Gnome default application reset after apt-get upgrade

[Will]

Greetings,

This has been an annoyance/issue for a while - at least for me - and I'm
wondering if anyone else has seen this?

The problem:  after an apt-get update/upgrade, the Default Applications for
"Web" in Gnome will somehow switch to Thunderbird from Firefox through no
direct action by me, while before it was set to Firefox.  I can go in and
switch it back, but I'm curious if anyone else has seen this and - if so -
what the root cause is?

Thanks,
Will

Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Ma, 27 oct 20, 13:03:32, David Wright wrote:
> On Tue 27 Oct 2020 at 15:05:36 (+0200), Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Lu, 26 oct 20, 09:55:00, John Hasler wrote:
> > 
> > I believe someone demonstrated quite recently on list that dpkg has some 
> > limits in the number and/or combination of packages it can deal with at 
> > once, so APT might have to pass them in smaller chunks and/or specific 
> > order (in case of Pre-Depends: maybe?).
> >  
> > > Dpkg is safe but can be rather frustrating.
> > 
> > As far as I'm concerned it does just fine what it was designed to do.
> 
> Years ago, I used to do mega installs with dpkg, copying the contents
> of /var/cache/apt/archives/ from one machine onto a caddy, and then
> installing them all on another.
> 
> I'm probably the person who recently demonstrated dpkg's (in)ability
> to cleanly install 1558 packages simultaneously without help:
> 
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/07/msg00032.html
> (its References are all dead links because they fall in the previous month.)

Indeed, this is the experiment I was thinking of.
 
> This followed a demonstration of apt-get's reversibility:
> specifying 271 "top-level" packages that resulted in 1558 being
> installed altogether, and all 1558 being cleanly purged again.

Somehow I'm still under the impression that this is supposed to work 
with dpkg only.

You might want to post your findings to debian-dpkg for further 
investigation.

Kind regard,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

[David Wright]

On Tue 27 Oct 2020 at 15:05:36 (+0200), Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 26 oct 20, 09:55:00, John Hasler wrote:
> > Andrei writes:
> > > dpkg does its own dependency checking, in addition to APT (the
> > > software, not the command), and will prevent any inconsistencies
> > > unless you use one of the --force switches.
> > 
> > What it does not do is resolve dependencies.  Apt recursively resolves
> > dependencies, installing them as required. It also detects conflicts
> > and offers to resolve them as well as breaking loops.
> 
> dpkg can only work with the set of .deb files that were passed on the 
> command line.
> 
> If all dependencies are included (or already installed), fine, otherwise 
> it will bail out as it doesn't (by design) have the capability to search 
> for them in repositories and download them (if this is what you mean by 
> resolving).
> 
> I believe someone demonstrated quite recently on list that dpkg has some 
> limits in the number and/or combination of packages it can deal with at 
> once, so APT might have to pass them in smaller chunks and/or specific 
> order (in case of Pre-Depends: maybe?).
>  
> > Dpkg is safe but can be rather frustrating.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned it does just fine what it was designed to do.

Years ago, I used to do mega installs with dpkg, copying the contents
of /var/cache/apt/archives/ from one machine onto a caddy, and then
installing them all on another.

I'm probably the person who recently demonstrated dpkg's (in)ability
to cleanly install 1558 packages simultaneously without help:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/07/msg00032.html
(its References are all dead links because they fall in the previous month.)

This followed a demonstration of apt-get's reversibility:
specifying 271 "top-level" packages that resulted in 1558 being
installed altogether, and all 1558 being cleanly purged again.

Cheers,
David.

Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Lu, 26 oct 20, 09:55:00, John Hasler wrote:
> Andrei writes:
> > dpkg does its own dependency checking, in addition to APT (the
> > software, not the command), and will prevent any inconsistencies
> > unless you use one of the --force switches.
> 
> What it does not do is resolve dependencies.  Apt recursively resolves
> dependencies, installing them as required. It also detects conflicts
> and offers to resolve them as well as breaking loops.

dpkg can only work with the set of .deb files that were passed on the 
command line.

If all dependencies are included (or already installed), fine, otherwise 
it will bail out as it doesn't (by design) have the capability to search 
for them in repositories and download them (if this is what you mean by 
resolving).

I believe someone demonstrated quite recently on list that dpkg has some 
limits in the number and/or combination of packages it can deal with at 
once, so APT might have to pass them in smaller chunks and/or specific 
order (in case of Pre-Depends: maybe?).
 
> Dpkg is safe but can be rather frustrating.

As far as I'm concerned it does just fine what it was designed to do.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

[R. Ramesh]

So, if you don't pin down the priority of deb-multimedia, virtually every
audio- and video-related package on your system will be replaced with the
deb-multimedia version, which for the sake of stability is very likely a
bad idea.
So it is safer to lower the priority of deb-multimedia and that of
deb-multimedia backports even a bit more, so that the official debian
packages remain the default, deb-multimedia packages the first
alternative if you actually want/need a newer version or a version with
some extra features and deb-multimedia backports the last choice if you
really, really need that version.



Thanks for the detailed explanation. I will pin down multi-media and 
then backports to ensure order among the repositories.


Regards
Ramesh

Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

[Michael Lange]

Hi,

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:58:18 -0500
"R. Ramesh"  wrote:

(...)

> I have these exact lines in my sources.list also. I thought we have 
> backports so that we can get the newer version of packages. For
> example, buster multimedia has mythtv 0.30 and backports has mythtv
> 0.31 (the last time I checked). I have installed 0.31 in my system
> (using -t stable-backports, I think) as my frontend need to be
> compatible with backend that runs mythtv 0.31 (on xubuntu 20.04). In
> that case, would the above pinning rule prevent proper upgrade as it
> puts backports at a lower priority? (I assume that is what your pinning
> rules imply unless priorities are increased with lower numerical value)
> 
> In other words, should I stick to aptitude's decision?
> 
> Why priority 331 and 332? Why not some other two with same
> relationship? Sorry, if I asked a simple question. I will be more than
> happy to read documentation, if I will find it there.


these values are somewhat arbitraryly chosen. The point is that they
have to be values smaller than 500 and greater than 100 and that the
value for the deb-multimedia backports needs to be smaller than that of
the regular deb-multimedia repo.

This is because 500 is the default priority of any repo defined in
sources.list; if two or more packages from different repos share this
same priority, the package with the newest version number will be
installed; usually when using stable with deb-multimedia this is the
deb-multimedia (backports) package. If priorities differ, the package with
the highest priority will be installed, unless the lower priority package
is explicitely requested by the user.

So, if you don't pin down the priority of deb-multimedia, virtually every
audio- and video-related package on your system will be replaced with the
deb-multimedia version, which for the sake of stability is very likely a
bad idea. 
So it is safer to lower the priority of deb-multimedia and that of
deb-multimedia backports even a bit more, so that the official debian
packages remain the default, deb-multimedia packages the first
alternative if you actually want/need a newer version or a version with
some extra features and deb-multimedia backports the last choice if you
really, really need that version.

But please beware: blindly installing too many of these can easily mess
with apt's dependencies and cause nasty situations ("dependency hell")

> In other words, should I stick to aptitude's decision?

I really recommend to do the pinning first, then re-run

$ apt update

and then look again what is suggested when you call apt-get upgrade or
aptitude safe-upgrade.
I have a hunch that probably there won't be much to upgrade anymore.

And as someone else pointed out, apt-get upgrade will not always install
the latest kernel and possibly other things you would want to keep up to
date, so you might wnat to consider to just use apt-get dist-upgrade
instead, which in my experience with a properly configured debian stable
system should not cause any problems.


Regards

Michael


.-.. .. ...- .   .-.. --- -. --.   .- -. -..   .--. .-. --- ... .--. . .-.

You're too beautiful to ignore.  Too much woman.
-- Kirk to Yeoman Rand, "The Enemy Within", stardate
unknown

Re: Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

[R. Ramesh]

To resolve this, you might consider to create a file
like e.g. /etc/apt/preferences.d/multimedia .

Here the content of that file looks like:

Package: *
Pin: release o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages,n=buster
Pin-Priority: 332

Package: *
Pin: release o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages,n=buster-backports
Pin-Priority: 331


Michael,

  Thanks for explaining why the difference exists. However, I do not 
know what these two rules mean to upgrade decisions.  So, I ask the 
following based on sources.list lines.



with the respective entries in my sources.list:

debhttp://www.deb-multimedia.org    buster main 
non-free
debhttp://www.deb-multimedia.org    
buster-backports main non-free

I have these exact lines in my sources.list also. I thought we have 
backports so that we can get the newer version of packages. For example, 
buster multimedia has mythtv 0.30 and backports has mythtv 0.31 (the 
last time I checked). I have installed 0.31 in my system (using -t 
stable-backports, I think) as my frontend need to be compatible with 
backend that runs mythtv 0.31 (on xubuntu 20.04). In that case, would 
the above pinning rule prevent proper upgrade as it puts backports at a 
lower priority? (I assume that is what your pinning rules imply unless 
priorities are increased with lower numerical value)


In other words, should I stick to aptitude's decision?

Why priority 331 and 332? Why not some other two with same relationship? 
Sorry, if I asked a simple question. I will be more than happy to read 
documentation, if I will find it there.


Regards
Ramesh

Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

[John Hasler]

Andrei writes:
> dpkg does its own dependency checking, in addition to APT (the
> software, not the command), and will prevent any inconsistencies
> unless you use one of the --force switches.

What it does not do is resolve dependencies.  Apt recursively resolves
dependencies, installing them as required. It also detects conflicts
and offers to resolve them as well as breaking loops.

Dpkg is safe but can be rather frustrating.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Du, 25 oct 20, 21:00:03, Joe wrote:
> 
> Synaptic, the GUI tool, is a front end to apt-get. All the apt tools
> are a front end to dpkg, which does all the work but does no dependency
> checking and is therefore not safe to be used directly.

dpkg does its own dependency checking, in addition to APT (the software, 
not the command), and will prevent any inconsistencies unless you use 
one of the --force switches.

In my opinion this is pretty safe ;)

APT, aptitude and others are more than just front ends to dpkg as they 
are also the ones working with your configured repositories.

> All of the tools have a 'safe' mode which is guaranteed not to remove
> packages. However, many upgrades do require the removal of some
> packages, so the safe mode will only get you so far in these cases.
> 
> If you are using Stable, there should never be any real problem in
> upgrading. 

'apt-get upgrade' is insufficient even on a stable system, e.g. due to 
the kernel package changing names, it's better to just use 'apt upgrade' 
(or 'aptitude safe-upgrade') instead.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

[Michael Lange]

Hi,

On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 17:53:16 -0500
"R. Ramesh"  wrote:

(...)

> Nothing fancy. Installed debian 10 from USB and added multi-media and 
> installed mythfrontend. That is all I have done.
> This is a NUC Pentium (N3700) box and not fancy at all.  Here is my
> kernel

(...)

> My apt-get/aptitude output showed clear differences between the two.
> So, I am not convinced about your claim that they should do the same
> thing on a stable release unless stable release itself was broken when 
> installing with debian-10.6.0-amd64-netinst.iso.

it looks like what happens here is that the upgrade would replace
installed versions of multimedia related packages from buster with those
from deb-multimedia. Obviously apt-get and aptitude do not agree how to
handle this situation. Installing those packages requires obviously to
replace for example libcdio18 with libcdio19, which apt-get won't do with
the "apt-get upgrade" command.
I believe that most likely the root of the problem is, that no
apt-pinning rule is defined for the deb-multimedia repo.

To resolve this, you might consider to create a file
like e.g. /etc/apt/preferences.d/multimedia .

Here the content of that file looks like:

Package: *
Pin: release o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages,n=buster
Pin-Priority: 332

Package: *
Pin: release o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages,n=buster-backports
Pin-Priority: 331

with the respective entries in my sources.list:

deb http://www.deb-multimedia.org buster main non-free
deb http://www.deb-multimedia.org buster-backports main non-free

This should ensure that no such "accidental" upgrades will occur.

Regards

Michael

.-.. .. ...- .   .-.. --- -. --.   .- -. -..   .--. .-. --- ... .--. . .-.

Lots of people drink from the wrong bottle sometimes.
-- Edith Keeler, "The City on the Edge of Forever",
   stardate unknown

Re: Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

[R. Ramesh]

To begin with, which distribution is it? In general, with Stable, it
pretty much doesn't matter which tool is used. The kind of problems you
have indicate Unstable or Testing.

First, apt is pretty much apt-get, with different syntax and a few
extra features. Aptitude can generally do a better job of resolving
'difficult' dependencies, but if used with a great many packages (>100)
is likely to be very slow. With more than about 500 packages to deal
with, it may grind to a halt. Don't use it on an Unstable which hasn't
been upgraded for six months. Don't use it for a version upgrade of
Stable, unless the release notes for the upgrade explicitly recommend
it.

Synaptic, the GUI tool, is a front end to apt-get. All the apt tools
are a front end to dpkg, which does all the work but does no dependency
checking and is therefore not safe to be used directly.

All of the tools have a 'safe' mode which is guaranteed not to remove
packages. However, many upgrades do require the removal of some
packages, so the safe mode will only get you so far in these cases.

If you are using Stable, there should never be any real problem in
upgrading. With Testing or Unstable, problems do occur, and you need to
be willing to understand and solve them. Generally, if you keep the
system up to date regularly, aptitude will usually do a good job.

With Unstable or Testing, it is often the case that new versions of a
few packages from a large related set become available before the rest.
The new packages will be mostly incompatible with the existing set, so
upgrading them will cause the removal of some of the rest of the set,
along with other applications which depend on them. If you see that
half your applications are about to be removed, say 'no'. If you do
this with apt-get or apt in safe mode, then packages will be 'held
back'. Aptitude full-upgrade will usually give you a number of options,
with decreasing numbers of removals proposed. If you keep declining
options, it will eventually get to 'keep everything as it is', but you
may find one of the options worth doing.

Generally time will sort this problem out, as the rest of the set is
released. It is usually possible to upgrade some packages which do not
include the problem ones. This can be done with any of the tools, but
on a graphical system I prefer Synaptic. Other methods may involve a lot
of typing.
My bad, I did not think releases mattered to figure out the 
differentiation between the two. I am on current stable release

installed within the last month. Here is my /etc/os-release

myth2 [rramesh] 102 > cat /etc/os-release
PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster)"
NAME="Debian GNU/Linux"
VERSION_ID="10"
VERSION="10 (buster)"
VERSION_CODENAME=buster
ID=debian
HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/";
SUPPORT_URL="https://www.debian.org/support";
BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/";
Nothing fancy. Installed debian 10 from USB and added multi-media and 
installed mythfrontend. That is all I have done.

This is a NUC Pentium (N3700) box and not fancy at all.  Here is my kernel

myth2 [rramesh] 104 > uname -a
Linux myth2 4.19.0-11-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.19.146-1 (2020-09-17) 
x86_64 GNU/Linux
My apt-get/aptitude output showed clear differences between the two. So, 
I am not convinced about your claim that they should do the same thing 
on a stable release unless stable release itself was broken when 
installing with debian-10.6.0-amd64-netinst.iso.


Regards
Ramesh

Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

[Joe]

On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 12:12:19 -0500
Ram Ramesh  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>    I am trying to upgrade the current setup and I am unable to 
> understand the differences between aptitude vs. apt-get usage.
> When I do apt-get -s upgrade, I get
> > myth2 [rramesh] 100 > sudo apt-get -s upgrade
> > Reading package lists... Done
> > Building dependency tree
> > Reading state information... Done
> > Calculating upgrade... Done
> > The following packages have been kept back:
> >   gstreamer1.0-gl gstreamer1.0-plugins-bad gstreamer1.0-plugins-base
> >   gstreamer1.0-plugins-good gstreamer1.0-plugins-ugly
> > libasound2-plugins libavcodec58 libavformat58 libavresample4
> > libavutil56 libchromaprint1 libgstreamer-gl1.0-0
> > libgstreamer-plugins-bad1.0-0 libgstreamer-plugins-base1.0-0
> > libswresample3 libswscale5 linux-image-amd64
> >   mythtv-frontend
> > 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 18 not upgraded.  
> Clearly nothing is  going to be done. However aptitude -s
> safe-upgrade shows that it will install these.
> > myth2 [rramesh] 101 > sudo aptitude -s safe-upgrade
> > Resolving dependencies...
> > The following NEW packages will be installed:
> >   libcdio19{a} libfaac0{a} libfdk-aac2{a} libilbc2{a} libkvazaar4{a}
> >   liblrdf0{a} libmfx1{a} libopenh264-5{a} libx264-157{a}
> > libx265-176{a} linux-image-4.19.0-12-amd64{a}
> > The following packages will be REMOVED:
> >   libcdio18{u} libcrystalhd3{u} libssh-gcrypt-4{u} libvpx5{u}
> >   libx264-155{u} libx265-165{u}
> > The following packages will be upgraded:
> >   gstreamer1.0-gl gstreamer1.0-plugins-bad gstreamer1.0-plugins-base
> >   gstreamer1.0-plugins-good gstreamer1.0-plugins-ugly
> > libasound2-plugins libavcodec58 libavformat58 libavresample4
> > libavutil56 libchromaprint1 libgstreamer-gl1.0-0
> > libgstreamer-plugins-bad1.0-0 libgstreamer-plugins-base1.0-0
> > libswresample3 libswscale5 linux-image-amd64
> > 17 packages upgraded, 11 newly installed, 6 to remove and 1 not
> > upgraded. Need to get 72.9 MB of archives. After unpacking 270 MB
> > will be used.
> >
> > Note: Using 'Simulate' mode.
> > Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]
> > Would download/install/remove packages.  
> This makes me wonder if it is better to use aptitude over apt-get.
> Why these differences?  What is the correct way to maintain a working
> system and still keep the system up to date.

To begin with, which distribution is it? In general, with Stable, it
pretty much doesn't matter which tool is used. The kind of problems you
have indicate Unstable or Testing.

First, apt is pretty much apt-get, with different syntax and a few
extra features. Aptitude can generally do a better job of resolving
'difficult' dependencies, but if used with a great many packages (>100)
is likely to be very slow. With more than about 500 packages to deal
with, it may grind to a halt. Don't use it on an Unstable which hasn't
been upgraded for six months. Don't use it for a version upgrade of
Stable, unless the release notes for the upgrade explicitly recommend
it.

Synaptic, the GUI tool, is a front end to apt-get. All the apt tools
are a front end to dpkg, which does all the work but does no dependency
checking and is therefore not safe to be used directly.

All of the tools have a 'safe' mode which is guaranteed not to remove
packages. However, many upgrades do require the removal of some
packages, so the safe mode will only get you so far in these cases.

If you are using Stable, there should never be any real problem in
upgrading. With Testing or Unstable, problems do occur, and you need to
be willing to understand and solve them. Generally, if you keep the
system up to date regularly, aptitude will usually do a good job.

With Unstable or Testing, it is often the case that new versions of a
few packages from a large related set become available before the rest.
The new packages will be mostly incompatible with the existing set, so
upgrading them will cause the removal of some of the rest of the set,
along with other applications which depend on them. If you see that
half your applications are about to be removed, say 'no'. If you do
this with apt-get or apt in safe mode, then packages will be 'held
back'. Aptitude full-upgrade will usually give you a number of options,
with decreasing numbers of removals proposed. If you keep declining
options, it will eventually get to 'keep everything as it is', but you
may find one of the options worth doing. 

Generally time will sort this problem out, as the rest of the set is
released. It is usually possible to upgrade some packages which do not
include the problem ones. This can be done with any of the tools, but
on a graphical system I prefer Synaptic. Other methods may involve a lot
of typing.

-- 
Joe

aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

[Ram Ramesh]

Hi,

  I am trying to upgrade the current setup and I am unable to 
understand the differences between aptitude vs. apt-get usage.

When I do apt-get -s upgrade, I get

myth2 [rramesh] 100 > sudo apt-get -s upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
  gstreamer1.0-gl gstreamer1.0-plugins-bad gstreamer1.0-plugins-base
  gstreamer1.0-plugins-good gstreamer1.0-plugins-ugly libasound2-plugins
  libavcodec58 libavformat58 libavresample4 libavutil56 libchromaprint1
  libgstreamer-gl1.0-0 libgstreamer-plugins-bad1.0-0
  libgstreamer-plugins-base1.0-0 libswresample3 libswscale5 
linux-image-amd64

  mythtv-frontend
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 18 not upgraded.
Clearly nothing is  going to be done. However aptitude -s safe-upgrade 
shows that it will install these.

myth2 [rramesh] 101 > sudo aptitude -s safe-upgrade
Resolving dependencies...
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  libcdio19{a} libfaac0{a} libfdk-aac2{a} libilbc2{a} libkvazaar4{a}
  liblrdf0{a} libmfx1{a} libopenh264-5{a} libx264-157{a} libx265-176{a}
  linux-image-4.19.0-12-amd64{a}
The following packages will be REMOVED:
  libcdio18{u} libcrystalhd3{u} libssh-gcrypt-4{u} libvpx5{u}
  libx264-155{u} libx265-165{u}
The following packages will be upgraded:
  gstreamer1.0-gl gstreamer1.0-plugins-bad gstreamer1.0-plugins-base
  gstreamer1.0-plugins-good gstreamer1.0-plugins-ugly libasound2-plugins
  libavcodec58 libavformat58 libavresample4 libavutil56 libchromaprint1
  libgstreamer-gl1.0-0 libgstreamer-plugins-bad1.0-0
  libgstreamer-plugins-base1.0-0 libswresample3 libswscale5
  linux-image-amd64
17 packages upgraded, 11 newly installed, 6 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
Need to get 72.9 MB of archives. After unpacking 270 MB will be used.

Note: Using 'Simulate' mode.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]
Would download/install/remove packages.
This makes me wonder if it is better to use aptitude over apt-get. Why 
these differences?  What is the correct way to maintain a working system 
and still keep the system up to date.


Regards
Ramesh

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;-)

apt-get upgrade problem on Jessie

[rh kramer]

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.

I've been ignoring it, hoping it would go away with some future update, but
so far it hasn't.

The (edited) error message is shown below.  Suggestions?  I'm a little
afraid to reboot the machine at this point.

The real issue (afaict) is the:

Errors were encountered while processing:
 linux-image-3.16.0-7-amd64
 linux-image-amd64
 initramfs-tools


I see two sort of possibilities from reading the errors the first doesn't
seem possible -- I'm out of space on stdout??

And, if it has to do with those missing drivers / firmware, why did this
only start happening 2 or 3 months ago.  I don't even know if I have any
hardware that needs those drivers -- let me see, I guess I can do an lsmod
...

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

r8169  68066  0

Are these missing drivers the proprietary ones?  (AFAIR, when I did the
install, I did not install or attempt to install proprietary drivers,
although that may have been 4 years ago.

Is that the problem?  If so, what do I do about it?



root@s31:~# apt-get upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done

 

Setting up poppler-utils (0.26.5-2+deb8u7) ...
Setting up sndfile-programs (1.0.25-9.1+deb8u2) ...
Processing triggers for initramfs-tools (0.120+deb8u3) ...
update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-3.16.0-6-amd64
W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/rtl_nic/rtl8168g-3.fw for module
r8169
W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/rtl_nic/rtl8168g-2.fw for module
r8169
W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/rtl_nic/rtl8106e-2.fw for module
r8169
W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/rtl_nic/rtl8106e-1.fw for module
r8169
W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/rtl_nic/rtl8411-2.fw for module
r8169
W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/rtl_nic/rtl8411-1.fw for module
r8169
W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/rtl_nic/rtl8402-1.fw for module
r8169
W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/rtl_nic/rtl8168f-2.fw for module
r8169
W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/rtl_nic/rtl8105e-1.fw for module
r8169
W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/rtl_nic/rtl8168e-3.fw for module
r8169
W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/rtl_nic/rtl8168e-2.fw for module
r8169
W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/rtl_nic/rtl8168e-1.fw for module
r8169
W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/rtl_nic/rtl8168d-2.fw for module
r8169
W: Possible missing firmware /lib/firmware/rtl_nic/rtl8168d-1.fw for module
r8169

gzip: stdout: No space left on device
E: mkinitramfs failure cpio 141 gzip 1
update-initramfs: failed for /boot/initrd.img-3.16.0-6-amd64 with 1.
dpkg: error processing package initramfs-tools (--configure):
 subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.19-18+deb8u10) ...
Errors were encountered while processing:
 linux-image-3.16.0-7-amd64
 linux-image-amd64
 initramfs-tools
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
root@s31:~#

Re: Buster Apt-Get Upgrade removed Group "nobody".

[Sven Joachim]

On 2018-11-21 10:25 -0500, Kenneth Parker wrote:

> I saw that message scroll by, during the processing of the Upgrade.
>
> I guess my question is, where did that come from, and why?

Previous versions of systemd used to create it, a mistake that has just
been corrected:

,
| systemd (239-12) unstable; urgency=high
| 
|   [ Martin Pitt ]
|   * Fix wrong "nobody" group from sysusers.d.
| Fix our make-sysusers-basic sysusers.d generator to special-case the
| nobody group. "nobody" user and "nogroup" group both have the same ID
| 65534, which is the only special case for Debian's static users/groups.
| So specify the gid explicitly, to avoid systemd-sysusers creating a
| dynamic system group for "nobody".
`

So, nothing to worry about.

Cheers,
   Sven

Buster Apt-Get Upgrade removed Group "nobody".

[Kenneth Parker]

I saw that message scroll by, during the processing of the Upgrade.

I guess my question is, where did that come from, and why?

(I thought that "Nobody" was set up, to give "little or no" Privileges to
something "Automagic").

Thank you!

Kenneth Parker

Error! Bad dkms.conf file after apt-get upgrade

[Larry Dighera]

Hello all,
After running 'apt-get install upgrade' the system reported the data below.
How can I overcome this issue?  

Is it just a matter of loading a proper dkms.conf file, perhaps from another 
Stretch installation, or is there an official dkms.conf file that I can 
download somewhere, or is it a matter of removing the dkms package and 
reinstalling it, or repairing/reinstalling it?

I am grateful for any assistance/insight into this issue you are able to 
provide.  ADVthanksANCE.
Best regards,Larry

===
Fri Aug 11 08:26:01 PDT 2017

Setting up linux-image-4.9.0-3-amd64 (4.9.30-2+deb9u3) ...
Progress: [ 89%]
/etc/kernel/postinst.d/dkms:
/usr/sbin/dkms: line 485: .: /var/lib/dkms/rtl8814/4.3.21/source/dkms.conf: 
cannot execute binary file
dkms.conf: Error! No 'DEST_MODULE_LOCATION' directive specified.
dkms.conf: Error! No 'PACKAGE_NAME' directive specified.
dkms.conf: Error! No 'PACKAGE_VERSION' directive specified.
Error! Bad conf file.
File:
does not represent a valid dkms.conf file.
run-parts: /etc/kernel/postinst.d/dkms exited with return code 8
dpkg: error processing package linux-image-4.9.0-3-amd64 (--configure):
 subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
Processing triggers for hicolor-icon-theme (0.15-1) ...
Progress: [ 90%]
Setting up git (1:2.11.0-3+deb9u1) ...
Progress: [ 92%]
Progress: [ 93%]
Setting up linux-headers-4.9.0-3-amd64 (4.9.30-2+deb9u3) ...
Progress: [ 95%]
/etc/kernel/header_postinst.d/dkms:
/usr/sbin/dkms: line 485: .: /var/lib/dkms/rtl8814/4.3.21/source/dkms.conf: 
cannot execute binary file
dkms.conf: Error! No 'DEST_MODULE_LOCATION' directive specified.
dkms.conf: Error! No 'PACKAGE_NAME' directive specified.
dkms.conf: Error! No 'PACKAGE_VERSION' directive specified.
Error! Bad conf file.
File:
does not represent a valid dkms.conf file.
run-parts: /etc/kernel/header_postinst.d/dkms exited with return code 8
Failed to process /etc/kernel/header_postinst.d at 
/var/lib/dpkg/info/linux-headers-4.9.0-3-amd64.postinst line 11.
dpkg: error processing package linux-headers-4.9.0-3-amd64 (--configure):
 subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
Errors were encountered while processing:
 linux-image-4.9.0-3-amd64
 linux-headers-4.9.0-3-amd64
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)


Upgrade Debian system before continuing (apt-get install dist-upgrade) [Y/n]? ^[
Reading package lists...
Building dependency tree...
Reading state information...
Calculating upgrade...
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
2 not fully installed or removed.
After this operation, 0 B of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n]
Setting up linux-headers-4.9.0-3-amd64 (4.9.30-2+deb9u3) ...
Progress: [  0%]
/etc/kernel/header_postinst.d/dkms:
/usr/sbin/dkms: line 485: .: /var/lib/dkms/rtl8814/4.3.21/source/dkms.conf: 
cannot execute binary file
dkms.conf: Error! No 'DEST_MODULE_LOCATION' directive specified.
dkms.conf: Error! No 'PACKAGE_NAME' directive specified.
dkms.conf: Error! No 'PACKAGE_VERSION' directive specified.
Error! Bad conf file.
File:
does not represent a valid dkms.conf file.
run-parts: /etc/kernel/header_postinst.d/dkms exited with return code 8
Failed to process /etc/kernel/header_postinst.d at 
/var/lib/dpkg/info/linux-headers-4.9.0-3-amd64.postinst line 11.
dpkg: error processing package linux-headers-4.9.0-3-amd64 (--configure):
 subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
Setting up linux-image-4.9.0-3-amd64 (4.9.30-2+deb9u3) ...
/etc/kernel/postinst.d/dkms:
/usr/sbin/dkms: line 485: .: /var/lib/dkms/rtl8814/4.3.21/source/dkms.conf: 
cannot execute binary file
dkms.conf: Error! No 'DEST_MODULE_LOCATION' directive specified.
dkms.conf: Error! No 'PACKAGE_NAME' directive specified.
dkms.conf: Error! No 'PACKAGE_VERSION' directive specified.
Error! Bad conf file.
File:
does not represent a valid dkms.conf file.
run-parts: /etc/kernel/postinst.d/dkms exited with return code 8
dpkg: error processing package linux-image-4.9.0-3-amd64 (--configure):
 subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
Errors were encountered while processing:
 linux-headers-4.9.0-3-amd64
 linux-image-4.9.0-3-amd64
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code 
(1)===

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 vs apt-get [Was: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?]

[Fungi4All]

> Op 20-07-17 om 18:58 schreef Fungi4All:
>> Does it matter what we all think, even if agree or it matters what
>> the manual of the package says. In my installation this is manual
>> I found, it says apt all over the place, meanwhile there is apt-get
>> package to install. /usr/share/man/man8/apt-get.8.gz
>>
>> In my repositories the only mention of apt-get is in cron-apt
>> and its dependency says apt. Its description says:
>> automatic update of packages using apt-get
>> There is also apt-utils, dep apt, apt-get not mentioned
> What are you on about? Are you even aware of what this set of tools
> actually is? You certainly make it sound like you aren"t.
> Apart from a number of packages with related utilities, there has only
> ever been a package called apt. So that"s what people refer to. You
> won"t find an apt-get or apt-cache package. Those are just executables
> provided by the apt package.
> Until (faily) recently, the apt package had no executable called apt.
> Look at the apt manpage. Among other things, it mentions what this "new"
> executable was created for. And this bit is particularly interesting:
> All features of apt(8) are available in dedicated APT tools like apt-
> get(8) and apt-cache(8) as well. apt(8) just changes the default value
> of some options (see apt.conf(5) and specifically the Binary scope).
> So you should prefer using these commands (potentially with some
> additional options enabled) in your scripts as they keep backward
> compatibility as much as possible.
> In other words, by all means use apt on the command line, just don"t do
> it in scripts. That ought to tell you something.

It told me, all I needed to know. Thanks!

Re: Apt vs apt-get [Was: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?]

[Frank]

Op 20-07-17 om 18:58 schreef Fungi4All:

Does it matter what we all think, even if agree or it matters what
the manual of the package says.  In my installation this is manual
I found, it says apt all over the place, meanwhile there is apt-get
package to install.  /usr/share/man/man8/apt-get.8.gz

In my repositories the only mention of apt-get is in cron-apt
and its dependency says apt.  Its description says:
automatic update of packages using apt-get
There is also apt-utils, dep apt, apt-get not mentioned


What are you on about? Are you even aware of what this set of tools 
actually is? You certainly make it sound like you aren't.


Apart from a number of packages with related utilities, there has only 
ever been a package called apt. So that's what people refer to. You 
won't find an apt-get or apt-cache package. Those are just executables 
provided by the apt package.


Until (faily) recently, the apt package had no executable called apt. 
Look at the apt manpage. Among other things, it mentions what this 'new' 
executable was created for. And this bit is particularly interesting:


  All features of apt(8) are available in dedicated APT tools like apt-
  get(8) and apt-cache(8) as well. apt(8) just changes the default value
  of some options (see apt.conf(5) and specifically the Binary scope).
  So you should prefer using these commands (potentially with some
  additional options enabled) in your scripts as they keep backward
  compatibility as much as possible.

In other words, by all means use apt on the command line, just don't do 
it in scripts. That ought to tell you something.

Re: Apt vs apt-get [Was: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?]

[Fungi4All]

> From: deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Agreed. I was beginning to despair of this list while reading through
> this thread. But we seem to live in times when evidence matters less
> and less, and assertion more and more.
> Sorry about the politics. Anyway, AFAICT according to the Release
> Notes, apt-get is preferred over aptitude for the upgrade from
> jessie to stretch (where this is relevant); according to the
> Installation Manual, apt is the tool of choice, though no preference
> is expressed over apt-get which is not mentioned.

Does it matter what we all think, even if agree or it matters what
the manual of the package says. In my installation this is manual
I found, it says apt all over the place, meanwhile there is apt-get
package to install. /usr/share/man/man8/apt-get.8.gz
In my repositories the only mention of apt-get is in cron-apt
and its dependency says apt. Its description says:
automatic update of packages using apt-get
There is also apt-utils, dep apt, apt-get not mentioned
Aptitude is recommended by apt.
If a script in /usr/bin said apt-get = apt would you still use it?
Or I could call it pacman or yogurt or apt-get-from-2-decades-ago
Nevertheless, the data showed there can be some difference
still between the one and the other, in rare occassions like 2
different sid installations of similar packages and similar amd64
machines. How 'bout them apples?

Re: Apt vs apt-get [Was: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?]

[David Wright]

On Thu 20 Jul 2017 at 21:21:08 (+1000), Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 20.07.17 03:27, Felix Miata wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Ah, yes, "I had a dream ... that my preference was ordained from upon
> high." That's the source of all sorts of bunkum.

Agreed. I was beginning to despair of this list while reading through
this thread. But we seem to live in times when evidence matters less
and less, and assertion more and more.

Sorry about the politics. Anyway, AFAICT according to the Release
Notes, apt-get is preferred over aptitude for the upgrade from
jessie to stretch (where this is relevant); according to the
Installation Manual, apt is the tool of choice, though no preference
is expressed over apt-get which is not mentioned.

There is one wrinkle here, however, and it might easily be overlooked:
apt now¹ removes packages from the cache after their successful
installation, whereas apt-get's behaviour is unchanged. This could
explain some people's complaints of losing debs over recent months.
I almost missed this because grepping on "clean" doesn't catch it
as it's not a clean, only a selective removal.

> I've used apt-get for decades, across ubuntu and debian, and it has
> always worked for me. It is amusing to observe pedants furiously
> peddling their own preference, not least when some vague "authority" is
> claimed. Even if it was a bunch of drunk virgins, naked under moonlight
> (whether devs or not), their preference is only their preference.
> 
> The rest of us use what we choose, and it is foolish to attempt to
> impose one's will on others. (Not least when one has no idea why. ;-)

¹closing a 15-year-old "bug". man apt   warns of the possibility of
changes between versions, unlike apt-get which is designed to be
more stable and hence scriptable.

Cheers,
David.

Apt vs apt-get [Was: Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?]

[Erik Christiansen]

On 20.07.17 03:27, Felix Miata wrote:
> 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.

Ah, yes, "I had a dream ... that my preference was ordained from upon
high." That's the source of all sorts of bunkum.

I've used apt-get for decades, across ubuntu and debian, and it has
always worked for me. It is amusing to observe pedants furiously
peddling their own preference, not least when some vague "authority" is
claimed. Even if it was a bunch of drunk virgins, naked under moonlight
(whether devs or not), their preference is only their preference.

The rest of us use what we choose, and it is foolish to attempt to
impose one's will on others. (Not least when one has no idea why. ;-)

Erik

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

Apt-get Upgrade Problem in Stretch?

[Patrick Bartek]

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  

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

apt-get upgrade problem

[Mike McClain]

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."

Re: X not working after apt-get upgrade on sid

[Alex Moonshine]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 02:44:10 + (UTC)
John DeVito  wrote:

> I ran into an issue today where X is not working after andupgrade of
> Stretch.  The pervasive errorI am seeing is related to dbus-core.
> Xorg.0.log says ... Failed to connect to
> socket /var/run/dbus/system_bus_socket.  Manual attempts to navigate
> to that directory shows that /var/run exists, but the dbus directory
> is not below 'run'.  If I try to run startx it briefly brings up the
> initial screen but then X crashes and results in a command prompt
> environment again.  I am also getting errors when trying to use apt,
> saying that no sources can be resolved.  Seems like this latest round
> of updates really introduced some issues.

1. Your subject says sid and in the message you say stretch. Which one
did you upgrade?

2. Do you have systemd intalled? There was a recent update to
xorg-server in sid, which makes it run under a regular user instead of
root, so now it relies on logind. If you do not have systemd installed,
you need to install xserver-xorg-legacy, which contains the setuid
wrapper used to run X as root (as before). 

Of course, your apt problem can't be related to this upgrade.

-- 
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

Best wishes,
Alex S.

Re: X not working after apt-get upgrade on sid

[James Richardson]

Sven Joachim writes:

> On 2015-10-09 22:24 +0200, James Richardson wrote:
>
>> I just did an apt-get upgrade, rebooted, then X would start but without
>> any keyboard or mouse.
>>

[snip]
>
> Actually, if you were running systemd, logind would grant access to the
> input devices.  Since this is apparently not what you want, your best
> bet is probably to install the xserver-xorg-legacy package which now
> contains the setuid wrapper.
>

I will look at xserver-xorg-legacy.

> Adding users to the input group is not recommended, since you don't want
> users who are logged in remotely via SSH to snoop on your keyboard.
>

Good point.

--
James

apt-get upgrade --with-new-pkgs (was ... Re: Can't reinstall all Jessie packages.)

[Chris Bannister]

On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 09:38:39PM -0400, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
> 
> Ah, nice catch... "--reinstall". I've used that *in desperate moments*
> of things not gelling together. I never had problems with it, but I
> can't say that I ever used it on apt.

Another one I've seen recently is:

apt-get upgrade --with-new-pkgs

So, e.g. to make upgrading easier:

apt-get update
apt-get upgrade
apt-get upgrade --with-new-pkgs
apt-get dist-upgrade

It allows a finer control on the upgrade process, and therefore, IMHO,
less chance for something to go wrong, but on the chance that something
does go wrong the error message should be a lot clearer and not
surrounded by spam. 

-- 
"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

Re: X not working after apt-get upgrade on sid

[Cindy-Sue Causey]

On 10/9/15, Joe  wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 16:24:31 -0400
> James Richardson  wrote:
>
>> I just did an apt-get upgrade, rebooted, then X would start but
>> without any keyboard or mouse.
>
> This has a serious bug (798097) linked to logind, which may be also
> responsible for your problem:
>
>> [44.668] xorg-server 2:1.17.2-3
>
> The previous xserver-xorg-core version is 2:1.17.2-1.1, which I'm still
> running successfully.
>
> xorg 1:7.7+12 is currently marked as uninstallable, I'm still on
> 1:7.7+9, the same for xserver-xorg.
>
> I have apt-listbugs installed, which warns of serious bugs before
> carrying out upgrades.


This is so weird how these work and don't. I just installed/upgraded
xorg (from 7.7+9 to 7.7+12) earlier today. Rebooted because things
were kind of sluggish and didn't run into any problems... *that
time*..

Found another anomaly that I noted to myself couple days ago (and have
since "misplaced") regarding upgrades and how amazingly different each
*_CHOICE_* we make in the process can make things...

Re apt-listbugs, THANK YOU!! You just saved me having to dig through a
ton of notes looking for precisely that tidbit. Had forgotten about it
then remembered couple days ago when reportbug offered a current list
of open bugs for a package..

Seems like I commented somewhere a while back that apt-listbugs is a
nice tool for getting more airtime for existing bugs that maybe
over time it helps inspire people to get involved somehow through
repeated exposure to Debian's issues... and also that existing,
knowledgeable Devs might incidentally see something pending that they
have just the right experience to help fix on the spot now that they
are aware it needs... fixed.

Something like that, anyway.. :)

Cindy

-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* listening to the rhythm of the falling rain *

Re: X not working after apt-get upgrade on sid

[Michael Biebl]

Am 09.10.2015 um 23:48 schrieb Sven Joachim:
> Actually, if you were running systemd, logind would grant access to the
> input devices.  Since this is apparently not what you want, your best
> bet is probably to install the xserver-xorg-legacy package which now
> contains the setuid wrapper.

Right. A huge benefit of using logind is that X no longer requires root
privileges but runs as the user starting the X session.

Michael

-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: X not working after apt-get upgrade on sid

[Sven Joachim]

On 2015-10-09 22:24 +0200, James Richardson wrote:

> I just did an apt-get upgrade, rebooted, then X would start but without
> any keyboard or mouse.
>
> I am writing this to perhaps help the next person that runs into this. I
> am also open to suggestions for action items to take away to possible
> raise a bug report.
>
> I may have missed a changelog, but apparently there is now a new group
> called input, of which a user running X must be a member.

The group isn't so new actually, it has been there since udev 214-1.
What's new is that the X server by default is no longer installed with a
suid wrapper which grants access to input devices, among other things.

> Don't know if a bug should be raised against a package (udev? maybe) or
> a Readme updated or if I just run an unsupported configuration.
>
> My configuration is (probably) strange in that:
> 1. I use runit for my init process.
> 2. I have much of systemd and sysV purged and blocked from being
> install.
> 3. I start X from the CLI via startx
> 4. I run fluxbox and no proper DE.
>
> Perhaps running a systemd/gnome config would cause debconf to ask about
> adding users to the input group.

Actually, if you were running systemd, logind would grant access to the
input devices.  Since this is apparently not what you want, your best
bet is probably to install the xserver-xorg-legacy package which now
contains the setuid wrapper.

Adding users to the input group is not recommended, since you don't want
users who are logged in remotely via SSH to snoop on your keyboard.

Cheers,
   Sven

Re: X not working after apt-get upgrade on sid

[Joe]

On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 16:24:31 -0400
James Richardson  wrote:

> I just did an apt-get upgrade, rebooted, then X would start but
> without any keyboard or mouse.
> 

This has a serious bug (798097) linked to logind, which may be also
responsible for your problem:

> [44.668] xorg-server 2:1.17.2-3

The previous xserver-xorg-core version is 2:1.17.2-1.1, which I'm still
running successfully.

xorg 1:7.7+12 is currently marked as uninstallable, I'm still on
1:7.7+9, the same for xserver-xorg.

I have apt-listbugs installed, which warns of serious bugs before
carrying out upgrades.

-- 
Joe

X not working after apt-get upgrade on sid

[James Richardson]

I just did an apt-get upgrade, rebooted, then X would start but without
any keyboard or mouse.

I am writing this to perhaps help the next person that runs into this. I
am also open to suggestions for action items to take away to possible
raise a bug report.

I may have missed a changelog, but apparently there is now a new group
called input, of which a user running X must be a member.

Don't know if a bug should be raised against a package (udev? maybe) or
a Readme updated or if I just run an unsupported configuration.

My configuration is (probably) strange in that:
1. I use runit for my init process.
2. I have much of systemd and sysV purged and blocked from being
install.
3. I start X from the CLI via startx
4. I run fluxbox and no proper DE.

Perhaps running a systemd/gnome config would cause debconf to ask about
adding users to the input group.

I'm include my Xorg.0.log file in case that helps someone (which also
has moved to $HOME/.local/share/xorg instead of $HOME)

The lines like "^.*(EE) evdev.*Unable to open evdev device was what led
me to sort out I needed to add my user to the input group.

[44.668] 
X.Org X Server 1.17.2
Release Date: 2015-06-16
[44.668] X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0
[44.668] Build Operating System: Linux 4.2.0-1-amd64 x86_64 Debian
[44.668] Current Operating System: Linux weasel 4.2.0-1-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 
4.2.3-1 (2015-10-06) x86_64
[44.668] Kernel command line: BOOT_IMAGE=/boot/vmlinuz-4.2.0-1-amd64 
root=/dev/mapper/vg00-root ro quiet
[44.668] Build Date: 06 October 2015  07:27:47AM
[44.668] xorg-server 2:1.17.2-3 (http://www.debian.org/support) 
[44.668] Current version of pixman: 0.33.2
[44.668]Before reporting problems, check http://wiki.x.org
to make sure that you have the latest version.
[44.668] Markers: (--) probed, (**) from config file, (==) default setting,
(++) from command line, (!!) notice, (II) informational,
(WW) warning, (EE) error, (NI) not implemented, (??) unknown.
[44.669] (==) Log file: "/home/james/.local/share/xorg/Xorg.0.log", Time: 
Fri Oct  9 15:07:48 2015
[44.673] (==) Using system config directory "/usr/share/X11/xorg.conf.d"
[44.674] (==) No Layout section.  Using the first Screen section.
[44.674] (==) No screen section available. Using defaults.
[44.674] (**) |-->Screen "Default Screen Section" (0)
[44.674] (**) |   |-->Monitor ""
[44.676] (==) No monitor specified for screen "Default Screen Section".
Using a default monitor configuration.
[44.676] (==) Automatically adding devices
[44.676] (==) Automatically enabling devices
[44.676] (==) Automatically adding GPU devices
[44.678] (WW) The directory "/usr/share/fonts/X11/cyrillic" does not exist.
[44.678]Entry deleted from font path.
[44.681] (WW) The directory "/usr/share/fonts/X11/75dpi/" does not exist.
[44.681]Entry deleted from font path.
[44.682] (WW) The directory "/usr/share/fonts/X11/75dpi" does not exist.
[44.682]Entry deleted from font path.
[44.682] (==) FontPath set to:
/usr/share/fonts/X11/misc,
/usr/share/fonts/X11/100dpi/:unscaled,
/usr/share/fonts/X11/Type1,
/usr/share/fonts/X11/100dpi,
built-ins
[44.682] (==) ModulePath set to "/usr/lib/xorg/modules"
[44.682] (II) The server relies on udev to provide the list of input 
devices.
If no devices become available, reconfigure udev or disable 
AutoAddDevices.
[44.682] (II) Loader magic: 0x563b25fb3de0
[44.682] (II) Module ABI versions:
[44.682]X.Org ANSI C Emulation: 0.4
[44.682]X.Org Video Driver: 19.0
[44.682]X.Org XInput driver : 21.0
[44.682]X.Org Server Extension : 9.0
[44.684] (EE) systemd-logind: failed to get session: The name 
org.freedesktop.login1 was not provided by any .service files
[44.685] (II) xfree86: Adding drm device (/dev/dri/card0)
[44.689] (--) PCI:*(0:1:0:0) 10de:0dfa:17aa:21cf rev 161, Mem @ 
0xd200/16777216, 0xc000/268435456, 0xd000/33554432, I/O @ 
0x5000/128, BIOS @ 0x/524288
[44.690] (II) LoadModule: "glx"
[44.691] (II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/extensions/libglx.so
[44.709] (II) Module glx: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
[44.709]compiled for 1.17.2, module version = 1.0.0
[44.709]ABI class: X.Org Server Extension, version 9.0
[44.709] (==) AIGLX enabled
[44.709] (==) Matched nouveau as autoconfigured driver 0
[44.709] (==) Matched nv as autoconfigured driver 1
[44.709] (==) Matched nouveau as autoconfigured driver 2
[44.709] (==) Matched nv as autoconfigured driver 3
[44.709] (==) Matched modesetting as autoconfigured driver 4
[44.709] (==) Matched fbdev as autoconfigured driver 5
[44.709] (==) Matched vesa as autoconfigu

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

apt-get upgrade fails on custom repository

[Stefano Pugnetti]

Hi all!

I subscribed to the list 'cause I could not solve my problem with google
(and all the relevant Debian documentation I could find...).

I have created a local repository for distributing software inside my
local network. I wanted to secure the process, so I opted for a
hierarchical structure (dists/my-dist/my-component/binary-my-arch), a
dists/Release file and its gpg dists/Release.gpg signature.

On the client side I added a .list file to /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ with
just one line:
deb uri-of-my-repo my-dist my-component

When I launch `sudo apt-get upgrade`, the Release and Release.gpg files
are correctly downloaded into /var/lib/apt/lists/, but I get an error
"Unable to find expected entry my-component/binary-my-arch/Packages in
Release file" (my-dist, my-component and my-arch are not the actual
names; actual names are lowercase, only letters).

However the Release file does contain a line with the md5sum of the
Packages file, its length in bytes and its name (including path:
my-component/binary-my-arch/Packages). Moreover the Package file can be
downloaded from the repository (I tried with wget on the client). If I
manually copy the Packages file in /var/lib/apt/lists/ (with a name that
includes its path, like other files in that dir), everything works fine.

I don't understand what is the point. Any idea?

Thanks,

Stefano

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 
 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  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  
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  wrote:

Hi,
>
>I was wondering why an "apt-get upgrade"on 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  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 
> 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  wrote:
>
> Hi,
> >
> >I was wondering why an "apt-get upgrade"on 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]

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  
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  wrote:

Hi,
>
>I was wondering why an "apt-get upgrade"on 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,

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  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I was wondering why an "apt-get upgrade"on 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
>
>

apt-get upgrade: packages have been kept back

[ML mail]

Hi,

I was wondering why an "apt-get upgrade"on 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: how to force a "hold" on a missing package during an apt-get upgrade

[Bob Proulx]

Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 21.03.2015 um 17:36 schrieb tandread:
> > but a later "apt-get --ignore-missing" insists
> > on fetching what mysql-* was dpkg-purged
> > 
> > I have tried a semi-fix of getting a
> > "--get-selections", adding the purged packages
> > as "hold" and doing a "--set-selections",
> > but it has side effects (all mysql dependent
> > packages get uninstalled in the apt-get upgrade)
> 
> A simpler way then using --get and --set selections is
> 
> apt-mark hold|unhold 

Since the user wants to remove a package that other packages depend
upon holding doesn't help very much.  A dead end.

As Liam wrote the usual answer is to use the 'equivs' package to
create a dummy package to hold the dependency for anything that is
compiled and installed locally.

Alternatively create a full replacement package.  Starting from the
Debian package and modifying it isn't usually very difficult.  But if
you just want to cut it loose and do the upstream thing directly
through 'make install' then creating an equivs package is the way to go.

Bob


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: how to force a "hold" on a missing package during an apt-get upgrade

[Liam O'Toole]

On 2015-03-21, tandread  wrote:
> dear debian users,
>
> I really need to have a program compiled from source
> (that is, a src dir, not a debian source package)
> Let's say, the mysql server source distribution
>
> I can remove the mysql-* deb packages  with
> "dpkg --purge --force-depends"
> (I know this causes dangling lib*.so dependencies,
> but they will be fixed after the mysql src
> compilation)
>
> but a later "apt-get --ignore-missing" insists
> on fetching what mysql-* was dpkg-purged
>
> I have tried a semi-fix of getting a
> "--get-selections", adding the purged packages
> as "hold" and doing a "--set-selections",
> but it has side effects (all mysql dependent
> packages get uninstalled in the apt-get upgrade)
>
> So, is there a way to for "apt-get upgrade"
> to keep ignoring broken dependencies caused
> by "dpkg --force-depends --purge"?
>
>
> thanks for any answer
>
>

The 'equivs' package might be the way forward. From its description:
"Another use is to circumvent dependency checking: by letting dpkg think
a particular package name and version is installed when it isn't"

-- 

Liam



-- 
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/slrnmgrjkq.upc.liam.p.otoole@dipsy.tubbynet

Re: how to force a "hold" on a missing package during an apt-get upgrade

[Michael Biebl]

Am 21.03.2015 um 17:36 schrieb tandread:
> dear debian users,
> 
> I really need to have a program compiled from source
> (that is, a src dir, not a debian source package)
> Let's say, the mysql server source distribution
> 
> I can remove the mysql-* deb packages  with
> "dpkg --purge --force-depends"
> (I know this causes dangling lib*.so dependencies,
> but they will be fixed after the mysql src
> compilation)
> 
> but a later "apt-get --ignore-missing" insists
> on fetching what mysql-* was dpkg-purged
> 
> I have tried a semi-fix of getting a
> "--get-selections", adding the purged packages
> as "hold" and doing a "--set-selections",
> but it has side effects (all mysql dependent
> packages get uninstalled in the apt-get upgrade)

A simpler way then using --get and --set selections is

apt-mark hold|unhold 





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

how to force a "hold" on a missing package during an apt-get upgrade

[tandread]

dear debian users,

I really need to have a program compiled from source
(that is, a src dir, not a debian source package)
Let's say, the mysql server source distribution

I can remove the mysql-* deb packages  with
"dpkg --purge --force-depends"
(I know this causes dangling lib*.so dependencies,
but they will be fixed after the mysql src
compilation)

but a later "apt-get --ignore-missing" insists
on fetching what mysql-* was dpkg-purged

I have tried a semi-fix of getting a
"--get-selections", adding the purged packages
as "hold" and doing a "--set-selections",
but it has side effects (all mysql dependent
packages get uninstalled in the apt-get upgrade)

So, is there a way to for "apt-get upgrade"
to keep ignoring broken dependencies caused
by "dpkg --force-depends --purge"?


thanks for any answer


--
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/550d9e14.6060...@otenet.gr

apt-get upgrade sometimes needs -f

[songbird]

  i'm running testing/sid most of the time, this is an
FYI in case you see similar problems...


  the past few weeks/months when i do:

apt-get update

  and then the

 apt-get upgrade

and answer Y the responses may include lines like:

  E: Failed to fetch 
http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/l/lame/libmp3lame0_3.99.5+repack1-6_i386.deb
  404  Not Found [IP: 64.50.236.52 80]


  when i use the -f option after the upgrade like:

apt-get upgrade -f

  it will download these files and things work as 
expected.


  songbird


-- 
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/m85nqb-603@id-306963.user.uni-berlin.de

Re: Kernel fails to detect internal hard drives after routine apt-get upgrade

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Lu, 12 mai 14, 12:31:28, Pertti Kosunen wrote:
> On 12.5.2014 7:17, O wrote:
> >The output from dmesg is long.
> 
> You can dump it to http://pastebin.com/ .

I'd rather have it in the e-mail, otherwise the archives would not be 
much use unless some kind soul does the necessary copy-paste of the 
relevant parts.

A 'dmesg' dump on my laptop which has been running for six days is 74kB. 
That's roughly 15-20 seconds to download on a 56k dial-up line.

Rule of thumb: whenever possible an e-mail (any e-mail, not just posts 
to a mailing list) should be self-contained, without being too long/big 
(i.e. e-mail is not a file transfer medium).

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Kernel fails to detect internal hard drives after routine apt-get upgrade

[O]

Thank you Selim, Stan.

 I will instal apt-listbugs.  I clearly need it!

Unfortunately, I instead opted to install a backported kernel (3.13.x),
which was able to see and mount my drives.  But then, flgrx (ATI
proprietary graphics driver) was not being loaded by/in the kernel.  So I
tried to remove it, and this broke the package, so that I'm now in dpkg
hell.

I'm curious: is there a way to *only * install "security updates" in order
to avoid other kinds of "fixes" that can cause problems like this?

Having said that, I hasten to add: thank you everyone and thank you
Debian.  Debian stable has been free of major issues like this for 4 years.

O





On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:

> Dunno if you saw this or not.  Selim identifies the source of the
> problem below and possible fixes.  Read on.
>
> On 5/12/2014 5:52 PM, Selim T. Erdogan wrote:
> > O, 12.05.2014:
> >> Hi Stan et al.,
> >>
> >> Booting from the working kernel, I have dumped dmesg here:
> >>
> >> http://pastebin.com/MBTDfgc4
> >>
> >> I tried to save dmesg booting under the 3.2.0-4_amd64 kernel from within
> >> initramfs, to no avail (I cannot mount usb drives to save the
> information,
> >> and it does not see the network).  However, when I added "debug" to the
> >> kernel line in the boot command, I was at least able to see the system
> >> messages while the errors were happening.  Here is the relevant block of
> >> text, and sas is involved:
> >>
> >> ata7: sas eh calling libata port error handler
> >> sas: sas_ata_hard_reset: Unable to reset I T nexus?
> >> sas: sas_ata_hard_reset: Found ATA device
> >> sas: sas_ata_hard_reset: Unable to soft reset
> >> sas: sas_ata_hard_reset: Found ATA device
> >> ata7: reset failed (errno=-11) retrying in 10 secs
> >>
> >> Searching the web for "Unable to reset I T nexus" led me to this thread:
> >>
> >> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/1912604
> >>
> >> ... which was posted a short time ago and appears to be the identical
> >> problem.  However, I am struggling to understand what I should do in
> >> response.  It seems to be saying that my hardware and its drivers are
> too
> >> "new" for Wheezy, even though this machine is 2 yrs old??   Does this
> mean
> >> I have to upgrade to Jessie?
> >
> > I happened to notice the following bug report while updating last week:
>
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=746642
>
> > Basically, it seems like people solved this by booting from a rescue
> > disk and downgrading to an older kernel.
> >
> > After you fix your system, I recommend installing the apt-listbugs
> > package.  That's what showed me the bug report while updating.
>
> The problem is a patch/commit added in 3.2.57-3 meant to fix one problem
> but caused another more serious problem--unable to boot or register the
> drives.
>
> Since you can boot an older kernel, there is no need to use a rescue CD.
>  Simply boot the older kernel and manually install the latest 3.2.x
> available prior to 3.2.57-3, using apt or aptitude.
>
> $ aptitude search linux-image
>
> will show your the kernel versions available in your configured
> repositories.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Stan
>