700 Jimmy Johnson
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > On 07/19/2017 01:35 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:14:28 +0200 Dejan Jocic
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >> On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > > >>> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week.  Can
> > > >>> install apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update
> > > >>> "fixes," etc.  I find this unusual.  Did a mail list archive
> > > >>> search for this, but didn't find anything specific. Or did I
> > > >>> miss the solution?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> My Test Setup:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Stretch Stable 64-bit from net-install disk in Virtualbox 5.1
> > > >>> on a Wheezy host.  Basic terminal install (no GUI), converted
> > > >>> to sysvinit (did not do anything to systemd files. Kept as
> > > >>> dependencies) and then added xorg, openbox window manager,
> > > >>> etc.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks for any feedback.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> B
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> dpkg -s unattended-upgrades
> > > > 
> > > > Not installed either by me or the installer
> > > > 
> > > >> If it is installed, it did your updates and security upgrades
> > > >> for you. If you do not like it and want to do manual
> > > >> updates/upgrades, do with root privs:
> > > > 
> > > > I have always done this manually since I first started using
> > > > Debian (Sarge).  And always will.  This is my personal machine.
> > > > 
> > > >> sed -i 's/1/0/g' /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/20auto-upgrades
> > > >>
> > > >> For further reading and understanding:
> > > >>
> > > >> https://wiki.debian.org/UnattendedUpgrades
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for the reference.  I've been aware of this for a long
> > > > time, but chose not to use it.
> > > > 
> > > > My problem must be something else.
> > > 
> > > You also have packagekit and discover to deal with and who knows
> > > what else. Stopping auto-install is not that difficult, but
> > > stopping auto-update is a problem.
> > 
> > I think you've assumed some things incorrectly.  I did a basic
> > terminal only install with only basic system utilties, the last
> > option on the list.  No Desktop of any kind. No xserver.
> > Packagekit is not installed.  Discover was as a dependency, but I
> > didn't install it explicitly. No auto-install or auto-update
> > either. I converted to sysvinit, but left systemd stuff as
> > dependencies.  Later will install xorg and openbox, etc. for my
> > GUI. This is the same way I installed Wheezy 5 years ago. And it
> > works (and always has) fine.
> > 
> > FWIW, a few months ago, I installed Stretch RC2 the same way to
> > test it and everything worked including apt-get update, upgrade,
> > etc.
> > 
> > So, something is wrong.  And I won't install it for real until I
> > discover what.
> > 
> > B
> > 
> 
> If you have minimal install, why do you suspect that something is
> wrong, rather to suppose that all is fine and that simply there was
> no security updates for your install? It is stable now, and as far as
> i can remember, all those security updates we did have of lately were
> somehow tied for graphical part, plus apache and ngninx. Apart for
> security updates, tough luck of getting some other updates on stable.
> And "everything worked fine" on your install of Stretch RC2 because
> it was still testing and there was much more updates then?

That was my first thought.  And as I used a Stable net-install disk
for my first tests of Stable, the system would have been up-to-date
after the install. But it's been two weeks since that time.  I've added
X, a window manager, utilities, apps, etc.  Based on my past
experience, historically, there should have been some fixes.  I've
never come across any such new release -- Debian or others -- that
didn't need a plethora of fixes in those few days to a month after.  Or
perhaps Stretch is bug free.  Or as I said in another post: Maybe the
maintainers are taking a vacation.

As far as RC2:  I dist-upgraded it to Stable in the course of my tests.
And as soon as it hit stable, apt-get upgrades ceased producing
anything for a week.  So, I downloaded the Stable net-install CD for a
new install to see if there was any differences.

B

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Felix Miata]

Joe Pfeiffer composed on 2017-07-20 15:38 (UTC-0600):

> David Wright  wrote:

>> On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 14:57:50 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:

>>> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?

>> I did. Where does it say that?

> The closest thing to that statement I've encountered is in the Debian
> Administrator's Handbook, "apt is a second command-line based front end
> provided by APT which overcomes some design mistakes of apt-get."  It
> doesn't quite say it's preferred, but it does say why the author of the
> handbook thinks it's superior.

> https://debian-handbook.info/browse/stable/sect.apt-get.html
> section 6.2

The handbook paragraph following that quoted above includes this:

"The most recommended interface, apt,..."

It only says apt is the cmdline interface that followed apt-get, not when it
followed, but I think "overcomes design mistakes of apt-get" is enough to
justify saying that apt is generally preferred to apt-get.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Patrick Bartek]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:41:33 -0700 Jimmy Johnson
 wrote:

> On 07/19/2017 07:05 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:47:27 -0700 Jimmy Johnson
> >  wrote:
> > 
> >> On 07/19/2017 01:35 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:14:28 +0200 Dejan Jocic 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week.  Can
> > install apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update
> > "fixes," etc.  I find this unusual.  Did a mail list archive
> > search for this, but didn't find anything specific. Or did I
> > miss the solution?
> >
> > My Test Setup:
> >
> > Stretch Stable 64-bit from net-install disk in Virtualbox 5.1
> > on a Wheezy host.  Basic terminal install (no GUI), converted to
> > sysvinit (did not do anything to systemd files. Kept as
> > dependencies) and then added xorg, openbox window manager, etc.
> >
> > Thanks for any feedback.
> >
> > B
> >
> 
>  dpkg -s unattended-upgrades
> >>>
> >>> Not installed either by me or the installer
> >>>
>  If it is installed, it did your updates and security upgrades for
>  you. If you do not like it and want to do manual
>  updates/upgrades, do with root privs:
> >>>
> >>> I have always done this manually since I first started using
> >>> Debian (Sarge).  And always will.  This is my personal machine.
> >>>
>  sed -i 's/1/0/g' /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/20auto-upgrades
> 
>  For further reading and understanding:
> 
>  https://wiki.debian.org/UnattendedUpgrades
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the reference.  I've been aware of this for a long
> >>> time, but chose not to use it.
> >>>
> >>> My problem must be something else.
> >>
> >> You also have packagekit and discover to deal with and who knows
> >> what else. Stopping auto-install is not that difficult, but
> >> stopping auto-update is a problem.
> > 
> > I think you've assumed some things incorrectly.  I did a basic
> > terminal only install with only basic system utilties, the last
> > option on the list.  No Desktop of any kind. No xserver.
> > Packagekit is not installed.  Discover was as a dependency, but I
> > didn't install it explicitly. No auto-install or auto-update
> > either. I converted to sysvinit, but left systemd stuff as
> > dependencies.  Later will install xorg and openbox, etc. for my
> > GUI. This is the same way I installed Wheezy 5 years ago. And it
> > works (and always has) fine.
> > 
> > FWIW, a few months ago, I installed Stretch RC2 the same way to
> > test it and everything worked including apt-get update, upgrade,
> > etc.
> > 
> > So, something is wrong.  And I won't install it for real until I
> > discover what.
> > 
> > B
> 
> 
> A few months ago, hum, I wonder what could have changed, let's see 
> Stretch was in testing and not frozen. Yep, you're right it's broken.

No need for sarcasm.  I've been using Debian since Sarge, and this is
the first time I've noted such a lack of "fixes" and security updates
after the initial release of a Stable.  Historically, that's unusual.
Maybe, the maintainers are taking a vacation. ;-)

> Here's a link for you to check out: 
> https://wiki.debian.org/UnattendedUpgrades Pay attention to the term 
> "periodic", it's turned on by default and even if the config file is
> not there it's still turned on.

I did check.  Since the package unattended-upgrades is not installed --
not on my initial test minimal install or the full LXDE desktop one I
just did -- it can't be "turned on" by default or otherwise.   There's
also no config file for it in /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/ Maybe, it's
installed by default with GNOME.  I don't know as I don't use GNOME and
haven't in about 6 years

B.

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Joe Pfeiffer]

David Wright  writes:

> On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 14:57:50 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
>> Patrick Bartek composed on 2017-07-19 10:29 (UTC-0700):
>> 
>> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week.  Can install apps,
>> > etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc.  I find
>> > this unusual.  Did a mail list archive search for this, but didn't find
>> > anything specific. Or did I miss the solution?
>> 
>> > My Test Setup:
>> 
>> > Stretch Stable 64-bit from net-install disk in Virtualbox 5.1 on a
>> > Wheezy host.  Basic terminal install (no GUI), converted to sysvinit
>> > (did not do anything to systemd files. Kept as dependencies) and then
>> > added xorg, openbox window manager, etc.
>> 
>> > Thanks for any feedback.
>> 
>> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?
>
> I did. Where does it say that?

The closest thing to that statement I've encountered is in the Debian
Administrator's Handbook, "apt is a second command-line based front end
provided by APT which overcomes some design mistakes of apt-get."  It
doesn't quite say it's preferred, but it does say why the author of the
handbook thinks it's superior.

https://debian-handbook.info/browse/stable/sect.apt-get.html
section 6.2

But this whole discussion is a complete red herring.  Whatever the OP's
actual issue, the probability that it has anything to do with apt
vs. apt-get is so low that pretty much everything else should be
considered first.

(not that it matters, but personally I prefer aptitude)

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Felix Miata]

David Wright composed on 2017-07-19 23:33 (UTC-0500):

> On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 14:57:50 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:

>> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?

> I did. Where does it say that?

It was a long time ago that I first encountered it, and don't remember where it
was. I have to think searching 'apt-get vs. apt stretch' will get you hits like
what I've run across.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Dejan Jocic]

On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:47:27 -0700 Jimmy Johnson
>  wrote:
> 
> > On 07/19/2017 01:35 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:14:28 +0200 Dejan Jocic 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > >> On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > >>> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week.  Can install
> > >>> apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc.  I
> > >>> find this unusual.  Did a mail list archive search for this, but
> > >>> didn't find anything specific. Or did I miss the solution?
> > >>>
> > >>> My Test Setup:
> > >>>
> > >>> Stretch Stable 64-bit from net-install disk in Virtualbox 5.1 on a
> > >>> Wheezy host.  Basic terminal install (no GUI), converted to
> > >>> sysvinit (did not do anything to systemd files. Kept as
> > >>> dependencies) and then added xorg, openbox window manager, etc.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks for any feedback.
> > >>>
> > >>> B
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> dpkg -s unattended-upgrades
> > > 
> > > Not installed either by me or the installer
> > > 
> > >> If it is installed, it did your updates and security upgrades for
> > >> you. If you do not like it and want to do manual updates/upgrades,
> > >> do with root privs:
> > > 
> > > I have always done this manually since I first started using Debian
> > > (Sarge).  And always will.  This is my personal machine.
> > > 
> > >> sed -i 's/1/0/g' /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/20auto-upgrades
> > >>
> > >> For further reading and understanding:
> > >>
> > >> https://wiki.debian.org/UnattendedUpgrades
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the reference.  I've been aware of this for a long time,
> > > but chose not to use it.
> > > 
> > > My problem must be something else.
> > 
> > You also have packagekit and discover to deal with and who knows what 
> > else. Stopping auto-install is not that difficult, but stopping 
> > auto-update is a problem.
> 
> I think you've assumed some things incorrectly.  I did a basic terminal
> only install with only basic system utilties, the last option on the
> list.  No Desktop of any kind. No xserver.  Packagekit is not
> installed.  Discover was as a dependency, but I didn't install it
> explicitly. No auto-install or auto-update either. I converted to
> sysvinit, but left systemd stuff as dependencies.  Later will install
> xorg and openbox, etc. for my GUI. This is the same way I installed
> Wheezy 5 years ago. And it works (and always has) fine.
> 
> FWIW, a few months ago, I installed Stretch RC2 the same way to test it
> and everything worked including apt-get update, upgrade, etc.
> 
> So, something is wrong.  And I won't install it for real until I
> discover what.
> 
> B
> 

If you have minimal install, why do you suspect that something is wrong,
rather to suppose that all is fine and that simply there was no security
updates for your install? It is stable now, and as far as i can
remember, all those security updates we did have of lately were somehow
tied for graphical part, plus apache and ngninx. Apart for security
updates, tough luck of getting some other updates on stable. And
"everything worked fine" on your install of Stretch RC2 because it was
still testing and there was much more updates then?

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[davidson]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Patrick Bartek wrote:


Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week.  Can install apps,
etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc.  I find
this unusual.


And so, understandably, you feel prompted to seek confirmation that
there have, in fact, been no updates applicable to your system.

I have a somewhat minimal[1] amd64 stretch system too, and examining
/var/log/apt/history.log indicates that the most recent date there
were upgrades available for an already installed package was on
2017-07-09:

  Start-Date: 2017-07-09  hh:mm:ss
  Commandline: /usr/bin/apt-get upgrade
  Upgrade: libdns-export162:amd64 (1:9.10.3.dfsg.P4-12.3, 
1:9.10.3.dfsg.P4-12.3+deb9u1), xserver-common:amd64 (2  :1.19.2-1, 
2:1.19.2-1+deb9u1), xserver-xorg-core:amd64 (2:1.19.2-1, 2:1.19.2-1+deb9u1), 
libtiff5:amd64 (4.0.8-  2, 4.0.8-2+deb9u1), libisc-export160:amd64 
(1:9.10.3.dfsg.P4-12.3, 1:9.10.3.dfsg.P4-12.3+deb9u1)
  End-Date: 2017-07-09  hh:mm:ss

Casting an eye over the entries in debian-security-announce list
archives, since that date, suggests to me that there have, indeed,
been no upgrades that apply to any package I have installed.

If you are not subscribed to that list, you can examine them here:

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/2017/

Depending on the contents of your /etc/apt/sources.list , you might
also want to examine other lists like debian-stable-announce:

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-stable-announce/recent

In principle, the fewer packages you have installed, the more likely
there will be such apparent "dry spells".


Did a mail list archive search for this, but didn't find
anything specific. Or did I miss the solution?


It seems to me that the first step is determining whether there exists
a problem to be solved.

Hope this helps.

Notes
  1. Roughly quantifying "somewhat minimal":
 $ dpkg-query -l |grep '^ii' |wc -l
 686

--

"One of the greatest advantages of the totalitarian elites of the
twenties and thirties was to turn any statement of fact into a
question of motive." -- Hannah Arendt

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[David Wright]

On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 14:57:50 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
> Patrick Bartek composed on 2017-07-19 10:29 (UTC-0700):
> 
> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week.  Can install apps,
> > etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc.  I find
> > this unusual.  Did a mail list archive search for this, but didn't find
> > anything specific. Or did I miss the solution?
> 
> > My Test Setup:
> 
> > Stretch Stable 64-bit from net-install disk in Virtualbox 5.1 on a
> > Wheezy host.  Basic terminal install (no GUI), converted to sysvinit
> > (did not do anything to systemd files. Kept as dependencies) and then
> > added xorg, openbox window manager, etc.
> 
> > Thanks for any feedback.
> 
> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?

I did. Where does it say that?

Cheers,
David.

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Jimmy Johnson]

On 07/19/2017 07:05 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:47:27 -0700 Jimmy Johnson
 wrote:


On 07/19/2017 01:35 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:14:28 +0200 Dejan Jocic 
wrote:


On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:

Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week.  Can install
apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc.  I
find this unusual.  Did a mail list archive search for this, but
didn't find anything specific. Or did I miss the solution?

My Test Setup:

Stretch Stable 64-bit from net-install disk in Virtualbox 5.1 on a
Wheezy host.  Basic terminal install (no GUI), converted to
sysvinit (did not do anything to systemd files. Kept as
dependencies) and then added xorg, openbox window manager, etc.

Thanks for any feedback.

B



dpkg -s unattended-upgrades


Not installed either by me or the installer


If it is installed, it did your updates and security upgrades for
you. If you do not like it and want to do manual updates/upgrades,
do with root privs:


I have always done this manually since I first started using Debian
(Sarge).  And always will.  This is my personal machine.


sed -i 's/1/0/g' /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/20auto-upgrades

For further reading and understanding:

https://wiki.debian.org/UnattendedUpgrades


Thanks for the reference.  I've been aware of this for a long time,
but chose not to use it.

My problem must be something else.


You also have packagekit and discover to deal with and who knows what
else. Stopping auto-install is not that difficult, but stopping
auto-update is a problem.


I think you've assumed some things incorrectly.  I did a basic terminal
only install with only basic system utilties, the last option on the
list.  No Desktop of any kind. No xserver.  Packagekit is not
installed.  Discover was as a dependency, but I didn't install it
explicitly. No auto-install or auto-update either. I converted to
sysvinit, but left systemd stuff as dependencies.  Later will install
xorg and openbox, etc. for my GUI. This is the same way I installed
Wheezy 5 years ago. And it works (and always has) fine.

FWIW, a few months ago, I installed Stretch RC2 the same way to test it
and everything worked including apt-get update, upgrade, etc.

So, something is wrong.  And I won't install it for real until I
discover what.

B



A few months ago, hum, I wonder what could have changed, let's see 
Stretch was in testing and not frozen. Yep, you're right it's broken.


Here's a link for you to check out: 
https://wiki.debian.org/UnattendedUpgrades Pay attention to the term 
"periodic", it's turned on by default and even if the config file is not 
there it's still turned on.


Have fun :)
--
Jimmy Johnson

Ubuntu 14.04 LTS - KDE 4.13.3 - Intel G3220 - EXT4 at sda5
Registered Linux User #380263

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Patrick Bartek]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:13:06 -0400 Fungi4All 
wrote:

> From: nemomm...@gmail.com
> 
> > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:32:04 -0400 Dan Ritter 
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:29:02AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> >> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install
> >> > apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I
> >> > find this unusual. Did a mail list archive search for this, but
> >> > didn"t find anything specific. Or did I miss the solution?
> >>
> >> Did you do an apt-get update before your upgrade?
> > Yes. I"ve been using Debian since Sarge. So, this isn"t my first
> > rodeo. But this is the first time I"ve ever had this occur. I"m
> > beginning to think this might be an installer "problem" (I did a
> > terminal only mnimal install to begin with) even though sources.list
> > and configs look okay. I"m going to do a "default" install with the
> > LXDE desktop and see if I have the same problem.
> 
> Since you insist without any evidence that apt-get does a better
> job, can you spare us the courtesy of telling us what mirror are
> you using? It is a possible explanation, since you "verified" that
> auto-upgrade is not installed (or was uninstalled after your
> installation maybe). And mirrors have failed in the past.

Where did I say apt-get was better?  I just use it instead of apt or
aptitude or synaptic.  Tried them all.  One not better than the other.
I just prefer it.

Right now, I'm using the ftp.us.debian.org mirror with main contrib and
non-free enabled. No third party repos at this time.  Have tried a
couple of others -- utexas and georgia tech -- but experienced errors
at times due to missing packages or site being down or unavailable.

I didn't uninistall auto-upgrade.  With the basic terminal only system
I build off of, it never gets installed in the first place.  Apparently,
such "auto" stuff is now a product of a desktop environment (or systemd?
). Something I abandoned 5 years ago in favor of a window manager and a
single panel.

B

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Patrick Bartek]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:47:27 -0700 Jimmy Johnson
 wrote:

> On 07/19/2017 01:35 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:14:28 +0200 Dejan Jocic 
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> >>> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week.  Can install
> >>> apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc.  I
> >>> find this unusual.  Did a mail list archive search for this, but
> >>> didn't find anything specific. Or did I miss the solution?
> >>>
> >>> My Test Setup:
> >>>
> >>> Stretch Stable 64-bit from net-install disk in Virtualbox 5.1 on a
> >>> Wheezy host.  Basic terminal install (no GUI), converted to
> >>> sysvinit (did not do anything to systemd files. Kept as
> >>> dependencies) and then added xorg, openbox window manager, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for any feedback.
> >>>
> >>> B
> >>>
> >>
> >> dpkg -s unattended-upgrades
> > 
> > Not installed either by me or the installer
> > 
> >> If it is installed, it did your updates and security upgrades for
> >> you. If you do not like it and want to do manual updates/upgrades,
> >> do with root privs:
> > 
> > I have always done this manually since I first started using Debian
> > (Sarge).  And always will.  This is my personal machine.
> > 
> >> sed -i 's/1/0/g' /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/20auto-upgrades
> >>
> >> For further reading and understanding:
> >>
> >> https://wiki.debian.org/UnattendedUpgrades
> > 
> > Thanks for the reference.  I've been aware of this for a long time,
> > but chose not to use it.
> > 
> > My problem must be something else.
> 
> You also have packagekit and discover to deal with and who knows what 
> else. Stopping auto-install is not that difficult, but stopping 
> auto-update is a problem.

I think you've assumed some things incorrectly.  I did a basic terminal
only install with only basic system utilties, the last option on the
list.  No Desktop of any kind. No xserver.  Packagekit is not
installed.  Discover was as a dependency, but I didn't install it
explicitly. No auto-install or auto-update either. I converted to
sysvinit, but left systemd stuff as dependencies.  Later will install
xorg and openbox, etc. for my GUI. This is the same way I installed
Wheezy 5 years ago. And it works (and always has) fine.

FWIW, a few months ago, I installed Stretch RC2 the same way to test it
and everything worked including apt-get update, upgrade, etc.

So, something is wrong.  And I won't install it for real until I
discover what.

B

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Brian]

On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 18:21:15 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:

> Fungi4All composed on 2017-07-19 17:39 (UTC-0400):
> 
> >> Brian composed:
> >> One picture is worth a thousand words: 
> ...
> > Here is a picture from my backup machine
> > $ sudo apt upgrade
> ...
> > 27 upgraded, 3 newly installed, 0 to remove and 2 not upgraded.
> > Need to get 68.5 MB of archives.> After this operation, 242 MB of 
> > additional disk space will be used.
> > Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
> > Abort.
> 
> > $ sudo apt-get upgrade
> ...
> > 25 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 4 not upgraded.
> > Need to get 21.1 MB of archives.
> > After this operation, 145 kB of additional disk space will be used.
> > Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
> > Abort.
> 
> Prezactly! ;-)

The different results with apt upgrade as opposed to apt-get upgrade
are due to apt installing new packages, something which apt-get will
not do. Use apt-get dist-upgrade for that. The end result is the same.

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Felix Miata]

Fungi4All composed on 2017-07-19 17:39 (UTC-0400):

>> Brian composed:
>> One picture is worth a thousand words: 
...
> Here is a picture from my backup machine
> $ sudo apt upgrade
...
> 27 upgraded, 3 newly installed, 0 to remove and 2 not upgraded.
> Need to get 68.5 MB of archives.> After this operation, 242 MB of additional 
> disk space will be used.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
> Abort.

> $ sudo apt-get upgrade
...
> 25 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 4 not upgraded.
> Need to get 21.1 MB of archives.
> After this operation, 145 kB of additional disk space will be used.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
> Abort.

Prezactly! ;-)
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Fungi4All]

> From: a...@cityscape.co.uk
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> One picture is worth a thousand words:

Here is a picture from my backup machine
$ sudo apt upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
The following NEW packages will be installed:
linux-headers-4.11.0-2-amd64 linux-headers-4.11.0-2-common 
linux-image-4.11.0-2-amd64
The following packages have been kept back:
libqupzilla1 qupzilla
The following packages will be upgraded:
bind9-host dnsutils git git-man gnome-keyring host libaudit1 libbind9-140 
libdns-export162 libdns162
libfaad2 libgutenprint2 libisc-export160 libisc160 libisccc140 libisccfg140 
liblwres141
libpam-gnome-keyring libsmbclient libwbclient0 linux-compiler-gcc-6-x86 
linux-headers-amd64
linux-image-amd64 linux-kbuild-4.11 linux-libc-dev printer-driver-gutenprint 
samba-libs
27 upgraded, 3 newly installed, 0 to remove and 2 not upgraded.
Need to get 68.5 MB of archives.
After this operation, 242 MB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
Abort.
$ sudo apt-get upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
libqupzilla1 linux-headers-amd64 linux-image-amd64 qupzilla
The following packages will be upgraded:
bind9-host dnsutils git git-man gnome-keyring host libaudit1 libbind9-140 
libdns-export162 libdns162
libfaad2 libgutenprint2 libisc-export160 libisc160 libisccc140 libisccfg140 
liblwres141
libpam-gnome-keyring libsmbclient libwbclient0 linux-compiler-gcc-6-x86 
linux-kbuild-4.11 linux-libc-dev
printer-driver-gutenprint samba-libs
25 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 4 not upgraded.
Need to get 21.1 MB of archives.
After this operation, 145 kB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
Abort.
$ sudo synaptic
Hey hey hey!!!
Synaptic did the apt way not the apt-get way.
Difference, the linux-image files
This is on sid though, and the op was on stretch but I ain't going back.

> root@stretch:~# apt-get install exim4
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> The following additional packages will be installed:
> exim4-base exim4-config exim4-daemon-light guile-2.0-libs libfribidi0 
> libgc1c2 libgsasl7 libkyotocabinet16v5
> liblzo2-2 libmailutils5 libmariadbclient18 libntlm0 libpython2.7 
> libpython2.7-minimal libpython2.7-stdlib
> mailutils mailutils-common mysql-common psmisc
> Suggested packages:
> eximon4 exim4-doc-html | exim4-doc-info spf-tools-perl swaks mailutils-mh 
> mailutils-doc
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
> exim4 exim4-base exim4-config exim4-daemon-light guile-2.0-libs libfribidi0 
> libgc1c2 libgsasl7
> libkyotocabinet16v5 liblzo2-2 libmailutils5 libmariadbclient18 libntlm0 
> libpython2.7 libpython2.7-minimal
> libpython2.7-stdlib mailutils mailutils-common mysql-common psmisc
> 0 upgraded, 20 newly installed, 0 to remove and 58 not upgraded.
> Need to get 11.0 MB/11.5 MB of archives.
> After this operation, 42.4 MB of additional disk space will be used.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
> Abort.
> root@stretch:~#
> root@stretch:~#
> root@stretch:~#
> root@stretch:~# apt install exim4
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> The following additional packages will be installed:
> exim4-base exim4-config exim4-daemon-light guile-2.0-libs libfribidi0 
> libgc1c2 libgsasl7 libkyotocabinet16v5
> liblzo2-2 libmailutils5 libmariadbclient18 libntlm0 libpython2.7 
> libpython2.7-minimal libpython2.7-stdlib
> mailutils mailutils-common mysql-common psmisc
> Suggested packages:
> eximon4 exim4-doc-html | exim4-doc-info spf-tools-perl swaks mailutils-mh 
> mailutils-doc
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
> exim4 exim4-base exim4-config exim4-daemon-light guile-2.0-libs libfribidi0 
> libgc1c2 libgsasl7
> libkyotocabinet16v5 liblzo2-2 libmailutils5 libmariadbclient18 libntlm0 
> libpython2.7 libpython2.7-minimal
> libpython2.7-stdlib mailutils mailutils-common mysql-common psmisc
> 0 upgraded, 20 newly installed, 0 to remove and 58 not upgraded.
> Need to get 11.0 MB/11.5 MB of archives.
> After this operation, 42.4 MB of additional disk space will be used.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n]

And HURRAY!!!
samba (2:4.6.5+dfsg-5) unstable; urgency=medium
The samba service has been removed. Use the individual services instead:
* nmbd
* smbd
* samba-ad-dc
-- Mathieu Parent  Tue, 18 Jul 2017 22:52:05 +0200
I had forgotten I had done this to backup my friends crappy machine.
Left the backdoor open. Thanks Mathieu!

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Fungi4All]

> From: a...@cityscape.co.uk
> On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 16:20:21 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> One picture is worth a thousand words:
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n]

n

> Which should be trusted more. apt-get or apt?

I've always liked apt. It is four keystrokes shorter

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Fungi4All]

From: nemomm...@gmail.com

> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:32:04 -0400 Dan Ritter 
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:29:02AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install
>> > apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I
>> > find this unusual. Did a mail list archive search for this, but
>> > didn"t find anything specific. Or did I miss the solution?
>>
>> Did you do an apt-get update before your upgrade?
> Yes. I"ve been using Debian since Sarge. So, this isn"t my first
> rodeo. But this is the first time I"ve ever had this occur. I"m
> beginning to think this might be an installer "problem" (I did a
> terminal only mnimal install to begin with) even though sources.list
> and configs look okay. I"m going to do a "default" install with the
> LXDE desktop and see if I have the same problem.

Since you insist without any evidence that apt-get does a better
job, can you spare us the courtesy of telling us what mirror are
you using? It is a possible explanation, since you "verified" that
auto-upgrade is not installed (or was uninstalled after your installation
maybe). And mirrors have failed in the past.

> B

Just a thought

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Brian]

On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 16:20:21 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:

> Brian composed on 2017-07-19 20:54 (UTC+0100):
> 
> > On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 15:49:47 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> 
> >> Fungi4All composed on 2017-07-19 15:18 (UTC-0400):
> 
> >> > But will there be different results with apt upgrade than with apt-get?
> 
> >> Will:  I have no idea.
> 
> >> Can:   Yes.
> 
> >> Apt and apt-get are not identical twins.
> 
> > Those sort of statements are begging for an example of the diferences
> > with an upgrade or package installation. Will we see it?
> 
> Again, I have no idea. It would take a lot of time to catch it happening, then
> restore the previous state so as to be able to actually have a chance to find
> what happened to cause it and subsequently be able to repeat at will. All I 
> can
> say is I have a bunch of Stretch installations, and there were several 
> occasions
> where, in order to see if differences were possible, after an 'apt-get update;
> apt-get upgrade' I immediately followed up with 'apt update; apt upgrade' and
> more packages were replaced/installed/purged. Possibly along the way to final
> Stretch release whatever caused or allowed those differences became possible 
> no
> longer?

One picture is worth a thousand words:

root@stretch:~# apt-get install exim4
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following additional packages will be installed:
  exim4-base exim4-config exim4-daemon-light guile-2.0-libs libfribidi0 
libgc1c2 libgsasl7 libkyotocabinet16v5
  liblzo2-2 libmailutils5 libmariadbclient18 libntlm0 libpython2.7 
libpython2.7-minimal libpython2.7-stdlib
  mailutils mailutils-common mysql-common psmisc
Suggested packages:
  eximon4 exim4-doc-html | exim4-doc-info spf-tools-perl swaks mailutils-mh 
mailutils-doc
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  exim4 exim4-base exim4-config exim4-daemon-light guile-2.0-libs libfribidi0 
libgc1c2 libgsasl7
  libkyotocabinet16v5 liblzo2-2 libmailutils5 libmariadbclient18 libntlm0 
libpython2.7 libpython2.7-minimal
  libpython2.7-stdlib mailutils mailutils-common mysql-common psmisc
0 upgraded, 20 newly installed, 0 to remove and 58 not upgraded.
Need to get 11.0 MB/11.5 MB of archives.
After this operation, 42.4 MB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
Abort.
root@stretch:~#
root@stretch:~#
root@stretch:~#
root@stretch:~# apt install exim4
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following additional packages will be installed:
  exim4-base exim4-config exim4-daemon-light guile-2.0-libs libfribidi0 
libgc1c2 libgsasl7 libkyotocabinet16v5
  liblzo2-2 libmailutils5 libmariadbclient18 libntlm0 libpython2.7 
libpython2.7-minimal libpython2.7-stdlib
  mailutils mailutils-common mysql-common psmisc
Suggested packages:
  eximon4 exim4-doc-html | exim4-doc-info spf-tools-perl swaks mailutils-mh 
mailutils-doc
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  exim4 exim4-base exim4-config exim4-daemon-light guile-2.0-libs libfribidi0 
libgc1c2 libgsasl7
  libkyotocabinet16v5 liblzo2-2 libmailutils5 libmariadbclient18 libntlm0 
libpython2.7 libpython2.7-minimal
  libpython2.7-stdlib mailutils mailutils-common mysql-common psmisc
0 upgraded, 20 newly installed, 0 to remove and 58 not upgraded.
Need to get 11.0 MB/11.5 MB of archives.
After this operation, 42.4 MB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n]


Which should be trusted more. apt-get or apt?

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Patrick Bartek]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:57:50 -0400 Felix Miata 
wrote:

> Patrick Bartek composed on 2017-07-19 10:29 (UTC-0700):
> 
> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week.  Can install
> > apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc.  I
> > find this unusual.  Did a mail list archive search for this, but
> > didn't find anything specific. Or did I miss the solution?
> 
> > My Test Setup:
> 
> > Stretch Stable 64-bit from net-install disk in Virtualbox 5.1 on a
> > Wheezy host.  Basic terminal install (no GUI), converted to sysvinit
> > (did not do anything to systemd files. Kept as dependencies) and
> > then added xorg, openbox window manager, etc.
> 
> > Thanks for any feedback.
> 
> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?

I will try apt and see what happens, but apt-get is just a front end
for apt like aptitude and synaptic.  Of course, there could be a bug in
apt-get.

Thanks

B

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Jimmy Johnson]

On 07/19/2017 01:35 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:14:28 +0200 Dejan Jocic 
wrote:


On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:

Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week.  Can install
apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc.  I
find this unusual.  Did a mail list archive search for this, but
didn't find anything specific. Or did I miss the solution?

My Test Setup:

Stretch Stable 64-bit from net-install disk in Virtualbox 5.1 on a
Wheezy host.  Basic terminal install (no GUI), converted to sysvinit
(did not do anything to systemd files. Kept as dependencies) and
then added xorg, openbox window manager, etc.

Thanks for any feedback.

B



dpkg -s unattended-upgrades


Not installed either by me or the installer


If it is installed, it did your updates and security upgrades for you.
If you do not like it and want to do manual updates/upgrades, do with
root privs:


I have always done this manually since I first started using Debian
(Sarge).  And always will.  This is my personal machine.


sed -i 's/1/0/g' /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/20auto-upgrades

For further reading and understanding:

https://wiki.debian.org/UnattendedUpgrades


Thanks for the reference.  I've been aware of this for a long time, but
chose not to use it.

My problem must be something else.


You also have packagekit and discover to deal with and who knows what 
else. Stopping auto-install is not that difficult, but stopping 
auto-update is a problem.

--
Jimmy Johnson

Ubuntu 14.04 LTS - KDE 4.13.2 - Intel G3220 - EXT4 at sda1
Registered Linux User #380263

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Patrick Bartek]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:32:04 -0400 Dan Ritter 
wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:29:02AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week.  Can install
> > apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc.  I
> > find this unusual.  Did a mail list archive search for this, but
> > didn't find anything specific. Or did I miss the solution?
> > 
> > My Test Setup:
> > 
> > Stretch Stable 64-bit from net-install disk in Virtualbox 5.1 on a
> > Wheezy host.  Basic terminal install (no GUI), converted to sysvinit
> > (did not do anything to systemd files. Kept as dependencies) and
> > then added xorg, openbox window manager, etc.
> > 
> 
> Did you do an apt-get update before your upgrade?

Yes.  I've been using Debian since Sarge.  So, this isn't my first
rodeo.  But this is the first time I've ever had this occur.  I'm
beginning to think this might be an installer "problem" (I did a
terminal only mnimal install to begin with) even though sources.list
and configs look okay. I'm going to do a "default" install with the
LXDE desktop and see if I have the same problem.

B

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Patrick Bartek]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:14:28 +0200 Dejan Jocic 
wrote:

> On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week.  Can install
> > apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc.  I
> > find this unusual.  Did a mail list archive search for this, but
> > didn't find anything specific. Or did I miss the solution?
> > 
> > My Test Setup:
> > 
> > Stretch Stable 64-bit from net-install disk in Virtualbox 5.1 on a
> > Wheezy host.  Basic terminal install (no GUI), converted to sysvinit
> > (did not do anything to systemd files. Kept as dependencies) and
> > then added xorg, openbox window manager, etc.
> > 
> > Thanks for any feedback.
> > 
> > B  
> > 
> 
> dpkg -s unattended-upgrades

Not installed either by me or the installer

> If it is installed, it did your updates and security upgrades for you.
> If you do not like it and want to do manual updates/upgrades, do with
> root privs:

I have always done this manually since I first started using Debian
(Sarge).  And always will.  This is my personal machine.

> sed -i 's/1/0/g' /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/20auto-upgrades
> 
> For further reading and understanding:
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/UnattendedUpgrades

Thanks for the reference.  I've been aware of this for a long time, but
chose not to use it.

My problem must be something else.

B

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Brad Rogers]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:54:28 +0100
Brian  wrote:

Hello Brian,
 
>Those sort of statements are begging for an example of the diferences
>with an upgrade or package installation. Will we see it?

I seem to recall there have been several examples over the past year or
so on this very list.  A search of the archives might be in order.

-- 
 Regards  _
 / )   "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)radnever immediately apparent"
I'm spending all my money and it's going up my nose
Teenage Depression - Eddie & The Hot Rods


pgpdpGUkPFEQh.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Felix Miata]

Brian composed on 2017-07-19 20:54 (UTC+0100):

> On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 15:49:47 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:

>> Fungi4All composed on 2017-07-19 15:18 (UTC-0400):

>> > But will there be different results with apt upgrade than with apt-get?

>> Will:I have no idea.

>> Can: Yes.

>> Apt and apt-get are not identical twins.

> Those sort of statements are begging for an example of the diferences
> with an upgrade or package installation. Will we see it?

Again, I have no idea. It would take a lot of time to catch it happening, then
restore the previous state so as to be able to actually have a chance to find
what happened to cause it and subsequently be able to repeat at will. All I can
say is I have a bunch of Stretch installations, and there were several occasions
where, in order to see if differences were possible, after an 'apt-get update;
apt-get upgrade' I immediately followed up with 'apt update; apt upgrade' and
more packages were replaced/installed/purged. Possibly along the way to final
Stretch release whatever caused or allowed those differences became possible no
longer?
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Fungi4All]

> From: mrma...@earthlink.net
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Fungi4All composed on 2017-07-19 15:18 (UTC-0400):
>>> mrma...@earthlink.net composed:
> ...
>>> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?
>> But will there be different results with apt upgrade than with apt-get?
> Will: I have no idea.
> Can: Yes.
> Apt and apt-get are not identical twins.
> --
> "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
> words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)
> Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
> Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/

This is on sid:
I know a static picture from a system already upgraded is no indicator but
I run 4 commands out of curiocity and got identical 4 responses about
removing some no longer needed pkgs which I do not all want to be
autoremoved.
apt-get dist-upgrade
apt dist-upgrade
apt-get upgrade
apt upgrade
No difference, nothing to be upgraded, 2 pkgs held back, about
15 other packages can be removed as no longer needed.
Included was the buster 4.9.03 image which I want to keep around as
I think it will be an LTS and as a backup in case something upgraded
breaks. Even after I locked 4.9.03 the image came up on the list
but I am sure the autoremove would not have removed it.
I haven't actually checked but I think they have been merged as one
In synaptic the term apt-get only exists in cron-apt description.
The /etc/apt directory seems to be getting more and more complex.

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Brian]

On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 15:49:47 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:

> Fungi4All composed on 2017-07-19 15:18 (UTC-0400):
> 
> >> mrma...@earthlink.net composed:
> ...
> >> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?
> 
> > But will there be different results with apt upgrade than with apt-get?
> 
> Will: I have no idea.
> 
> Can:  Yes.
> 
> Apt and apt-get are not identical twins.

Those sort of statements are begging for an example of the diferences
with an upgrade or package installation. Will we see it?

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Felix Miata]

Fungi4All composed on 2017-07-19 15:18 (UTC-0400):

>> mrma...@earthlink.net composed:
...
>> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?

> But will there be different results with apt upgrade than with apt-get?

Will:   I have no idea.

Can:Yes.

Apt and apt-get are not identical twins.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Brian]

On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 15:18:20 -0400, Fungi4All wrote:

> > From: mrma...@earthlink.net
> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> > Patrick Bartek composed on 2017-07-19 10:29 (UTC-0700):
> >> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install apps,
> >> etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I find
> >> this unusual. Did a mail list archive search for this, but didn"t find
> >> anything specific. Or did I miss the solution?
> >> My Test Setup:
> >> Stretch Stable 64-bit from net-install disk in Virtualbox 5.1 on a
> >> Wheezy host. Basic terminal install (no GUI), converted to sysvinit
> >> (did not do anything to systemd files. Kept as dependencies) and then
> >> added xorg, openbox window manager, etc.
> >> Thanks for any feedback.
> > Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?
> 
> But will there be different results with apt upgrade than with apt-get?
> After the previous discussion about dist-upgrade I find this confusing.

There had better not be and probably are not as they use the same code
base to resolve the installation of packages.

One problem that apt solves is that in apt-get the commonly used package
management commands are divided between apt-get and apt-cache. Apt unifies
them. If you see this as an advantage you might consider using it. It is
intended to be used by end-users. apt-get was intended to be used by
end-users, too. Take your pick. Either will keep your system sound.

 apt has a progress bar .

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Fungi4All]

> From: mrma...@earthlink.net
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Patrick Bartek composed on 2017-07-19 10:29 (UTC-0700):
>> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install apps,
>> etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I find
>> this unusual. Did a mail list archive search for this, but didn"t find
>> anything specific. Or did I miss the solution?
>> My Test Setup:
>> Stretch Stable 64-bit from net-install disk in Virtualbox 5.1 on a
>> Wheezy host. Basic terminal install (no GUI), converted to sysvinit
>> (did not do anything to systemd files. Kept as dependencies) and then
>> added xorg, openbox window manager, etc.
>> Thanks for any feedback.
> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?

But will there be different results with apt upgrade than with apt-get?
After the previous discussion about dist-upgrade I find this confusing.

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Dejan Jocic]

On 19-07-17, Felix Miata wrote:
> Patrick Bartek composed on 2017-07-19 10:29 (UTC-0700):
> 
> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week.  Can install apps,
> > etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc.  I find
> > this unusual.  Did a mail list archive search for this, but didn't find
> > anything specific. Or did I miss the solution?
> 
> > My Test Setup:
> 
> > Stretch Stable 64-bit from net-install disk in Virtualbox 5.1 on a
> > Wheezy host.  Basic terminal install (no GUI), converted to sysvinit
> > (did not do anything to systemd files. Kept as dependencies) and then
> > added xorg, openbox window manager, etc.
> 
> > Thanks for any feedback.
> 
> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?
> -- 
> "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
> words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)
> 
>  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
> 
> Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
> 

What does it have to do with his problem? It does not matter which tool
he is using, apt-get, aptitude or apt. And apt-get is far from
obsolete/depreciated tool and is still preferred and well proven tool of
many.

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Felix Miata]

Patrick Bartek composed on 2017-07-19 10:29 (UTC-0700):

> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week.  Can install apps,
> etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc.  I find
> this unusual.  Did a mail list archive search for this, but didn't find
> anything specific. Or did I miss the solution?

> My Test Setup:

> Stretch Stable 64-bit from net-install disk in Virtualbox 5.1 on a
> Wheezy host.  Basic terminal install (no GUI), converted to sysvinit
> (did not do anything to systemd files. Kept as dependencies) and then
> added xorg, openbox window manager, etc.

> Thanks for any feedback.

Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Dan Ritter]

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:29:02AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week.  Can install apps,
> etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc.  I find
> this unusual.  Did a mail list archive search for this, but didn't find
> anything specific. Or did I miss the solution?
> 
> My Test Setup:
> 
> Stretch Stable 64-bit from net-install disk in Virtualbox 5.1 on a
> Wheezy host.  Basic terminal install (no GUI), converted to sysvinit
> (did not do anything to systemd files. Kept as dependencies) and then
> added xorg, openbox window manager, etc.
> 

Did you do an apt-get update before your upgrade?

update refreshes the package list.

-dsr-

Re: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Dejan Jocic]

On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week.  Can install apps,
> etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc.  I find
> this unusual.  Did a mail list archive search for this, but didn't find
> anything specific. Or did I miss the solution?
> 
> My Test Setup:
> 
> Stretch Stable 64-bit from net-install disk in Virtualbox 5.1 on a
> Wheezy host.  Basic terminal install (no GUI), converted to sysvinit
> (did not do anything to systemd files. Kept as dependencies) and then
> added xorg, openbox window manager, etc.
> 
> Thanks for any feedback.
> 
> B  
> 

dpkg -s unattended-upgrades

If it is installed, it did your updates and security upgrades for you.
If you do not like it and want to do manual updates/upgrades, do with
root privs:

sed -i 's/1/0/g' /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/20auto-upgrades

For further reading and understanding:

https://wiki.debian.org/UnattendedUpgrades

Re: apt-get upgrade problem

[Curt]

On 2017-06-26, Greg Wooledge  wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 09:01:30AM +, Curt wrote:
>> Because of the pedagogical interest of the thing, for those who come
>> after us, for posterity's sake, I wanted the OP to give us a complete
>> description of what occurred, rather than a misleading one (for we are
>> left wondering why FF was held back in the first place, if an 'apt-get
>> install' simply "went ahead and installed it."
>
> In stretch, the upgrade from firefox-esr 45.x to 52.x requires a
> new Depends: package, named libjsoncpp1.

Right. Same here on Wheezy. The name of the package escaped me. Actually
it was rhetorical wondering I was doing up there. Sorry if that was
unclear.



-- 
“Yeah yeah.” --Sidney Morgenbesser's retort to a speaker who said that although
there are many cases in which two negatives make a positive, he knew of no case
in which two positives made a negative.

Re: apt-get upgrade problem

[Greg Wooledge]

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 09:01:30AM +, Curt wrote:
> Because of the pedagogical interest of the thing, for those who come
> after us, for posterity's sake, I wanted the OP to give us a complete
> description of what occurred, rather than a misleading one (for we are
> left wondering why FF was held back in the first place, if an 'apt-get
> install' simply "went ahead and installed it."

In stretch, the upgrade from firefox-esr 45.x to 52.x requires a
new Depends: package, named libjsoncpp1.

If you are on stretch with firefox-esr 45.x and you do "apt-get upgrade"
(or the aptitude or apt or synaptics equivalent), you'll be told that
firefox-esr is held back, but you may not understand *why*, unless you
have some experience with Debian.

If you do "apt-get dist-upgrade" or "apt-get install firefox-esr", the
libjsoncpp1 package will be installed (after you confirm that it's OK),
and the firefox-esr package will be upgraded.

>From /var/log/apt/history.log:

Start-Date: 2017-06-16  14:15:04
Commandline: apt-get install firefox-esr
Requested-By: wooledg (1000)
Install: libjsoncpp1:amd64 (1.7.4-3, automatic)
Upgrade: firefox-esr:amd64 (45.9.0esr-1, 52.2.0esr-1~deb9u1)
End-Date: 2017-06-16  14:15:07

This sort of thing happens once in a while on stable, with some of the
security upgrades.  Web browsers are likely to see it, as well as
packages derived from the bind9 source package (dnsutils and so on).
This is because web browsers and bind9 are so completely full of
security holes that patching isn't even possible.  They have to roll
out new upstream versions instead.

Re: apt-get upgrade problem

[Curt]

On 2017-06-25, David Wright  wrote:
> On Thu 22 Jun 2017 at 19:44:27 (+), Curt wrote:
>> On 2017-06-22, Mike McClain  wrote:
>> >
>> > Rather than telling me why FF was held back it just went ahead and
>> > installed it.
>> >
>> 
>> Is that the complete description of what you observed? You're not
>> leaving anything out, are you? 
>> 
>> -- 
>> "It might be a vision--of a shell, of a wheelbarrow, of a fairy kingdom on 
>> the
>> far side of the hedge; or it might be the glory of speed; no one knew."
>
> It doesn't seem likely that any of those would appear.

What?

> I think perhaps you're soliciting remarks re "It should tell you why
> it's held back." Is that going to happen when you install rather than
> upgrade? I thought it would take "install" as an instruction to include
> all the dependencies automatically (and mark them so).

No, it is not automatic. For instance in my case, on Wheezy, apt held
firefox-esr back because it will not install an extra package unless
explicitly given permission to do so. This was revealed when I
executed the 'apt-get install firefox-esr' command, at which point apt
asked me to reply yes or no to the installation of a new package (the
name of which escapes me) and the updating of the package firefox-esr.

Because of the pedagogical interest of the thing, for those who come
after us, for posterity's sake, I wanted the OP to give us a complete
description of what occurred, rather than a misleading one (for we are
left wondering why FF was held back in the first place, if an 'apt-get
install' simply "went ahead and installed it."

> Cheers,
> David.
>
>


-- 
"It might be a vision--of a shell, of a wheelbarrow, of a fairy kingdom on the
far side of the hedge; or it might be the glory of speed; no one knew." --Mrs.
Ramsay, speculating on why her little daughter might be dashing about, in "To
the Lighthouse," by Virginia Woolf.

Re: apt-get upgrade problem

[David Wright]

On Thu 22 Jun 2017 at 19:44:27 (+), Curt wrote:
> On 2017-06-22, Mike McClain  wrote:
> >
> > Rather than telling me why FF was held back it just went ahead and
> > installed it.
> >
> 
> Is that the complete description of what you observed? You're not
> leaving anything out, are you? 
> 
> -- 
> "It might be a vision--of a shell, of a wheelbarrow, of a fairy kingdom on the
> far side of the hedge; or it might be the glory of speed; no one knew."

It doesn't seem likely that any of those would appear.

I think perhaps you're soliciting remarks re "It should tell you why
it's held back." Is that going to happen when you install rather than
upgrade? I thought it would take "install" as an instruction to include
all the dependencies automatically (and mark them so).

Cheers,
David.

Re: apt-get upgrade problem

[Curt]

On 2017-06-22, Mike McClain  wrote:
>
> Rather than telling me why FF was held back it just went ahead and
> installed it.
>

Is that the complete description of what you observed? You're not
leaving anything out, are you? 

-- 
"It might be a vision--of a shell, of a wheelbarrow, of a fairy kingdom on the
far side of the hedge; or it might be the glory of speed; no one knew." --Mrs.
Ramsay, speculating on why her little daughter might be dashing about, in "To
the Lighthouse," by Virginia Woolf.

Re: apt-get upgrade problem

[Mike McClain]

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 07:40:59PM -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
> On 06/21/2017 04:56 PM, Mike McClain wrote:
> >Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade iceweasel?
> >
> Have you tried typing "apt-get install firefox-esr"? It should tell
> you why it's held back.

Duh, I'm an idiot.

Carl you hit the nail on the head. I'm so used to using
'update/upgrade' that I didn't think to try install.

Rather than telling me why FF was held back it just went ahead and
installed it.

Thanks a lot,
Mike
--
Lord, the money we do spend on government. And it's not a bit better
government than we got for one-third the money twenty years ago.
- Will Rogers

Re: apt-get upgrade problem

[Curt]

On 2017-06-21, Carl Fink  wrote:
> On 06/21/2017 04:56 PM, Mike McClain wrote:
>> When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
>> The following packages have been kept back:
>>firefox-esr
>> and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
>> Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade iceweasel?
>>
> Have you tried typing "apt-get install firefox-esr"? It should tell you 
> why it's held back.

That command will most likely reveal an extra package must be installed,
and if says yes to that, he'll be off to the races.

> The other thing would be "apt-get dist-upgrade".
>


-- 
"It might be a vision--of a shell, of a wheelbarrow, of a fairy kingdom on the
far side of the hedge; or it might be the glory of speed; no one knew." --Mrs.
Ramsay, speculating on why her little daughter might be dashing about, in "To
the Lighthouse," by Virginia Woolf.

Re: apt-get upgrade problem

[deloptes]

Mike McClain wrote:

> When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
> The following packages have been kept back:
>   firefox-esr
> and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
> Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade
> iceweasel? Thanks,
> Mike
> --
> As Andy Capp's wife said,
> "You're only young once, but you can be childish all your life."

read the release notes and the information provided by mozilla.

They turned off most of the plugins - in fact all old plugins except
flashplayer do not work since firefox v 52.
firefox-esr is intended to support all old plugins as up to v52.
Debian decided to drop iceweasel/firefox and it was replaced by firefox-esr.
Use the instructions mentioned in this thread to install esr package.

regards

Re: apt-get upgrade problem

[davidson]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Mike McClain wrote:


When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
The following packages have been kept back:
 firefox-esr
and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade
iceweasel?


% man apt-get
  [...]
  upgrade
[...] Packages currently installed with new versions available are
retrieved and upgraded; UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES ARE CURRENTLY
INSTALLED PACKAGES REMOVED, OR PACKAGES NOT ALREADY INSTALLED
RETRIEVED AND INSTALLED. New versions of currently installed
packages that cannot be upgraded without changing the install
status of another package will be left at their current
version. [...]

  dist-upgrade
dist-upgrade 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. The dist-upgrade
command may therefore remove some packages. [...]

  [...]
  install
[...] All packages required by the package(s) specified for
installation will also be retrieved and installed.[...]

  [...]

Re: apt-get upgrade problem

[Patrick Bartek]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:56:45 -0700 Mike McClain 
wrote:

> When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
> The following packages have been kept back:
>   firefox-esr
> and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
> Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade
> iceweasel? Thanks,

A few days ago, I got the same.  apt-get dist-upgrade will install that
new version of firefox-esr replacing the old one.

B

Re: apt-get upgrade problem

[Carl Fink]

On 06/21/2017 04:56 PM, Mike McClain wrote:

When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
The following packages have been kept back:
   firefox-esr
and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade iceweasel?

Have you tried typing "apt-get install firefox-esr"? It should tell you 
why it's held back.


The other thing would be "apt-get dist-upgrade".

--
Carl Fink  c...@finknetwork.com
Thinking and logic and stuff at Reasonably Literate
http://reasonablyliterate.com

Re: apt-get upgrade fails on custom repository

[Stefano Pugnetti]

Ok, I figured it out: lines containing md5sums of index files must start
with a blank character.

Stefano

Re: apt-get upgrade: packages have been kept back

[Patrick Weiden]

Hi,

have you tried an apt-get dist-upgrade?
Some packages won't be upgraded by the apt-get upgrade operation. Please
try the first and tell us the results. Thanks!

Cheers,
Patrick


On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:26 AM, ML mail mlnos...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Hi,

 I was wondering why an apt-get upgradeon my Debian wheezy box does not
 want to update the OpenJDK packages as you can see below:


 shell$ apt-get upgrade


 Reading package lists... Done
 Building dependency tree
 Reading state information... Done
 The following packages have been kept back:
 icedtea-6-jre-cacao icedtea-6-jre-jamvm openjdk-6-jre
 openjdk-6-jre-headless openjdk-6-jre-lib
 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 5 not upgraded.

 Anyone has an idea why they are all kept back? Is something broken on my
 side maybe?

 Regards
 ML


 --
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
 listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive:
 https://lists.debian.org/947300723.1245321.1429608381379.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com

Re: apt-get upgrade: packages have been kept back

[ML mail]

Hi Patrick


dist-upgrade did it. Now as a general rule is it safe to use a dist-upgrade in 
a production environment? I suppose there is a good reason for having upgrade 
and dist-upgrade.

Regards
ML


On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:39 AM, Patrick Weiden patr...@dieweidens.de 
wrote:



Hi,

have you tried an apt-get dist-upgrade?
Some packages won't be upgraded by the apt-get upgrade operation. Please try 
the first and tell us the results. Thanks!

Cheers,
Patrick




On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:26 AM, ML mail mlnos...@yahoo.com wrote:

Hi,

I was wondering why an apt-get upgradeon my Debian wheezy box does not want 
to update the OpenJDK packages as you can see below:


shell$ apt-get upgrade


Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
icedtea-6-jre-cacao icedtea-6-jre-jamvm openjdk-6-jre openjdk-6-jre-headless 
openjdk-6-jre-lib
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 5 not upgraded.

Anyone has an idea why they are all kept back? Is something broken on my side 
maybe?

Regards
ML


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/947300723.1245321.1429608381379.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/1448263282.1248593.1429610360116.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com

Re: apt-get upgrade: packages have been kept back

[ML mail]

Yes that totally makes sense, I was actually reading the man page but I did not 
 understand what was the big difference in my case with the OpenJDK packages. I 
only saw that it had to install an additional and new package, maybe that made 
it classify more for a dist-upgrade. Because else it was supposed to be a 
security upgrade so in theory there shouldn't be any wild modifications. 


 On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 12:21 PM, Patrick Weiden 
patr...@dieweidens.de wrote:
   

 Hi,

as the manpage of apt-get tells:

[...]
upgrade
   upgrade is used to install the newest versions of all packages 
currently installed on the system from the sources enumerated in
   /etc/apt/sources.list. Packages currently installed with new 
versions available are retrieved and upgraded; under no circumstances are 
currently
   installed packages removed, or packages not already installed 
retrieved and installed. **New versions of currently installed packages that 
cannot be
   upgraded without changing the install status of another package will 
be left at their current version.** An update must be performed first so that
   apt-get knows that new versions of packages are available.

dist-upgrade
   dist-upgrade 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. The dist-upgrade command may therefore remove some 
packages. The /etc/apt/sources.list file contains a list of locations from which
   to retrieve desired package files. See also apt_preferences(5) for a 
mechanism for overriding the general settings for individual packages.
[...]

I have marked the - in my opinion - important and interesting sentence inside 
the upgrade part with two stars, which should be applying here. I hope this 
helps.

Best regards,
Patrick


On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:59 AM, ML mail mlnos...@yahoo.com wrote:

Hi Patrick


dist-upgrade did it. Now as a general rule is it safe to use a dist-upgrade in 
a production environment? I suppose there is a good reason for having upgrade 
and dist-upgrade.

Regards
ML


On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:39 AM, Patrick Weiden patr...@dieweidens.de 
wrote:



Hi,

have you tried an apt-get dist-upgrade?
Some packages won't be upgraded by the apt-get upgrade operation. Please try 
the first and tell us the results. Thanks!

Cheers,
Patrick




On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:26 AM, ML mail mlnos...@yahoo.com wrote:

Hi,

I was wondering why an apt-get upgradeon my Debian wheezy box does not want 
to update the OpenJDK packages as you can see below:


shell$ apt-get upgrade


Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
icedtea-6-jre-cacao icedtea-6-jre-jamvm openjdk-6-jre openjdk-6-jre-headless 
openjdk-6-jre-lib
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 5 not upgraded.

Anyone has an idea why they are all kept back? Is something broken on my side 
maybe?

Regards
ML


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/947300723.1245321.1429608381379.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/1448263282.1248593.1429610360116.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com





  

Re: apt-get upgrade: packages have been kept back

[Patrick Weiden]

Hi,

as the manpage of apt-get tells:

[...]
upgrade
   upgrade is used to install the newest versions of all packages
currently installed on the system from the sources enumerated in
   /etc/apt/sources.list. Packages currently installed with new
versions available are retrieved and upgraded; under no circumstances are
currently
   installed packages removed, or packages not already installed
retrieved and installed. **New versions of currently installed packages
that cannot be
   upgraded without changing the install status of another package
will be left at their current version.** An update must be performed first
so that
   apt-get knows that new versions of packages are available.

dist-upgrade
   dist-upgrade 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. The dist-upgrade command may therefore remove some
packages. The /etc/apt/sources.list file contains a list of locations from
which
   to retrieve desired package files. See also apt_preferences(5)
for a mechanism for overriding the general settings for individual packages.
[...]

I have marked the - in my opinion - important and interesting sentence
inside the upgrade part with two stars, which should be applying here. I
hope this helps.

Best regards,
Patrick


On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:59 AM, ML mail mlnos...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Hi Patrick


 dist-upgrade did it. Now as a general rule is it safe to use a
 dist-upgrade in a production environment? I suppose there is a good reason
 for having upgrade and dist-upgrade.

 Regards
 ML


 On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:39 AM, Patrick Weiden patr...@dieweidens.de
 wrote:



 Hi,

 have you tried an apt-get dist-upgrade?
 Some packages won't be upgraded by the apt-get upgrade operation. Please
 try the first and tell us the results. Thanks!

 Cheers,
 Patrick




 On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:26 AM, ML mail mlnos...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Hi,
 
 I was wondering why an apt-get upgradeon my Debian wheezy box does not
 want to update the OpenJDK packages as you can see below:
 
 
 shell$ apt-get upgrade
 
 
 Reading package lists... Done
 Building dependency tree
 Reading state information... Done
 The following packages have been kept back:
 icedtea-6-jre-cacao icedtea-6-jre-jamvm openjdk-6-jre
 openjdk-6-jre-headless openjdk-6-jre-lib
 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 5 not upgraded.
 
 Anyone has an idea why they are all kept back? Is something broken on my
 side maybe?
 
 Regards
 ML
 
 
 --
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
 listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive:
 https://lists.debian.org/947300723.1245321.1429608381379.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com
 
 


 --
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
 listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive:
 https://lists.debian.org/1448263282.1248593.1429610360116.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com

Re: apt-get upgrade veut mettre à jour depuis les backports (pour wheezy)

[didier gaumet]

Le 24/09/2014 23:34, Eddy F. a écrit :
[...]
 Et par exemple à propos de tar dont la version wheezy me convient, je
 ne veux pas du backports :
 
 apt-cache policy tar
 tar:
   Installé : 1.26+dfsg-0.1
   Candidat : 1.27.1-1~bpo70+1
  Table de version :
  1.27.1-1~bpo70+1 0
 100 http://ftp.debian.skynet.be/ftp/debian/
 wheezy-backports/main amd64 Packages *** 1.26+dfsg-0.1 0
 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

chez moi (j'ai le noyau et les firmwares en backports pour que mon
laptop fonctionne correctement, le reste en wheezy stable):

didier@hp-dm1:~$ apt-cache policy tar
tar:
  Installé : 1.26+dfsg-0.1
  Candidat : 1.26+dfsg-0.1
 Table de version :
 1.27.1-1~bpo70+1 0
100 http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-backports/main amd64
Packages
 *** 1.26+dfsg-0.1 0
500 http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ wheezy/main amd64 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

ce qui m'incite à penser qu'il n'y a pas de problème avec apt ou le
pinning des backports (celui-ci est bien à 100 comme chez toi).

par contre je pense que lors de ton dernier apt-get update le serveur
n'a pas pu être atteint (problème de connexion?), ce qui expliquerait
l'absence de la ligne wheezy avec son pinning de 500 dans ton apt-cache
policy tar, et qu'il te propose le seul paquet disponible (tar backporté)

un apt-get update (en vérifiant qu'il y a pas eu de problème pour
rejoindre le serveur) devrait tout remettre d'aplomb?



-- 
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/m00c98$ete$1...@ger.gmane.org

Re: apt-get upgrade veut mettre à jour depuis les backports (pour wheezy)

[Eddy F.]

Le 25 sep 2014 à 08:21 (+0200)
didier gaumet didier.gau...@gmail.com a écrit:

 Le 24/09/2014 23:34, Eddy F. a écrit :
 [...]
  Et par exemple à propos de tar dont la version wheezy me convient,
  je ne veux pas du backports :
  
  apt-cache policy tar
  tar:
Installé : 1.26+dfsg-0.1
Candidat : 1.27.1-1~bpo70+1
   Table de version :
   1.27.1-1~bpo70+1 0
  100 http://ftp.debian.skynet.be/ftp/debian/
  wheezy-backports/main amd64 Packages *** 1.26+dfsg-0.1 0
  100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
 
 chez moi (j'ai le noyau et les firmwares en backports pour que mon
 laptop fonctionne correctement, le reste en wheezy stable):
 
 didier@hp-dm1:~$ apt-cache policy tar
 tar:
   Installé : 1.26+dfsg-0.1
   Candidat : 1.26+dfsg-0.1
  Table de version :
  1.27.1-1~bpo70+1 0
 100 http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-backports/main
 amd64 Packages
  *** 1.26+dfsg-0.1 0
 500 http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ wheezy/main amd64
 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
 
 ce qui m'incite à penser qu'il n'y a pas de problème avec apt ou le
 pinning des backports (celui-ci est bien à 100 comme chez toi).
 
 par contre je pense que lors de ton dernier apt-get update le serveur
 n'a pas pu être atteint (problème de connexion?), ce qui expliquerait
 l'absence de la ligne wheezy avec son pinning de 500 dans ton
 apt-cache policy tar, et qu'il te propose le seul paquet disponible
 (tar backporté)
 
 un apt-get update (en vérifiant qu'il y a pas eu de problème pour
 rejoindre le serveur) devrait tout remettre d'aplomb?
 
 
 

Merci pour ta réponse,
C'est en effet un problème de serveur que je n'avais pas remarqué :

apt-get update me donne, entre autres,

E: Le fichier « Release » pour
http://ftp.debian.skynet.be/ftp/debian/dists/wheezy-updates/Release a
expiré (plus valable depuis 1d 12h 27min 14s). Les mises à jour depuis
ce dépôt  ne s'effectueront pas.

J'ai commenté ce serveur wheezy-updates (juste le temps d'un test) et
j'obtiens une erreur sur un autre fichier Release.

Tout concorde donc pour penser qu'il y a un problème avec le miroir 
http://ftp.debian.skynet.be

J'ai modifié mon sources.list pour utiliser le miroir
http://ftp.be.debian.org/debian
et cela se passe sans problème (mais ce miroir est plus lent que le
miroir secondaire que j'utilisais et qui se trouve sur des serveurs de
mon fai).


-- 
Eddy F.

-- 
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140925234737.53bd0...@aberdeen.home

Re: apt-get upgrade no service restart

[Raphael Geissert]

Hi,

Bonno Bloksma wrote:
[...]
 How is it possible that one system will not see the update until last night
 when I have been running the update cycle each night and all my systems use
 the same uplink?

From the log:

 Preparing to replace libssl1.0.0:amd64 1.0.1e-2+deb7u6 (using 
 .../libssl1.0.0_1.0.1e-2+deb7u7_amd64.deb)

You were upgrading to the version that I just released last night - perhaps 
the other machines ran apt-get update before it was released so they didn't 
see it.

 -
 Why did the apt-get update NOT restart the services? How can I find out?

Services are never automatically restarted due to library updates, you need to 
do that by hand. Some times, restarting services might be proposed.

The message in the log is just libssl1.0.0 checking for services that might 
need to be restarted to get the Heartbleed bugfix applied. Had it found any, 
it would have proposed you to restart them.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/liqmof$853$1...@ger.gmane.org

RE: apt-get upgrade no service restart

[Bonno Bloksma]

Hi Rafael,

 How is it possible that one system will not see the update until last 
 night when I have been running the update cycle each night and all my 
 systems use the same uplink?

 From the log:

 Preparing to replace libssl1.0.0:amd64 1.0.1e-2+deb7u6 (using
 .../libssl1.0.0_1.0.1e-2+deb7u7_amd64.deb)

 You were upgrading to the version that I just released last night - perhaps 
 the other machines ran apt-get update before it was released so they didn't 
 see it.

Aha, I assumed this was the same ssl upgrade I had seen on my other systems 
last week. I now see this is the upgrade from deb7u6 to deb7u7.

 -
 Why did the apt-get update NOT restart the services? How can I find out?

 Services are never automatically restarted due to library updates, you need 
 to do that by hand. Some times, restarting services might be proposed.

Ok, I assumes the restarts were allways done as last week several ssl upgrades 
did service restarts for me.

 The message in the log is just libssl1.0.0 checking for services that might 
 need to be restarted to get the Heartbleed bugfix applied. Had it found any, 
 it would have proposed you to restart them.
But that is funy because the checkrestart command that I issued right after 
found several services that needed restarting. But maybe they did not need a 
restart just for hartbleed?

Bonno Bloksma


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/89d1798a7351d040b4e74e0a043c69d786190...@hglexch-01.tio.nl

RE: apt-get upgrade no service restart

[Raphael Geissert]

Bonno Bloksma wrote:
[...]
 But that is funy because the checkrestart command that I issued right after
 found several services that needed restarting. But maybe they did not need a
 restart just for hartbleed?

Correct. The checking of services was done as an exception due to the severity 
of the Heartbleed vulnerability.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/liqqdb$n68$1...@ger.gmane.org

Re: apt-get upgrade (security packages)

[Jonathan Dowland]

When you patch a package locally, I'd recommend updating the package version at 
the same time by eg adding or incrementing an epoch (in 1:2.3-4, the epoch is 
the 1)

This will mean your local package version will be higher than any package 
update to the stable repositories.

Note however it would be worth checking what was updated when ever such 
packages are updated, as the changes may be useful or important to you (to 
backport to your local package)

--
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/a8476bdf-7836-4ece-82b6-c27c45782...@debian.org

Re: apt-get upgrade (security packages)

[berenger . morel]

Le 14.10.2013 22:11, Pol Hallen a écrit :
I can't everytime do updates from main repository because many 
packages

of this server are patched.


Using pinning for all of your packages is a solution, but I would not 
call it the easiest one.

Why not simply freezing them in aptitude/apt-*/dpkg?

For aptitude, I use it with the ncurse interface, so I do not know how 
to do that in command line. You will use the '=' key to freeze the 
package you currently have selected.

For apt-*, use apt-mark hold.
For dpkg... well, man dpkg :p (man apt-mark says that itself is a 
wrapper on dpkg, so you can find how to do what you need with few 
searches)



--
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/babcac55ba2571f5dc32f4c9a5f72...@neutralite.org

Re: apt-get upgrade (security packages)

[Joe]

On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:14:38 +0200
berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:

 Le 14.10.2013 22:11, Pol Hallen a écrit :
  I can't everytime do updates from main repository because many 
  packages
  of this server are patched.
 
 Using pinning for all of your packages is a solution, but I would not 
 call it the easiest one.
 Why not simply freezing them in aptitude/apt-*/dpkg?
 
 For aptitude, I use it with the ncurse interface, so I do not know
 how to do that in command line. You will use the '=' key to freeze
 the package you currently have selected.

aptitude hold package, aptitude unhold package

-- 
Joe


--
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/20131015191212.13b80...@jretrading.com

Re: apt-get upgrade (security packages)

[Bob Proulx]

Pol Hallen wrote:
 I can't everytime do updates from main repository because many packages
 of this server are patched.

How did you patch those?  Did you rebuild the package with a local
version string and your changes?  Or did you simply wack the files on
the disk?

In any case you should definitely hold those packages.

  apt-mark hold foo

I think simply holding them is much simpler than pinning.

I personally would build a package with a local version string
slightly later than the current production version.  Also hold it.
Then when it is held back for an upgrade I know that I must jump on
it and apply the upstream security patch to my patched copy and
rebuild it.  I would use the upstream to notify me of security changes
that way.  The hold would prevent the upgrade in any case.  But then
of course reacting to security issues is the local admin job.

Bob



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: apt-get upgrade (security packages)

[Linux-Fan]

On 10/14/2013 09:43 PM, Pol Hallen wrote:
 Howdy :-)
 
 I've a production server particularly patched. I prefer install only
 security packages but keep others packages to same version.
 
 Should I've some problems if keep only:
 
 deb http://security.debian.org/ stable/updates main contrib non-free
 
 to /etc/apt/sources.list
 
 or better pin every packages?
 
 What's the best way to do this?
 
 thanks!
 
 Pol

I think the best way to do this is using a normal Debian stable. There
are only few updates to stable which add features which means that every
update is a security update.

HTH
Linux-Fan

-- 
http://masysma.ohost.de/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: apt-get upgrade (security packages)

[Pol Hallen]

 I think the best way to do this is using a normal Debian stable. There
 are only few updates to stable which add features which means that
update is a security update.

Huh?

I use debian 7 stable, but now the upgrade show me 4 security updates
and MANY MANY updates from debian mirros (not from security repository).

I can't everytime do updates from main repository because many packages
of this server are patched.

thanks

apt-get upgrade -d

[...]
Get:3 http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates/main libxml2 i386
2.8.0+dfsg1-7+nmu2 [892 kB]
Get:22 http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates/main libsystemd-login0
i386 44-11+deb7u4 [29.9 kB]
Get:23 http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates/main gpgv i386
1.4.12-7+deb7u2 [220 kB]
Get:24 http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates/main gnupg i386
1.4.12-7+deb7u2 [1,936 kB]

Get:1 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main base-files
i386 7.1wheezy2 [66.9 kB]
Get:2 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main perl i386
5.14.2-21+deb7u1 [3,701 kB]

Get:4 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main libperl5.14
i386 5.14.2-21+deb7u1 [732 kB]
Get:5 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main perl-base
i386 5.14.2-21+deb7u1 [1,495 kB]
Get:6 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main perl-modules
all 5.14.2-21+deb7u1 [3,440 kB]
Get:7 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main sysvinit i386
2.88dsf-41+deb7u1 [131 kB]
Get:8 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main
sysvinit-utils i386 2.88dsf-41+deb7u1 [98.0 kB]
Get:9 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main
imagemagick-common all 8:6.7.7.10-5+deb7u2 [128 kB]
Get:10 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main
libcupsimage2 i386 1.5.3-5+deb7u1 [139 kB]
Get:11 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main libcups2
i386 1.5.3-5+deb7u1 [256 kB]
Get:12 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main curl i386
7.26.0-1+wheezy4 [270 kB]
Get:13 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main libcurl3
i386 7.26.0-1+wheezy4 [336 kB]
Get:14 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main
libcurl3-gnutls i386 7.26.0-1+wheezy4 [328 kB]
Get:15 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main dmsetup i386
2:1.02.74-8 [68.2 kB]
Get:16 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main
libdevmapper1.02.1 i386 2:1.02.74-8 [125 kB]
Get:17 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main
libmagickwand5 i386 8:6.7.7.10-5+deb7u2 [418 kB]
Get:18 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main
libmagickcore5-extra i386 8:6.7.7.10-5+deb7u2 [162 kB]
Get:19 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main
libmagickcore5 i386 8:6.7.7.10-5+deb7u2 [2,002 kB]
Get:20 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main libsensors4
i386 1:3.3.2-2+deb7u1 [53.9 kB]
Get:21 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main
linux-image-3.2.0-4-686-pae i386 3.2.51-1 [22.9 MB]
Get:25 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main php5-cli
i386 5.4.4-14+deb7u5 [2,600 kB]
Get:26 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main php5-cgi
i386 5.4.4-14+deb7u5 [5,182 kB]
Get:27 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main
libapache2-mod-php5 i386 5.4.4-14+deb7u5 [2,623 kB]
Get:28 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main php5-mysql
i386 5.4.4-14+deb7u5 [76.9 kB]
Get:29 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main php5-mcrypt
i386 5.4.4-14+deb7u5 [15.6 kB]
Get:30 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main php5-gd i386
5.4.4-14+deb7u5 [34.4 kB]
Get:31 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main php5-curl
i386 5.4.4-14+deb7u5 [29.4 kB]
Get:32 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main php5-common
i386 5.4.4-14+deb7u5 [587 kB]
Get:33 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main sysv-rc all
2.88dsf-41+deb7u1 [81.8 kB]
Get:34 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main initscripts
i386 2.88dsf-41+deb7u1 [92.0 kB]
Get:35 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main mutt i386
1.5.21-6.2+deb7u1 [1,375 kB]
Get:36 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main python all
2.7.3-4+deb7u1 [181 kB]
Get:37 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main
python-minimal all 2.7.3-4+deb7u1 [42.8 kB]
Get:38 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main dpkg-dev all
1.16.12 [1,349 kB]
Get:39 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main libdpkg-perl
all 1.16.12 [951 kB]
Get:40 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main devscripts
i386 2.12.6+deb7u1 [867 kB]
Get:41 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main ghostscript
i386 9.05~dfsg-6.3+deb7u1 [80.0 kB]
Get:42 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main libgs9 i386
9.05~dfsg-6.3+deb7u1 [1,854 kB]
Get:43 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main
libgs9-common all 9.05~dfsg-6.3+deb7u1 [1,980 kB]
Get:44 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main grub-pc i386
1.99-27+deb7u2 [170 kB]
Get:45 http://mi.mirror.garr.it/mirrors/debian/ wheezy/main 

Re: apt-get upgrade (security packages)

[Pol Hallen]

   Debian point-release was issued over the weekend:

Understood!

Thanks Steve :-)

Pol


-- 
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/525c51c0.4050...@fuckaround.org

Re: apt-get upgrade (security packages)

[Linux-Fan]

On 10/14/2013 10:11 PM, Pol Hallen wrote:
 I think the best way to do this is using a normal Debian stable. There
 are only few updates to stable which add features which means that
 update is a security update.
 
 Huh?
 
 I use debian 7 stable, but now the upgrade show me 4 security updates
 and MANY MANY updates from debian mirros (not from security repository).

These mainly add[s] corrections for security problems [...] along with
a few adjustments for serious problems.
(http://www.debian.org/News/2013/20131012).

 I can't everytime do updates from main repository because many packages
 of this server are patched.

Then you can either
 * pin all packages affected by patches which might cause some security
   problems to remain because the packages are not updated
or probably better
 * try to compile all patches in a safe testing environment before
   performing the upgrade. As there are mostly security patches this
   should (ideally) not cause too many failures.

I'd try the second although that might be too much trouble depending on
how many patches and what kind of patches were applied to the packages.

Linux-Fan

-- 
http://masysma.ohost.de/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: apt-get upgrade problem with libenchant1c2a

[Lisi Reisz]

On Wednesday 28 August 2013 19:29:23 Sharon Kimble wrote:
 On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:17:15 -0500

 Hugo Vanwoerkom hvw59...@care2.com wrote:
  Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
   Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
   David Goodenough wrote:
[snip]
   see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=721130
 
  Hugo

 Hugo.
 Please adjust you're posting style as it is impossible to read what
 you're saying as its indistinguishable from the rest of the
 conversation. It just appears that you're signing the email without any
 content, which cant be true!

It was clear here, without the extraneous  .  Very odd.

A lot of people accidentally include the beginning of their reply in the bit 
they are quoting.

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/201308301253.47984.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: apt-get upgrade problem with libenchant1c2a

[Chris Bannister]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 02:34:42PM -0500, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
 Sharon Kimble wrote:
 Hugo.
 Please adjust you're posting style as it is impossible to read what
 you're saying as its indistinguishable from the rest of the
 conversation. It just appears that you're signing the email without any
 content, which cant be true!
 
 
 sorry about that! I post through tbird + this is what I see:
 http://uppix.com/f-00_posting_tbird521e4f570013cc30.jpg
 and this is what I see through gmane:
 http://uppix.com/f-00_posting_gmane521e4de40013cc1d.jpg
 so I see no problems :-(

Me neither, all looks good. What mail client are you using Sharon?

-- 
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing. --- Malcolm X


-- 
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/20130829102821.GE22690@tal

Re: apt-get upgrade problem with libenchant1c2a

[Sharon Kimble]

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 22:28:22 +1200
Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote:

 On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 02:34:42PM -0500, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
  Sharon Kimble wrote:
  Hugo.
  Please adjust you're posting style as it is impossible to read what
  you're saying as its indistinguishable from the rest of the
  conversation. It just appears that you're signing the email
  without any content, which cant be true!
  
  
  sorry about that! I post through tbird + this is what I see:
  http://uppix.com/f-00_posting_tbird521e4f570013cc30.jpg
  and this is what I see through gmane:
  http://uppix.com/f-00_posting_gmane521e4de40013cc1d.jpg
  so I see no problems :-(
 
 Me neither, all looks good. What mail client are you using Sharon?
 
Claws-mail 3.9.2.

This is part of Hugo's email of 28-8-13, and thats what I'm seeing. 

 I get that with dist-upgrade and not with upgrade. Googling the
 error  it seems that doing upgrade will resolve that. But I
 haven't tried that!

  when I do 'aptitude why' on that file, I get that it is a
  dependency of  k3b, which is part of the upgrade. What happens if
  you do 'why'?  
 see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=721130  

Hugo

Sharon.
-- 
A taste of linux = http://www.sharons.org.uk
efever = http://www.efever.blogspot.com/
efever = http://sharon04.livejournal.com/
Debian testing, Fluxbox 1.3.5, LibreOffice 4.1.0.4
Registered Linux user 334501 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: apt-get upgrade problem with libenchant1c2a

[Hugo Vanwoerkom]

David Goodenough wrote:
I have a sacrificial machine that I keep upto date with sid every 
morning.  Yesterday and today I get an error:-


Calculating upgrade... Failed
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 libenchant1c2a : Depends: aspell-en but it is not going to be installed or
   myspell-dictionary or
   aspell-dictionary or
   ispell-dictionary or
   hunspell-dictionary
  Recommends: enchant but it is not going to be installed
E: Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generated breaks, this may be caused by 
held packages.

Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree 


But apt-cache policy libenchant1c2a says:-

  Installed: 1.6.0-10
  Candidate: 1.6.0-10

so it should not need upgrading at all.

Also aspell-en is installed.

Is this related to Ubuntu bug  #1096669?  There is nothing in bugs.debian.org
that seems to fit the bill.

Any ideas?


I get that with dist-upgrade and not with upgrade. Googling the error it 
seems that doing upgrade will resolve that. But I haven't tried that!


Hugo


--
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/kvl78k$hms$1...@ger.gmane.org

Re: apt-get upgrade problem with libenchant1c2a

[David Goodenough]

On Wednesday 28 Aug 2013, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
 David Goodenough wrote:
  I have a sacrificial machine that I keep upto date with sid every
  morning.  Yesterday and today I get an error:-
  
  Calculating upgrade... Failed
  
  The following packages have unmet dependencies:
   libenchant1c2a : Depends: aspell-en but it is not going to be installed
   or
   
 myspell-dictionary or
 aspell-dictionary or
 ispell-dictionary or
 hunspell-dictionary

Recommends: enchant but it is not going to be installed
  
  E: Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generated breaks, this may be
  caused by held packages.
  Reading package lists... Done
  Building dependency tree
  
  But apt-cache policy libenchant1c2a says:-
  
Installed: 1.6.0-10
Candidate: 1.6.0-10
  
  so it should not need upgrading at all.
  
  Also aspell-en is installed.
  
  Is this related to Ubuntu bug  #1096669?  There is nothing in
  bugs.debian.org that seems to fit the bill.
  
  Any ideas?
 
 I get that with dist-upgrade and not with upgrade. Googling the error it
 seems that doing upgrade will resolve that. But I haven't tried that!
 
 Hugo
Well the script I run every morning does update then upgrade then dist-upgrade
then auto-remove, so if it is the dist-upgrade then it has just done an 
upgrade, so I do not think that is going to help.  

I have just tried running an upgrade on its own, and it had nothing to do, and 
then a dist-upgrade which failed.  So doing an upgrade does not help.

David


-- 
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/201308281724.15586.david.goodeno...@btconnect.com

Re: apt-get upgrade problem with libenchant1c2a

[Hugo Vanwoerkom]

Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:

David Goodenough wrote:
I have a sacrificial machine that I keep upto date with sid every 
morning.  Yesterday and today I get an error:-


Calculating upgrade... Failed
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 libenchant1c2a : Depends: aspell-en but it is not going to be 
installed or

   myspell-dictionary or
   aspell-dictionary or
   ispell-dictionary or
   hunspell-dictionary
  Recommends: enchant but it is not going to be installed
E: Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generated breaks, this may be 
caused by held packages.

Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
But apt-cache policy libenchant1c2a says:-


  Installed: 1.6.0-10
  Candidate: 1.6.0-10

so it should not need upgrading at all.

Also aspell-en is installed.

Is this related to Ubuntu bug  #1096669?  There is nothing in 
bugs.debian.org

that seems to fit the bill.

Any ideas?


I get that with dist-upgrade and not with upgrade. Googling the error it 
seems that doing upgrade will resolve that. But I haven't tried that!




when I do 'aptitude why' on that file, I get that it is a dependency of 
k3b, which is part of the upgrade. What happens if you do 'why'?


Hugo


--
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/kvl8jt$2so$1...@ger.gmane.org

Re: apt-get upgrade problem with libenchant1c2a

[Hugo Vanwoerkom]

David Goodenough wrote:

On Wednesday 28 Aug 2013, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:

David Goodenough wrote:

I have a sacrificial machine that I keep upto date with sid every
morning.  Yesterday and today I get an error:-

Calculating upgrade... Failed

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 libenchant1c2a : Depends: aspell-en but it is not going to be installed
 or
 
   myspell-dictionary or

   aspell-dictionary or
   ispell-dictionary or
   hunspell-dictionary
  
  Recommends: enchant but it is not going to be installed


E: Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generated breaks, this may be
caused by held packages.
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree

But apt-cache policy libenchant1c2a says:-

  Installed: 1.6.0-10
  Candidate: 1.6.0-10

so it should not need upgrading at all.

Also aspell-en is installed.

Is this related to Ubuntu bug  #1096669?  There is nothing in
bugs.debian.org that seems to fit the bill.

Any ideas?

I get that with dist-upgrade and not with upgrade. Googling the error it
seems that doing upgrade will resolve that. But I haven't tried that!

Hugo

Well the script I run every morning does update then upgrade then dist-upgrade
then auto-remove, so if it is the dist-upgrade then it has just done an 
upgrade, so I do not think that is going to help.  

I have just tried running an upgrade on its own, and it had nothing to do, and 
then a dist-upgrade which failed.  So doing an upgrade does not help.




Sorry for the false clue. And what when you do 'why'?

Hugo


--
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/kvl94t$8j1$1...@ger.gmane.org

Re: apt-get upgrade problem with libenchant1c2a

[Hugo Vanwoerkom]

Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:

Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:

David Goodenough wrote:
I have a sacrificial machine that I keep upto date with sid every 
morning.  Yesterday and today I get an error:-


Calculating upgrade... Failed
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 libenchant1c2a : Depends: aspell-en but it is not going to be 
installed or

   myspell-dictionary or
   aspell-dictionary or
   ispell-dictionary or
   hunspell-dictionary
  Recommends: enchant but it is not going to be 
installed
E: Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generated breaks, this may be 
caused by held packages.

Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency treeBut apt-cache policy libenchant1c2a says:-

  Installed: 1.6.0-10
  Candidate: 1.6.0-10

so it should not need upgrading at all.

Also aspell-en is installed.

Is this related to Ubuntu bug  #1096669?  There is nothing in 
bugs.debian.org

that seems to fit the bill.

Any ideas?


I get that with dist-upgrade and not with upgrade. Googling the error 
it seems that doing upgrade will resolve that. But I haven't tried that!




when I do 'aptitude why' on that file, I get that it is a dependency of 
k3b, which is part of the upgrade. What happens if you do 'why'?




see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=721130

Hugo


--
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/kvlbah$42k$1...@ger.gmane.org

Re: apt-get upgrade problem with libenchant1c2a

[David Goodenough]

On Wednesday 28 Aug 2013, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
 Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
  Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
  David Goodenough wrote:
  I have a sacrificial machine that I keep upto date with sid every
  morning.  Yesterday and today I get an error:-
  
  Calculating upgrade... Failed
  
  The following packages have unmet dependencies:
   libenchant1c2a : Depends: aspell-en but it is not going to be
  
  installed or
  
 myspell-dictionary or
 aspell-dictionary or
 ispell-dictionary or
 hunspell-dictionary

Recommends: enchant but it is not going to be
  
  installed
  E: Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generated breaks, this may be
  caused by held packages.
  Reading package lists... Done
  Building dependency treeBut apt-cache policy libenchant1c2a says:-
  
Installed: 1.6.0-10
Candidate: 1.6.0-10
  
  so it should not need upgrading at all.
  
  Also aspell-en is installed.
  
  Is this related to Ubuntu bug  #1096669?  There is nothing in
  bugs.debian.org
  that seems to fit the bill.
  
  Any ideas?
  
  I get that with dist-upgrade and not with upgrade. Googling the error
  it seems that doing upgrade will resolve that. But I haven't tried that!
  
  when I do 'aptitude why' on that file, I get that it is a dependency of
  k3b, which is part of the upgrade. What happens if you do 'why'?
 
 see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=721130
 
 Hugo
I am using apt-get not aptitude, and I don't think apt-get has a why option.
But I will follow the bug with interest.

Thanks

David


-- 
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/201308281907.51599.david.goodeno...@btconnect.com

Re: apt-get upgrade problem with libenchant1c2a

[Sharon Kimble]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:17:15 -0500
Hugo Vanwoerkom hvw59...@care2.com wrote:

 Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
  Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
  David Goodenough wrote:
  I have a sacrificial machine that I keep upto date with sid every
   morning.  Yesterday and today I get an error:-
 
  Calculating upgrade... Failed
  The following packages have unmet dependencies:
   libenchant1c2a : Depends: aspell-en but it is not going to be
   installed or myspell-dictionary or
 aspell-dictionary or
 ispell-dictionary or
 hunspell-dictionary
Recommends: enchant but it is not going to be
   installed E: Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generated
   breaks, this may be  caused by held packages.
  Reading package lists... Done
  Building dependency treeBut apt-cache policy libenchant1c2a
  says:-
 
Installed: 1.6.0-10
Candidate: 1.6.0-10
 
  so it should not need upgrading at all.
 
  Also aspell-en is installed.
 
  Is this related to Ubuntu bug  #1096669?  There is nothing in 
  bugs.debian.org that seems to fit the bill.
 
  Any ideas?
 
  I get that with dist-upgrade and not with upgrade. Googling the
  error  it seems that doing upgrade will resolve that. But I
  haven't tried that!
 
   when I do 'aptitude why' on that file, I get that it is a
   dependency of  k3b, which is part of the upgrade. What happens
   if you do 'why'?
  see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=721130
 
 Hugo
 
Hugo.
Please adjust you're posting style as it is impossible to read what
you're saying as its indistinguishable from the rest of the
conversation. It just appears that you're signing the email without any
content, which cant be true!

Thanks
Sharon.
-- 
A taste of linux = http://www.sharons.org.uk
efever = http://www.efever.blogspot.com/
efever = http://sharon04.livejournal.com/
Debian testing, Fluxbox 1.3.5, LibreOffice 4.1.0.4
Registered Linux user 334501 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: apt-get upgrade problem with libenchant1c2a

[Hugo Vanwoerkom]

Sharon Kimble wrote:

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:17:15 -0500
Hugo Vanwoerkom hvw59...@care2.com wrote:


Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:

Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:

David Goodenough wrote:

I have a sacrificial machine that I keep upto date with sid every

morning.  Yesterday and today I get an error:-

Calculating upgrade... Failed
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 libenchant1c2a : Depends: aspell-en but it is not going to be

installed or myspell-dictionary or

   aspell-dictionary or
   ispell-dictionary or
   hunspell-dictionary
  Recommends: enchant but it is not going to be

installed E: Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generated
breaks, this may be  caused by held packages.

Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency treeBut apt-cache policy libenchant1c2a
says:-

  Installed: 1.6.0-10
  Candidate: 1.6.0-10

so it should not need upgrading at all.

Also aspell-en is installed.

Is this related to Ubuntu bug  #1096669?  There is nothing in 
bugs.debian.org that seems to fit the bill.

Any ideas?

I get that with dist-upgrade and not with upgrade. Googling the
error  it seems that doing upgrade will resolve that. But I
haven't tried that!

when I do 'aptitude why' on that file, I get that it is a
dependency of  k3b, which is part of the upgrade. What happens
if you do 'why'?

see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=721130

Hugo


Hugo.
Please adjust you're posting style as it is impossible to read what
you're saying as its indistinguishable from the rest of the
conversation. It just appears that you're signing the email without any
content, which cant be true!



sorry about that! I post through tbird + this is what I see:
http://uppix.com/f-00_posting_tbird521e4f570013cc30.jpg
and this is what I see through gmane:
http://uppix.com/f-00_posting_gmane521e4de40013cc1d.jpg
so I see no problems :-(

Hugo


--
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/kvljc9$3sc$1...@ger.gmane.org

Re: Apt-get upgrade não é tão safe

[Gunther Furtado]

pode ser
apt-get dist-upgrade
Mas eu não sei se isso resolve seu problema. Veja se está instalado um
pacote linux-image, ou linux-image-amd64, a função deste pacote é, até
onde eu percebi, é precisamente manter a versão do kernel atualizada.

abs.,

Em 15 de abril de 2013 16:29, Eden Caldas edencal...@gmail.com escreveu:
 Colegas

 No ubuntu, quando se utiliza o apt-get upgrade ou aptitude
 safe-upgrade, atualizações de kernel não são inclusas no processo.
 Porém no debian, os mesmos comandos incluem kernel e outras coisas não
 tão safe de se atualizarem sem serem manuais.

 Alguém sabe como simular o comportamento do apt-get upgrade do Ubuntu
 no debian? Não vi nada nos arquivos de configuração de ambas as
 distros referente a isso.

 Eden Caldas


 --
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive: 
 http://lists.debian.org/canwxfxmax3cbrjwabvuunye6khvoz4efb-jjfrxtzu7vz...@mail.gmail.com




-- 

Não sou eu quem me navega,
 Quem me navega é o mar
  Paulinho da Viola

Gunther Furtado
Curitiba - Paraná - Brasil
gunfurt...@gmail.com
sip:furta...@ekiga.net


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CALKj2CrgDv2tEDwiodZ4y55=v4ha+57i2pc9zm6qcgmmzyn...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Apt-get upgrade não é tão safe

[Fabricio Cannini]

Em 15-04-2013 16:29, Eden Caldas escreveu:

Colegas

No ubuntu, quando se utiliza o apt-get upgrade ou aptitude
safe-upgrade, atualizações de kernel não são inclusas no processo.
Porém no debian, os mesmos comandos incluem kernel e outras coisas não
tão safe de se atualizarem sem serem manuais.

Alguém sabe como simular o comportamento do apt-get upgrade do Ubuntu
no debian? Não vi nada nos arquivos de configuração de ambas as
distros referente a isso.

Eden Caldas


Num ubuntu que eu tenho acesso, tem isso no 
'/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/01autoremove-kernels' :



APT
{
  NeverAutoRemove
  {
^linux-image-3.2.0-38-generic$;
^linux-image-extra-3.2.0-38-generic$;
^linux-signed-image-3.2.0-38-generic$;
^linux-backports-modules-.*-3.2.0-38-generic$;
^linux-headers-3.2.0-38-generic$;
^linux-image-3.2.0-39-generic$;
^linux-image-extra-3.2.0-39-generic$;
^linux-signed-image-3.2.0-39-generic$;
^linux-backports-modules-.*-3.2.0-39-generic$;
^linux-headers-3.2.0-39-generic$;
  };
};


e no '/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/05aptitude' :


aptitude::Keep-Unused-Pattern ^linux-image.*$ | 
^linux-restricted-modules.*$ | ^linux-ubuntu-modules.*$;




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/516c641c.9060...@gmail.com

Re: Apt-get upgrade não é tão safe

[Eden Caldas]

Acho que não fui muito claro. Gostaria ter o mesmo comportamento do
upgrade do Ubuntu no Debian, ou seja, NÃO instalando kernel e outras
coisas não safe.

Em 15 de abril de 2013 17:08, Gunther Furtado gunfurt...@gmail.com escreveu:
 pode ser
 apt-get dist-upgrade
 Mas eu não sei se isso resolve seu problema. Veja se está instalado um
 pacote linux-image, ou linux-image-amd64, a função deste pacote é, até
 onde eu percebi, é precisamente manter a versão do kernel atualizada.

 abs.,

 Em 15 de abril de 2013 16:29, Eden Caldas edencal...@gmail.com escreveu:
 Colegas

 No ubuntu, quando se utiliza o apt-get upgrade ou aptitude
 safe-upgrade, atualizações de kernel não são inclusas no processo.
 Porém no debian, os mesmos comandos incluem kernel e outras coisas não
 tão safe de se atualizarem sem serem manuais.

 Alguém sabe como simular o comportamento do apt-get upgrade do Ubuntu
 no debian? Não vi nada nos arquivos de configuração de ambas as
 distros referente a isso.

 Eden Caldas


 --
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive: 
 http://lists.debian.org/canwxfxmax3cbrjwabvuunye6khvoz4efb-jjfrxtzu7vz...@mail.gmail.com




 --

 Não sou eu quem me navega,
  Quem me navega é o mar
   Paulinho da Viola

 Gunther Furtado
 Curitiba - Paraná - Brasil
 gunfurt...@gmail.com
 sip:furta...@ekiga.net


 --
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive: 
 http://lists.debian.org/calkj2crgdv2tedwiodz4y55v4ha+57i2pc9zm6qcgmmzyn...@mail.gmail.com



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/canwxfxpk_7znkty7f4bka5h1prkajk5zkjbd8g4a1tevf+i...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Apt-get upgrade não é tão safe

[Eden Caldas]

Pois é Fabricio

No Debian que tenho aqui, ainda está mais agressivo. Acredito que isso
tenha a ver apenas para o parâmetro autoremove do apt-get.

 cat /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/01autoremove
APT
{
  NeverAutoRemove
  {
^firmware-linux.*;
^linux-firmware$;
^linux-image.*;
^kfreebsd-image.*;
^linux-restricted-modules.*;
^linux-ubuntu-modules-.*;
  };

Em 15 de abril de 2013 17:33, Fabricio Cannini fcann...@gmail.com escreveu:
 Em 15-04-2013 16:29, Eden Caldas escreveu:

 Colegas

 No ubuntu, quando se utiliza o apt-get upgrade ou aptitude
 safe-upgrade, atualizações de kernel não são inclusas no processo.
 Porém no debian, os mesmos comandos incluem kernel e outras coisas não
 tão safe de se atualizarem sem serem manuais.

 Alguém sabe como simular o comportamento do apt-get upgrade do Ubuntu
 no debian? Não vi nada nos arquivos de configuração de ambas as
 distros referente a isso.

 Eden Caldas


 Num ubuntu que eu tenho acesso, tem isso no
 '/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/01autoremove-kernels' :


 APT
 {
   NeverAutoRemove
   {
 ^linux-image-3.2.0-38-generic$;
 ^linux-image-extra-3.2.0-38-generic$;
 ^linux-signed-image-3.2.0-38-generic$;
 ^linux-backports-modules-.*-3.2.0-38-generic$;
 ^linux-headers-3.2.0-38-generic$;
 ^linux-image-3.2.0-39-generic$;
 ^linux-image-extra-3.2.0-39-generic$;
 ^linux-signed-image-3.2.0-39-generic$;
 ^linux-backports-modules-.*-3.2.0-39-generic$;
 ^linux-headers-3.2.0-39-generic$;
   };
 };


 e no '/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/05aptitude' :


 aptitude::Keep-Unused-Pattern ^linux-image.*$ |
 ^linux-restricted-modules.*$ | ^linux-ubuntu-modules.*$;




 --
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
 listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/516c641c.9060...@gmail.com



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CANwxfxNj9OJ7+SZvO9y-8TJDpq2=PF=RrtupMPP=mfbowtz...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Apt-get upgrade não é tão safe

[Fabricio Cannini]

Em 15-04-2013 18:32, Eden Caldas escreveu:

Pois é Fabricio

No Debian que tenho aqui, ainda está mais agressivo. Acredito que isso
tenha a ver apenas para o parâmetro autoremove do apt-get.

  cat /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/01autoremove
APT
{
   NeverAutoRemove
   {
^firmware-linux.*;
^linux-firmware$;
^linux-image.*;
^kfreebsd-image.*;
^linux-restricted-modules.*;
^linux-ubuntu-modules-.*;
   };



Sim , tem isso no meu note também ( Debian testing/sid ) , mas não 
atualiza o kernel com um 'aptitude full-upgrade' .



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/516c72f4.4060...@gmail.com

Re: Apt-get upgrade não é tão safe

[Eden Caldas]

O meu atualiza com upgrade, full-upgrade, safe-upgrade, dist-upgrade.
Porém, no ubuntu, não.

Em 15 de abril de 2013 18:36, Fabricio Cannini fcann...@gmail.com escreveu:
 Em 15-04-2013 18:32, Eden Caldas escreveu:

 Pois é Fabricio

 No Debian que tenho aqui, ainda está mais agressivo. Acredito que isso
 tenha a ver apenas para o parâmetro autoremove do apt-get.

   cat /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/01autoremove
 APT
 {
NeverAutoRemove
{
 ^firmware-linux.*;
 ^linux-firmware$;
 ^linux-image.*;
 ^kfreebsd-image.*;
 ^linux-restricted-modules.*;
 ^linux-ubuntu-modules-.*;
};



 Sim , tem isso no meu note também ( Debian testing/sid ) , mas não atualiza
 o kernel com um 'aptitude full-upgrade' .



 --
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
 listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/516c72f4.4060...@gmail.com



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CANwxfxOdRoLw7WE=Boip_+9FxjRCc0i=xrdxsvrqomoeb...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Apt-get upgrade não é tão safe

[Gunther Furtado]

Em 15.04.2013, segunda, Eden Caldas disse:

 O meu atualiza com upgrade, full-upgrade, safe-upgrade, dist-upgrade.
 Porém, no ubuntu, não.
 

o que mais tem em

/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/

no seu ubuntu?


 Em 15 de abril de 2013 18:36, Fabricio Cannini fcann...@gmail.com
 escreveu:
  Em 15-04-2013 18:32, Eden Caldas escreveu:
 
  Pois é Fabricio
 
  No Debian que tenho aqui, ainda está mais agressivo. Acredito que
  isso tenha a ver apenas para o parâmetro autoremove do apt-get.
 
cat /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/01autoremove
  APT
  {
 NeverAutoRemove
 {
  ^firmware-linux.*;
  ^linux-firmware$;
  ^linux-image.*;
  ^kfreebsd-image.*;
  ^linux-restricted-modules.*;
  ^linux-ubuntu-modules-.*;
 };
 
 
 
  Sim , tem isso no meu note também ( Debian testing/sid ) , mas não
  atualiza o kernel com um 'aptitude full-upgrade' .
 
 
 
  --
  To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
  debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of
  unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
  Archive: http://lists.debian.org/516c72f4.4060...@gmail.com
 
 
 
 -- 
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
 debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of
 unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive:
 http://lists.debian.org/CANwxfxOdRoLw7WE=Boip_+9FxjRCc0i=xrdxsvrqomoeb...@mail.gmail.com
 


-- 

Cuando la guática pide comídica
Pone al cristiánico firme y guerrérico
Por sus poróticos y sus cebóllicas,
No hay regimiéntico que los deténguica
Si tienen hámbrica los populáricos. Violeta Parra

Gunther Furtado
Curitiba - Paraná - Brasil
gunfurt...@gmail.com
skype:gunfurtado


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130415215516.13de3...@shrknemo.gbmc.net

Re: apt-get upgrade error

[Camaleón]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:05:56 -0500, Paul Cartwright wrote:

 ever since my upgrade to squeeze I am getting errors like this ( more of
 them):
 
 warning, in file '/var/lib/dpkg/available' near line 514018 package
 'virtualbox-2.2':
   error in Version string '2.2.4-47978_Debian_lenny': invalid character
 in revision number

(...)

 virtualbox has been purged from my system, but that file: # ls -l
 /var/lib/dpkg/available
 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 25094284 Feb 19 08:00 /var/lib/dpkg/available
 
 is rather large...

Try running dpkg --clear-avail.

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/pan.2011.02.19.15.05...@gmail.com

Re: apt-get upgrade error- SOLVED

[Paul Cartwright]

  virtualbox has been purged from my system, but that file: # ls -l
  /var/lib/dpkg/available
  -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 25094284 Feb 19 08:00 /var/lib/dpkg/available
  
  is rather large...
 

Try running dpkg --clear-avail.

   

that did it!! no more error!!!
the only other question I have is, why are all these packages being held 
back??

# apt-get upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
  acpi-support apache2 apache2-mpm-prefork apache2.2-common apt-cacher
  apt-file ark autopsy avahi-daemon banshee bless bluetooth bluez-audio boo
  capplets-data cdrdao clive cmake cmake-data compiz compiz-core
  compiz-fusion-plugins-main compiz-gnome compiz-gtk compiz-plugins conky
  cowdancer cups-driver-gutenprint debian-keyring default-jdk default-jre
  default-jre-headless dhcp3-client dhcp3-common diff digikam-doc
  djvulibre-desktop dnsutils ecj ecj-gcj ekiga elinks elinks-data emacs
  empathy evince f-spot fbreader festival foomatic-db freemind gadmin-samba
  gcc-4.3-source gconf-editor gdebi gdebi-core gettext gnokii-common
  gnome-applets gnome-applets-data gnome-control-center gnome-icon-theme
  gnome-orca gnome-panel gnome-panel-data gnome-phone-manager
  gnome-power-manager gnome-screensaver gnome-session gnome-settings-daemon
  gnome-system-monitor gnome-utils gnotime gparted gpsd-clients grub
  gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly gtkpod gxine host icedove icedove-dbg 
iceowl ink

  inkscape iptables k3b k3b-data kbattleship kdegames-dbg
  kdemultimedia-kio-plugins kmahjongg kmines koffice-data koffice-libs kpat
  kpogre krecipes krecipes-data krita krita-data kshisen ksudoku 
ktorrent lat

  ldap-account-manager libantlr-java-gcj libapache2-mod-php5 libaprutil1
  libart2.0-cil libavahi1.0-cil libbind-dev libboost-doc libcap2
  libcegui-mk2-1 libchipcard-tools libclass-accessor-perl libcompizconfig0
  libcwiid1-dev libdb-dev libdjvulibre21 libdts-dev libecj-java-gcj 
libgcj-bc

  libgconf2.0-cil libgdl-1-common libgeos-c1 libglade2.0-cil
  libglademm-2.4-1c2a libglib2.0-cil libgnome-keyring1.0-cil
  libgnome-vfs2.0-cil libgnome-window-settings1 libgnome2-0 
libgnome2-common

  libgnome2-dev libgnomekbd-common libgnupg-interface-perl libgtk2-perl
  libgtk2.0-cil libgtkhtml3.16-cil libgtkmm-2.4-1c2a libgtkmm-2.4-dev
  libjaxp1.3-java-gcj libjibx-java libjpeg-progs liblog4j1.2-java-gcj
  liblua5.1-0 liblua5.1-0-dev libmono-addins-gui0.2-cil 
libmono-addins0.2-cil

  libmono-cairo2.0-cil libmono-corlib1.0-cil libmono-corlib2.0-cil
  libmono-data-tds1.0-cil libmono-data-tds2.0-cil libmono-ldap2.0-cil
  libmono-security1.0-cil libmono-security2.0-cil libmono-sharpzip0.84-cil
  libmono-sharpzip2.84-cil libmono-sqlite2.0-cil libmono-system-data1.0-cil
  libmono-system-data2.0-cil libmono-system-web1.0-cil
  libmono-system-web2.0-cil libmono-system1.0-cil libmono-system2.0-cil
  libmono-zeroconf1.0-cil libmono0 libmono1.0-cil libmono2.0-cil
  libnautilus-extension-dev libnautilus-extension1 libndesk-dbus1.0-cil
  libnotify0.4-cil libogdi3.2 libossp-uuid-perl libpam-smbpass libpurple0
  librrd4 librrds-perl libsdl1.2-dev libsdl1.2debian libsdl1.2debian-all
  libsmbclient libsmbclient-dev libsoap-lite-perl libsox-fmt-alsa
  libsox-fmt-base libsvn1 libts-0.0-0 libwbclient0 libwebkit-dev
  libxml-libxml-perl libzlui-gtk lintian live-helper live-magic metacity
  metacity-common mono-gac mono-runtime mono-utils nautilus nautilus-data
  ntfs-3g ntp ntpdate obexfs obexftp openbios-sparc openjdk-6-jdk
  openjdk-6-jre openjdk-6-jre-headless openjdk-6-jre-lib php-pear php5
  php5-cgi php5-cli php5-common php5-curl php5-dbg php5-dev php5-gd 
php5-idn

  php5-imagick php5-imap php5-ldap php5-mcrypt php5-memcache php5-ming
  php5-mysql php5-ps php5-pspell php5-recode php5-snmp php5-sqlite 
php5-tidy

  php5-xcache php5-xmlrpc php5-xsl pidgin pidgin-data podsleuth proj
  python-vte qemu reportbug rhino rhythmbox rrdtool rsnapshot rss-glx samba
  samba-common sleuthkit smbclient sound-juicer sox subversion
  system-config-printer tangogps telepathy-gabble totem-common 
totem-gstreamer

  totem-mozilla ufraw vde2 vorbis-tools wireshark wireshark-common worker
  xfce4-clipman-plugin xfce4-goodies xfce4-notes-plugin
  xfce4-screenshooter-plugin xiphos xscreensaver-data xserver-xorg-dev
  zonecheck
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 281 not upgraded.


--
Paul Cartwright


--
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/4d5ffe03.8060...@pcartwright.com

Re: apt-get upgrade error- SOLVED

[Stephen Powell]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:29:39 -0500 (EST), Paul Cartwright wrote:
 that did it!! no more error!!!
 the only other question I have is, why are all these packages being held 
 back??
 # apt-get upgrade
 Reading package lists... Done
 Building dependency tree
 Reading state information... Done
 The following packages have been kept back:
acpi-support apache2 apache2-mpm-prefork apache2.2-common apt-cacher
apt-file ark autopsy avahi-daemon banshee bless bluetooth bluez-audio boo
 ...

That's because you're doing an upgrade instead of a dist-upgrade.
With an upgrade, apt is allowed to upgrade packages, but it is not
allowed to delete packages or install new ones.  Those packages are
being held back because installing them would require apt to either
install a package which is not currently installed that is a dependency
of the package being held back or else remove a package that conflicts
with the updated version of the package being held back.  When doing
massive updates, it is generally good practice to do an upgrade
first, then later do a dist-upgrade.  The release notes for upgrading
Lenny to Squeeze, for example, specifically instruct one to do this.

-- 
  .''`. Stephen Powell
 : :'  :
 `. `'`
   `-


-- 
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/881428887.928421.1298143865786.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com

Re: apt-get upgrade error- SOLVED

[Camaleón]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:29:39 -0500, Paul Cartwright wrote:

   virtualbox has been purged from my system, but that file: # ls -l
   /var/lib/dpkg/available
   -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 25094284 Feb 19 08:00
   /var/lib/dpkg/available
   
   is rather large...
  
 Try running dpkg --clear-avail.


 that did it!! no more error!!!

Good :-)

 the only other question I have is, why are all these packages being held
 back??
 # apt-get upgrade
 Reading package lists... Done
 Building dependency tree
 Reading state information... Done
 The following packages have been kept back:

(...)

There are many :-O

 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 281 not upgraded.

I can aventure why a package is kept back (it may have unmet 
dependencies that cannot be managed by just apt-get upgrade and needs 
apt-get dist-upgrade) but being hundreds of packages in your case I 
would not try that, it can be dangerous. 

Wait until someone in the know can give you an accurate-and-safe 
advice :-)

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/pan.2011.02.19.19.38...@gmail.com

Re: apt-get upgrade error- SOLVED

[Stephen Powell]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 15:39:36 -0500 (EST), Paul Cartwright wrote:
 Stephen Powell wrote:

 That's because you're doing an upgrade instead of a dist-upgrade.
 With an upgrade, apt is allowed to upgrade packages, but it is not
 allowed to delete packages or install new ones.  Those packages are
 being held back because installing them would require apt to either
 install a package which is not currently installed that is a dependency
 of the package being held back or else remove a package that conflicts
 with the updated version of the package being held back.  When doing
 massive updates, it is generally good practice to do an upgrade
 first, then later do a dist-upgrade.  The release notes for upgrading
 Lenny to Squeeze, for example, specifically instruct one to do this.
 
 so I should do a dist-upgrade. But I already did that to get to squeeze. 
 I thought I read the release notes  followed along all the way to the 
 end. Of course it was midnight when I finished:)

You replied off-list.  I assume that was accidental, since there's
nothing of a personal or sensitive nature here.  Going back to the
list.

What does your /etc/apt/sources.list file look like?  Please include it
in your next post.

-- 
  .''`. Stephen Powell
 : :'  :
 `. `'`
   `-


-- 
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/1202418254.930809.1298155544800.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com

Re: apt-get upgrade error- SOLVED

[Paul Cartwright]

On 02/19/2011 05:45 PM, Stephen Powell wrote:

so I should do a dist-upgrade. But I already did that to get to squeeze.
  I thought I read the release notes  followed along all the way to the
  end. Of course it was midnight when I finished:)
 

You replied off-list.  I assume that was accidental, since there's
nothing of a personal or sensitive nature here.  Going back to the
list.
   

no, I did my usual CTRL-R to Reply, not CTRL-SHFT-L to Reply to List.
my bad..


What does your /etc/apt/sources.list file look like?  Please include it
in your next post.
   

# cat /etc/apt/sources.list
 deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ squeeze main contrib non-free
 deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian squeeze main
 deb-src http://security.us.debian.org/ squeeze/updates main contrib 
non-free

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


--
Paul Cartwright


--
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/4d607531.3030...@pcartwright.com

Re: apt-get upgrade message in sid

[David Kalnischkies]

Hi debian-user :)

 What is David Kalnischkies telling me here?

He tries to tell you that apt-get will try a minimal release override
for you according to the dependencies in the request.

Lets assume you want to install iceweasel version whatever from experimental
or backports. This includes normally the installation of a few new packages
(xulrunner-foo) and the upgrade of some (lets say libmozjs3d).
Previous APT would have installed xulrunner-foo from the other release if
it was the only release providing this package. But libmozjs3d was already
available in stable but in a lower version, so previously APT would have
favored libmozjs3d from stable which can't satisfy the dependencies so
APT happily blows up with an error message telling you that dependencies
can't be satisfied.

What APT now tries is, while choosing the version of iceweasel
based on your request, it looks at the dependencies of your requests
and checks if these can be satisfied by the current candidate of the
package and if not it tries to switch the version of this package, too.

So in the iceweasel thing above it would install libmozjs3d from
experimental, too, which is very very likely what you wanted -
as nobody wants to see an error message as a respond to a request.

It's not a new solver strategy or anything, it just tries to help a
bit by expanding the request with packages you need to switch, too.


Thats why stuff like libc6 from experimental fails tragically:
The request is expanded to libc-bin as this one is versioned.
Fine so far. The sole problem is now that stuff like libc6-i686
needs a specific version of libc6 - thats a reverse dependency in
the eyes of libc6 and reverse dependencies are not touched.

(Beside, in this very specific case libc6-i686 is also a recommends of
 libc6 so the request would work if the recommends would be versioned…)


Best regards

David Kalnischkies

P.S.: Next time, if you are talking about a specific guy, feel free to
at least cc him - feels strange to stumble across threads mentioning
your name by accident only…

P.P.S.: I am not subscribed, so please cc me in response.


--
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/aanlktimtwbj6jyyifg8zdka7fccgkd_n5v74ikm-m...@mail.gmail.com

Re: apt-get upgrade message in sid

[Keshwarsingh Nadan]

Hi,

Lets assume you want to install iceweasel version whatever from
experimental or backports

apt-cache policy iceweasel

If we wanted to install a testing version of a program (for example), we
would have to override the choices we make when we use apt-get, e.g.   apt-get
install [packagename]/testing,   or if necessary   apt-get -t testing
install [packagename].   Note that another option would be to momentarily
make testing the highest priority in /etc/apt/preferences, then override
what will be installed, e.g.   apt-get install [packagename]/testing. Read
this. http://jaqque.sbih.org/kplug/apt-pinning.html At this time however,
we are not using apt pinning.

Remember that it's a good idea to simulate an installation first (using the
-s switch).

kn

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 1:20 PM, David Kalnischkies
kalnischk...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hi debian-user :)

  What is David Kalnischkies telling me here?

 He tries to tell you that apt-get will try a minimal release override
 for you according to the dependencies in the request.

 Lets assume you want to install iceweasel version whatever from
 experimental
 or backports. This includes normally the installation of a few new packages
 (xulrunner-foo) and the upgrade of some (lets say libmozjs3d).
 Previous APT would have installed xulrunner-foo from the other release if
 it was the only release providing this package. But libmozjs3d was already
 available in stable but in a lower version, so previously APT would have
 favored libmozjs3d from stable which can't satisfy the dependencies so
 APT happily blows up with an error message telling you that dependencies
 can't be satisfied.

 What APT now tries is, while choosing the version of iceweasel
 based on your request, it looks at the dependencies of your requests
 and checks if these can be satisfied by the current candidate of the
 package and if not it tries to switch the version of this package, too.

 So in the iceweasel thing above it would install libmozjs3d from
 experimental, too, which is very very likely what you wanted -
 as nobody wants to see an error message as a respond to a request.

 It's not a new solver strategy or anything, it just tries to help a
 bit by expanding the request with packages you need to switch, too.


 Thats why stuff like libc6 from experimental fails tragically:
 The request is expanded to libc-bin as this one is versioned.
 Fine so far. The sole problem is now that stuff like libc6-i686
 needs a specific version of libc6 - thats a reverse dependency in
 the eyes of libc6 and reverse dependencies are not touched.

 (Beside, in this very specific case libc6-i686 is also a recommends of
  libc6 so the request would work if the recommends would be versioned…)


 Best regards

 David Kalnischkies

 P.S.: Next time, if you are talking about a specific guy, feel free to
 at least cc him - feels strange to stumble across threads mentioning
 your name by accident only…

 P.P.S.: I am not subscribed, so please cc me in response.


 --
 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/aanlktimtwbj6jyyifg8zdka7fccgkd_n5v74ikm-m...@mail.gmail.com

Re: apt-get upgrade message in sid

[David Kalnischkies]

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:57, Keshwarsingh Nadan k...@debian.mu wrote:
 Lets assume you want to install iceweasel version whatever from
 experimental or backports

 If we wanted to install a testing version of a program (for example), we
 would have to override the choices we make when we use apt-get, e.g.
 apt-get install [packagename]/testing,   or if necessary   apt-get -t
 testing install [packagename].

And thats is the point: APT wants to help with this feature to reduce the
times a user has to use '-t experimental' (or '-t backports') in favor of
'/experimental' as switching the whole release for every package is more
dangerous than for a very limited set of packages - but in the past it was
way 'easier' to just say '-t experimental'.
Its still 'easier' but the alternative '/experimental' became more useful…


 Note that another option would be to
 momentarily make testing the highest priority in /etc/apt/preferences, then
 override what will be installed, e.g.   apt-get install
 [packagename]/testing. Read this. At this time however, we are not using apt
 pinning.

Read this should btw remove the section about MMap running out of the
room. The issue is fixed in squeeze as the MMap grows now automatically
(on all architectures by the way, even kfreebsd).

But yes, i can sign that preferences are not for beginners - its a very
powerful feature, but as we know with great power comes great responsibility…
I would recommend to have a look at 'man apt_preferences' for details.

Using preferences in this usecases isn't a good idea, as -t does exactly the
same as a preferences entry for testing would do (with a pin-priority of 990).


Best regards

David Kalnischkies


--
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/AANLkTi=4qzly7x_gg4fp-v4a8jgdyxaaacv5xiwuz...@mail.gmail.com

Re: apt-get upgrade message in sid

[Sven Joachim]

On 2011-02-13 05:08 +0100, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:

 In 8roudpfga...@mid.individual.net, Charles Kroeger wrote:
apt (0.8.11) unstable; urgency=low

  * apt-get install pkg/experimental will now not only switch the
candidate of package pkg to the version from the release
experimental but also of all dependencies of pkg if the current
candidate can't satisfy a versioned dependency.

 -- David Kalnischkies kalnischk...@gmail.com  Fri, 03 Dec 2010
 14:09:12 +0100

After hitting the 'q' key this message clears and the the packages
unpack and setup.

What is David Kalnischkies telling me here?

 apt-listchanges is displaying the new part of the debian/changelog.

Not quite, it is displaying the new part of NEWS.Debian.

 The change introduced basically makes the package/archive install 
 specification less brain damaged, so that it does the right thing in more 
 cases.

It also means that it will drag in parts of experimental that you didn't
ask for if that is necessary to fulfill your request.  This is probably
what you want in most cases, but in some situations you may rather
prefer to bail out.

More importantly, it does not even seem to work right, preferring to
remove packages rather than upgrading them to the experimental version:

,
| # LANG=C apt-get -s install libc6/experimental
| Reading package lists... Done
| Building dependency tree   
| Reading state information... Done
| Selected version '2.13-0exp1' (Debian:experimental [i386]) for 'libc6'
| Selected version '2.13-0exp1' (Debian:experimental [i386]) for 'libc-bin' 
because of 'libc6'
| The following extra packages will be installed:
|   libc-bin
| Suggested packages:
|   glibc-doc
| The following packages will be REMOVED:
|   build-essential g++ g++-4.4 libc-dev-bin libc6-dev libc6-i686 
libstdc++6-4.4-dev locales
| The following packages will be upgraded:
|   libc-bin libc6
| 2 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 8 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
| Remv build-essential [11.5]
| Remv g++ [4:4.4.5-2]
| Remv g++-4.4 [4.4.5-10] [libstdc++6-4.4-dev:i386 ]
| Remv libstdc++6-4.4-dev [4.4.5-10]
| Remv libc6-dev [2.11.2-11]
| Remv libc-dev-bin [2.11.2-11]
| Remv libc6-i686 [2.11.2-11]
| Remv locales [2.11.2-11]
| Inst libc-bin [2.11.2-11] (2.13-0exp1 Debian:experimental [i386]) [libc6:i386 
]
| Conf libc-bin (2.13-0exp1 Debian:experimental [i386]) [libc6:i386 ]
| Inst libc6 [2.11.2-11] (2.13-0exp1 Debian:experimental [i386])
| Conf libc6 (2.13-0exp1 Debian:experimental [i386])
`

Urgh.

 Previously, if foo/experimental Depends on bar ( some_ver) and bar/unstable 
 was  some_ver but bar/experimental was  some_ver apt-get would propose a 
 not-so-good solution.

Did it even propose a solution in such cases?

 Now, it will propose to install foo/experimental and 
 bar/experimental.  (I think before it might have prompted the user, or failed 
 to install foo.

AFAIK it always failed to install, leaving you with the choice between
the cumbersome apt-get install foo/experimental bar/experimental and
the dangerous apt-get -t experimental install foo.

 I rarely use apt-get to install packages though, so I'm not too familiar with 
 how it's resolver behaves in situations like this.  I use aptitude, which can 
 certainly propose some stupid stuff initially, but provides an interactive 
 resolver that is really easy for me to find the solution that makes sense.

Aptitude's default is to bail out and not install packages from
experimental that you didn't explicitly ask for (you have to try the
next solution).  In the above situation:

,
| # LANG=C aptitude -s install libc6/experimental
| The following packages will be upgraded: 
|   libc6{b} 
| 1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
| Need to get 3896 kB of archives. After unpacking 8192 B will be used.
| The following packages have unmet dependencies:
|   libc-dev-bin: Depends: libc6 ( 2.12) but 2.13-0exp1 is to be installed.
|   libc6-i686: PreDepends: libc6 (= 2.11.2-11) but 2.13-0exp1 is to be 
installed.
|   locales: Depends: glibc-2.11-1 which is a virtual package.
|   libc6-dev: Depends: libc6 (= 2.11.2-11) but 2.13-0exp1 is to be installed.
|   libc6: Depends: libc-bin (= 2.13-0exp1) but 2.11.2-11 is installed.
| The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
| 
|  Keep the following packages at their current version:
| 1) libc6 [2.11.2-11 (now, unstable)]  
| 
| 
| 
| Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] n
| The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
| 
|  Upgrade the following packages:
| 1) libc-bin [2.11.2-11 (now, unstable) - 2.13-0exp1 (experimental)]
| 2) libc-dev-bin [2.11.2-11 (now, unstable) - 2.13-0exp1 (experimental)]
| 3) libc6-dev [2.11.2-11 (now, unstable) - 2.13-0exp1 (experimental)]   
| 4) libc6-i686 [2.11.2-11 (now, unstable) - 2.13-0exp1 (experimental)]  
| 5) locales [2.11.2-11 (now, unstable) - 2.13-0exp1 (experimental)]