Update problem key signature

[Raphaël POITEVIN]

Hello,

On a remote server at OVH provider, I upgraded from Debian 8 to 9 and 9
to 10. I did'nt care if the problem appears after the last migration,
because it's not my server, I just helped temporarily.

But now:
# apt-get update
Err:1 http://debian.mirrors.ovh.net/debian buster-updates InRelease
  The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key
  is not available: NO_PUBKEY 04EE7237B7D453EC NO_PUBKEY
  648ACFD622F3D138
  Err:2 http://debian.mirrors.ovh.net/debian buster-backports InRelease
The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key
is not available: NO_PUBKEY 04EE7237B7D453EC NO_PUBKEY
648ACFD622F3D138
Err:3 http://debian.mirrors.ovh.net/debian buster InRelease
  The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public
  key is not available: NO_PUBKEY 04EE7237B7D453EC NO_PUBKEY
  648ACFD622F3D138 NO_PUBKEY DCC9EFBF77E11517
  Get:4 http://security.debian.org buster/updates InRelease [65.4
  kB]
  Err:4 http://security.debian.org buster/updates InRelease
The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public
key is not available: NO_PUBKEY AA8E81B4331F7F50 NO_PUBKEY
112695A0E562B32A
Reading package lists... Done
W: GPG error: http://debian.mirrors.ovh.net/debian
buster-updates InRelease: The following signatures couldn't be
verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY
04EE7237B7D453EC NO_PUBKEY 648ACFD622F3D138
E: The repository 'http://debian.mirrors.ovh.net/debian
buster-updates InRelease' is not signed.
N: Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and
is therefore disabled by default.
N: See apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user
configuration details.
W: GPG error: http://debian.mirrors.ovh.net/debian
buster-backports InRelease: The following signatures couldn't be
verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY
04EE7237B7D453EC NO_PUBKEY 648ACFD622F3D138
E: The repository 'http://debian.mirrors.ovh.net/debian
buster-backports InRelease' is not signed.
N: Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and
is therefore disabled by default.
N: See apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user
configuration details.
W: GPG error: http://debian.mirrors.ovh.net/debian buster
InRelease: The following signatures couldn't be verified because
the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY 04EE7237B7D453EC
NO_PUBKEY 648ACFD622F3D138 NO_PUBKEY DCC9EFBF77E11517
E: The repository 'http://debian.mirrors.ovh.net/debian buster
InRelease' is not signed.
N: Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and
is therefore disabled by default.
N: See apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user
configuration details.
W: GPG error: http://security.debian.org buster/updates
InRelease: The following signatures couldn't be verified because
the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY AA8E81B4331F7F50
NO_PUBKEY 112695A0E562B32A
E: The repository 'http://security.debian.org buster/updates
InRelease' is not signed.
N: Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and
is therefore disabled by default.
N: See apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user
configuration details.

I tried to change mirror.

I tried to reinstall debian-archive-keyring but I get a HTTP 404.

I downloaded from snapshot.debian.org debian-archive-keyring
2019.1+deb10u1 and installed with dpkg -i. But the same situation.

I checked apt-key fingerprint, its seems OK.

Thanks for your help.

Sincerly,
-- 
Raphaël
www.leclavierquibave.fr

Re: Apt Update Problem

[Stephen P. Molnar]

Thanks for the reply.

Well, that's a relief.

On 02/27/2019 09:22 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:

Stephen P. Molnar wrote:

I am running up-to-date Stretch.

This morning when I did 'apt update' I got:

root@AbNormal:/home/comp# apt update
Ign:1 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch InRelease
Hit:2 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch-updates InRelease
Hit:3 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch-backports InRelease
Hit:4 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch Release
Get:5 http://security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates InRelease
[94.3 kB]
Hit:6 https://repo.skype.com/deb stable InRelease
Get:8 http://security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates/main i386
Packages [476 kB]
Get:9 http://security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates/main amd64
Packages [474 kB]
Get:10 http://security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates/contrib
amd64 Packages [1,760 B]
Get:11 http://security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates/contrib
i386 Packages [1,764 B]
Reading package lists... Done
E: Release file for
http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/dists/stretch-updates/InRelease is expired
(invalid since 23h 39min 42s). Updates for this repository will not be
applied.
E: Release file for
http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/dists/stretch-backports/InRelease is
expired (invalid since 23h 39min 42s). Updates for this repository will not
be applied.
root@AbNormal:/home/comp#

Google was of no help.

What is going on here?

That particular mirror is 24 hours out of date. If you need work
done today, pick another mirror by changing your
/etc/apt/sources.list or sources.d/*

The list of mirrors is at
https://www.debian.org/mirror/list

-dsr-



--
Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D.
Consultant
www.molecular-modeling.net
(614)312-7528 (c)
Skype: smolnar1

Re: Apt Update Problem

[Dan Ritter]

Stephen P. Molnar wrote: 
> I am running up-to-date Stretch.
> 
> This morning when I did 'apt update' I got:
> 
> root@AbNormal:/home/comp# apt update
> Ign:1 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch InRelease
> Hit:2 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch-updates InRelease
> Hit:3 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch-backports InRelease
> Hit:4 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch Release
> Get:5 http://security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates InRelease
> [94.3 kB]
> Hit:6 https://repo.skype.com/deb stable InRelease
> Get:8 http://security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates/main i386
> Packages [476 kB]
> Get:9 http://security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates/main amd64
> Packages [474 kB]
> Get:10 http://security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates/contrib
> amd64 Packages [1,760 B]
> Get:11 http://security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates/contrib
> i386 Packages [1,764 B]
> Reading package lists... Done
> E: Release file for
> http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/dists/stretch-updates/InRelease is expired
> (invalid since 23h 39min 42s). Updates for this repository will not be
> applied.
> E: Release file for
> http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/dists/stretch-backports/InRelease is
> expired (invalid since 23h 39min 42s). Updates for this repository will not
> be applied.
> root@AbNormal:/home/comp#
> 
> Google was of no help.
> 
> What is going on here?

That particular mirror is 24 hours out of date. If you need work
done today, pick another mirror by changing your
/etc/apt/sources.list or sources.d/*

The list of mirrors is at
https://www.debian.org/mirror/list

-dsr-

Apt Update Problem

[Stephen P. Molnar]

I am running up-to-date Stretch.

This morning when I did 'apt update' I got:

root@AbNormal:/home/comp# apt update
Ign:1 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch InRelease
Hit:2 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch-updates InRelease
Hit:3 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch-backports InRelease
Hit:4 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch Release
Get:5 http://security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates 
InRelease [94.3 kB]

Hit:6 https://repo.skype.com/deb stable InRelease
Get:8 http://security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates/main 
i386 Packages [476 kB]
Get:9 http://security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates/main 
amd64 Packages [474 kB]
Get:10 http://security.debian.org/debian-security 
stretch/updates/contrib amd64 Packages [1,760 B]
Get:11 http://security.debian.org/debian-security 
stretch/updates/contrib i386 Packages [1,764 B]

Reading package lists... Done
E: Release file for 
http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/dists/stretch-updates/InRelease is 
expired (invalid since 23h 39min 42s). Updates for this repository will 
not be applied.
E: Release file for 
http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/dists/stretch-backports/InRelease is 
expired (invalid since 23h 39min 42s). Updates for this repository will 
not be applied.

root@AbNormal:/home/comp#

Google was of no help.

What is going on here?

Thanks in advance.

--
Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D.
Consultant
www.molecular-modeling.net
(614)312-7528 (c)
Skype: smolnar1

Re: update problem

[Curt]

On 2018-09-12, Default User  wrote:
>
> Now, regarding other distributions:
>
> Void?
> Heard the project leader just sort of wandered away.
> Maybe after Void matures for a few years, I'll check it out.
>

'Void' might be considered a kind of nominative aposematism.

-- 
“An oak is a tree. A rose is a flower. A deer is an animal. A sparrow is a
bird. Russia is our fatherland. Death is inevitable.” Russian school book.

Re: update problem

[Ben Caradoc-Davies]

On 12/09/2018 14:56, Default User wrote:

Arch?

[...]

But the wiki is good . . .
(And much of it is applicable to other distributions, including Debian.)


+1 for the Arch wiki. I haver never used Arch, but the Arch wiki has 
helped me many times.


Kind regards,

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies 
Director
Transient Software Limited 
New Zealand

Re: update problem

[Patrick Bartek]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 10:56:14 -0400
Michael Stone  wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 07:50:28AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> >Plus, you have the advantage of a system that is customized to your
> >hardware and personal tastes.  System runs and boots faster.  
> 
> Confirmation bias is such a powerful thing...
> 

If it's true, is there bias? :)

B

Re: update problem

[Michael Stone]

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 07:50:28AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:

Plus, you have the advantage of a system that is customized to your
hardware and personal tastes.  System runs and boots faster.


Confirmation bias is such a powerful thing...

Re: update problem

[Patrick Bartek]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 22:56:55 -0400
Default User  wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 1:16 PM Patrick Bartek 
> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 00:56:03 -0400
> > Default User  wrote:
> >  
> > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 23:42 Patrick Bartek 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > [big snip]  
> > > >
> > > > Well, it is Unstable.  So, problems are expected.  It's the
> > > > nature of the beast. Let us know how it goes.  At worst,
> > > > since .17 works, stick with it until the kernel after 4.18.1 is
> > > > released. Or compile your own.
> > > >
> > > > B
> > > >
> > > >  
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi, Patrick.
> > >
> > >
> > > I always try to use the latest version of the kernel and other
> > > packages as soon as they come out - I want my fair share of the
> > > freshest bugs available! That's why I track unstable.
> > >
> > > : )  
> >
> > Since you like to be on the cutting edge, perhaps a rolling release
> > would be more suitable.  It certainly would be more stable than Sid
> > which is really for development where bugs and gotchas abound (as
> > you've discovered). Arch and VoidLinux come to mind.
> >
> > I tested VoidLinux in VirtualBox for several months as a possible
> > replacement for Wheezy, and never had any problems. But discovered
> > it was a rolling release, and I don't like rolling releases. So,
> > abandoned it.
> >
> > Gentoo might be another distro that would work well for you.
> >
> > B
> >  
> 
> 
> A while ago, I did an update, using aptitude, kernel  4.18.0-1-amd64,
> and the repository mirror at http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian.
> 
> It worked, without stalling.
> 
> So maybe it wasn't a kernel problem after all, but a transient
> problem with the update infrastructure.
> Strange that no one else noticed it . . .

Possibly you were the only one. You system (or Internet connection)
just hiccuped during the update/upgrade. And that was enough.

> Anyway, thanks to all who replied with help.
> 
> Now, regarding other distributions:
> 
> Void?
> Heard the project leader just sort of wandered away.
> Maybe after Void matures for a few years, I'll check it out.

Hadn't heard that. But I don't keep up since I never intend to use Void
even though I like the runit init system: small, fast, simple.

> Gentoo?
> I can't spend the time and effort to compile, compile, compile.
> And I don't own an electric power plant.

Years ago, had a friend who used Gentoo.  He said the initial install,
compiling, etc is a pain, but once done, updating is fairly quick.
Plus, you have the advantage of a system that is customized to your
hardware and personal tastes.  System runs and boots faster.

Read some time ago that Gentoo now has precompiled binaries.  So, no
compiling needed unless you want to. Don't know how well it works
though.

> Arch?
> I've used it. It's actually good.
> Until it's not.
> The developers, IMHO, are insular, insolent jerks.
> The refuse to have a real installer, and deliberately make
> installation of a full system difficult, so as to keep their private
> club private. The same attitude infests their mailing lists and
> forums, too. And the Arch User Repository (AUR) sucks.
> But the wiki is good . . .
> (And much of it is applicable to other distributions, including
> Debian.)

Never used Arch.  Rolling release, you know.  But, yes, the wikis are
outstanding. Used them extensively when I first decided to install a
customized version of Wheezy to reduce bloat and improve performance
on my aging system. Worked so well, did the same thing with Stretch
after support ceased on Wheezy. Have done the same thing with Devuan in
a VM for testing. Works even better.

> That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Glad everything worked out for you.

B

Re: update problem

[Default User]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 1:16 PM Patrick Bartek  wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 00:56:03 -0400
> Default User  wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 23:42 Patrick Bartek 
> > wrote:
> >
> > [big snip]
> > >
> > > Well, it is Unstable.  So, problems are expected.  It's the nature
> > > of the beast. Let us know how it goes.  At worst, since .17 works,
> > > stick with it until the kernel after 4.18.1 is released. Or compile
> > > your own.
> > >
> > > B
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Hi, Patrick.
> >
> >
> > I always try to use the latest version of the kernel and other
> > packages as soon as they come out - I want my fair share of the
> > freshest bugs available! That's why I track unstable.
> >
> > : )
>
> Since you like to be on the cutting edge, perhaps a rolling release
> would be more suitable.  It certainly would be more stable than Sid
> which is really for development where bugs and gotchas abound (as
> you've discovered). Arch and VoidLinux come to mind.
>
> I tested VoidLinux in VirtualBox for several months as a possible
> replacement for Wheezy, and never had any problems. But discovered it
> was a rolling release, and I don't like rolling releases. So, abandoned
> it.
>
> Gentoo might be another distro that would work well for you.
>
> B
>


A while ago, I did an update, using aptitude, kernel  4.18.0-1-amd64, and
the repository mirror at http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian.

It worked, without stalling.

So maybe it wasn't a kernel problem after all, but a transient problem with
the update infrastructure.
Strange that no one else noticed it . . .

Anyway, thanks to all who replied with help.

Now, regarding other distributions:

Void?
Heard the project leader just sort of wandered away.
Maybe after Void matures for a few years, I'll check it out.

Gentoo?
I can't spend the time and effort to compile, compile, compile.
And I don't own an electric power plant.

Arch?
I've used it. It's actually good.
Until it's not.
The developers, IMHO, are insular, insolent jerks.
The refuse to have a real installer, and deliberately make installation of
a full system difficult, so as to keep their private club private. The same
attitude infests their mailing lists and forums, too.
And the Arch User Repository (AUR) sucks.
But the wiki is good . . .
(And much of it is applicable to other distributions, including Debian.)

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Re: update problem

[Patrick Bartek]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 00:56:03 -0400
Default User  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 23:42 Patrick Bartek 
> wrote:
> 
> [big snip]  
> >
> > Well, it is Unstable.  So, problems are expected.  It's the nature
> > of the beast. Let us know how it goes.  At worst, since .17 works,
> > stick with it until the kernel after 4.18.1 is released. Or compile
> > your own.
> >
> > B
> >
> >  
> 
> 
> Hi, Patrick.
> 
> 
> I always try to use the latest version of the kernel and other
> packages as soon as they come out - I want my fair share of the
> freshest bugs available! That's why I track unstable.
> 
> : )

Since you like to be on the cutting edge, perhaps a rolling release
would be more suitable.  It certainly would be more stable than Sid
which is really for development where bugs and gotchas abound (as
you've discovered). Arch and VoidLinux come to mind.

I tested VoidLinux in VirtualBox for several months as a possible
replacement for Wheezy, and never had any problems. But discovered it
was a rolling release, and I don't like rolling releases. So, abandoned
it.

Gentoo might be another distro that would work well for you.

B  

Re: update problem

[Default User]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 23:42 Patrick Bartek  wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 20:14:05 -0400
> Default User  wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 20:09 Patrick Bartek  wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 10:52:39 -0400
> > > Default User  wrote:
> > >
> > > > UPDATE:
> > > >
> > > > Problem still occurring as of 2018-09-09 14.50 UT.
> > > > No indication of whether anyone else is experiencing this
> > > > condition.
> > >
> > > I don't run Sid/Unstable, but "updates" on both Wheezy which I ran
> > > for 5+ years and now Stretch on occasion stall, but very rarely
> > > like 4 or 5 times a year. I've traced this particular "problem" to
> > > a repo that is not available for whatever reason. My guesses why
> > > are its files are being updated and access is locked out, the
> > > server is very busy and too overloaded to respond or is down for
> > > maintenance, its Internet access is off line, or my ISP is having
> > > problems.  I usually just CTRL-C out of it and try later which
> > > usually works.
> > >
> > > As to your "bug reports" download.  This could be the crux of your
> > > problem since that file is being updated to its most current status
> > > BEFORE it's downloaded.  My take a lot of time.
> > >
> > > And a third reason: You're using Sid.  It's called Unstable for
> > > multiple reasons.
> > >
> > > Have you tried using apt-get or apt instead of aptitude?  I haven't
> > > used aptitude since I first installed Sarge a dozen+ years ago using
> > > floppies.
> > >
> > > Also, besides checking your sources.list, check what's in
> > > sources.list.d, too.
> > >
> > > B
> > >
> > > > On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 3:38 PM Default User
> > > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello . . .
> > > > > Running Sid (amd-64) on standard x86-64 hardware, conventional
> > > > > software setup, nothing unusual.
> > > > >
> > > > > For several days now, after I do:
> > > > >
> > > > > sudo aptitude -Pvv update
> > > > >
> > > > > If there is anything to upgrade, if I do:
> > > > >
> > > > > sudo aptitude -Pvv safe-upgrade
> > > > >
> > > > > (or)
> > > > >
> > > > > sudo aptitude -Pvv full-upgrade
> > > > >
> > > > > it will "Get: " the new and/or update package(s), then it will
> > > > > STALL FOR UP TO 5 MINUTES at:
> > > > >
> > > > > Retrieving bug reports... 0%
> > > > >
> > > > > then followed by:
> > > > >
> > > > > Retrieving bug reports... Done
> > > > > Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
> > > > > Reading changelogs... Done
> > > > >
> > > > > before finally "Unpacking, Preparing and Setting up" the
> > > > > packages to complete the upgrade.
> > > > >
> > > > > [See example fragment:
> > > > >
> > > > > . . .
> > > > >
> > > > > Get: 15 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64
> > > > > libspice-client-glib-2.0-8 amd64 0.35-2 [528 kB]
> > > > > Get: 16 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64
> > > > > libspice-client-gtk-3.0-5 amd64 0.35-2 [274 kB]
> > > > > Get: 17 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64
> > > > > redshift amd64 1.12-1 [108 kB]
> > > > > Fetched 5,625 kB in 5s (1,134 kB/s)
> > > > > Retrieving bug reports... Done
> > > > > Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
> > > > > Reading changelogs... Done
> > > > > (Reading database ... 208745 files and directories currently
> > > > > installed.) Preparing to
> > > > > unpack .../00-aptitude_0.8.11-3_amd64.deb ... Unpacking aptitude
> > > > > (0.8.11-3) over (0.8.10-9) ... Preparing to
> > > > > unpack .../01-aptitude-common_0.8.11-3_all.deb ... Unpacking
> > > > > aptitude-common (0.8.11-3) over (0.8.10-9) ...
> > > > >
> > > > > . . . ]
> > > > >
> > > > > Note: sources list is okay:
> > > > >
> > > > > cat /etc/apt/sources.list
> > > > > # deb cdro

Re: update problem

[Patrick Bartek]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 20:14:05 -0400
Default User  wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 20:09 Patrick Bartek  wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 10:52:39 -0400
> > Default User  wrote:
> >  
> > > UPDATE:
> > >
> > > Problem still occurring as of 2018-09-09 14.50 UT.
> > > No indication of whether anyone else is experiencing this
> > > condition. 
> >
> > I don't run Sid/Unstable, but "updates" on both Wheezy which I ran
> > for 5+ years and now Stretch on occasion stall, but very rarely
> > like 4 or 5 times a year. I've traced this particular "problem" to
> > a repo that is not available for whatever reason. My guesses why
> > are its files are being updated and access is locked out, the
> > server is very busy and too overloaded to respond or is down for
> > maintenance, its Internet access is off line, or my ISP is having
> > problems.  I usually just CTRL-C out of it and try later which
> > usually works.
> >
> > As to your "bug reports" download.  This could be the crux of your
> > problem since that file is being updated to its most current status
> > BEFORE it's downloaded.  My take a lot of time.
> >
> > And a third reason: You're using Sid.  It's called Unstable for
> > multiple reasons.
> >
> > Have you tried using apt-get or apt instead of aptitude?  I haven't
> > used aptitude since I first installed Sarge a dozen+ years ago using
> > floppies.
> >
> > Also, besides checking your sources.list, check what's in
> > sources.list.d, too.
> >
> > B
> >  
> > > On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 3:38 PM Default User
> > >  wrote:
> > >  
> > > > Hello . . .
> > > > Running Sid (amd-64) on standard x86-64 hardware, conventional
> > > > software setup, nothing unusual.
> > > >
> > > > For several days now, after I do:
> > > >
> > > > sudo aptitude -Pvv update
> > > >
> > > > If there is anything to upgrade, if I do:
> > > >
> > > > sudo aptitude -Pvv safe-upgrade
> > > >
> > > > (or)
> > > >
> > > > sudo aptitude -Pvv full-upgrade
> > > >
> > > > it will "Get: " the new and/or update package(s), then it will
> > > > STALL FOR UP TO 5 MINUTES at:
> > > >
> > > > Retrieving bug reports... 0%
> > > >
> > > > then followed by:
> > > >
> > > > Retrieving bug reports... Done
> > > > Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
> > > > Reading changelogs... Done
> > > >
> > > > before finally "Unpacking, Preparing and Setting up" the
> > > > packages to complete the upgrade.
> > > >
> > > > [See example fragment:
> > > >
> > > > . . .
> > > >
> > > > Get: 15 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64
> > > > libspice-client-glib-2.0-8 amd64 0.35-2 [528 kB]
> > > > Get: 16 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64
> > > > libspice-client-gtk-3.0-5 amd64 0.35-2 [274 kB]
> > > > Get: 17 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64
> > > > redshift amd64 1.12-1 [108 kB]
> > > > Fetched 5,625 kB in 5s (1,134 kB/s)
> > > > Retrieving bug reports... Done
> > > > Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
> > > > Reading changelogs... Done
> > > > (Reading database ... 208745 files and directories currently
> > > > installed.) Preparing to
> > > > unpack .../00-aptitude_0.8.11-3_amd64.deb ... Unpacking aptitude
> > > > (0.8.11-3) over (0.8.10-9) ... Preparing to
> > > > unpack .../01-aptitude-common_0.8.11-3_all.deb ... Unpacking
> > > > aptitude-common (0.8.11-3) over (0.8.10-9) ...
> > > >
> > > > . . . ]
> > > >
> > > > Note: sources list is okay:
> > > >
> > > > cat /etc/apt/sources.list
> > > > # deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 9.4.0 _Stretch_ - Official amd64
> > > > NETINST 20180310-11:21]/ buster contrib main non-free
> > > >
> > > > debhttp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/unstable
> > > > main  contrib  non-free
> > > > deb-srchttp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/unstable
> > > > main  contrib  non-free
> > > >
> > > > # deb  http://security.debian.org/debian-security
> > > > buster/updates main  contr

Re: update problem

[Default User]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 22:59 Jimmy Johnson  wrote:

> On 09/10/2018 05:14 PM, Default User wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 20:09 Patrick Bartek  wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 10:52:39 -0400
> >> Default User  wrote:
> >>
> >>> UPDATE:
> >>>
> >>> Problem still occurring as of 2018-09-09 14.50 UT.
> >>> No indication of whether anyone else is experiencing this condition.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't run Sid/Unstable, but "updates" on both Wheezy which I ran
> >> for 5+ years and now Stretch on occasion stall, but very rarely like 4
> >> or 5 times a year. I've traced this particular "problem" to a repo that
> >> is not available for whatever reason. My guesses why are its files are
> >> being updated and access is locked out, the server is very busy and too
> >> overloaded to respond or is down for maintenance, its Internet access
> >> is off line, or my ISP is having problems.  I usually just CTRL-C out
> >> of it and try later which usually works.
> >>
> >> As to your "bug reports" download.  This could be the crux of your
> >> problem since that file is being updated to its most current status
> >> BEFORE it's downloaded.  My take a lot of time.
> >>
> >> And a third reason: You're using Sid.  It's called Unstable for
> >> multiple reasons.
> >>
> >> Have you tried using apt-get or apt instead of aptitude?  I haven't
> >> used aptitude since I first installed Sarge a dozen+ years ago using
> >> floppies.
> >>
> >> Also, besides checking your sources.list, check what's in
> >> sources.list.d, too.
> >>
> >> B
> >>
> >>> On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 3:38 PM Default User
> >>>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hello . . .
> >>>> Running Sid (amd-64) on standard x86-64 hardware, conventional
> >>>> software setup, nothing unusual.
> >>>>
> >>>> For several days now, after I do:
> >>>>
> >>>> sudo aptitude -Pvv update
> >>>>
> >>>> If there is anything to upgrade, if I do:
> >>>>
> >>>> sudo aptitude -Pvv safe-upgrade
> >>>>
> >>>> (or)
> >>>>
> >>>> sudo aptitude -Pvv full-upgrade
> >>>>
> >>>> it will "Get: " the new and/or update package(s), then it will
> >>>> STALL FOR UP TO 5 MINUTES at:
> >>>>
> >>>> Retrieving bug reports... 0%
> >>>>
> >>>> then followed by:
> >>>>
> >>>> Retrieving bug reports... Done
> >>>> Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
> >>>> Reading changelogs... Done
> >>>>
> >>>> before finally "Unpacking, Preparing and Setting up" the packages to
> >>>> complete the upgrade.
> >>>>
> >>>> [See example fragment:
> >>>>
> >>>> . . .
> >>>>
> >>>> Get: 15 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64
> >>>> libspice-client-glib-2.0-8 amd64 0.35-2 [528 kB]
> >>>> Get: 16 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64
> >>>> libspice-client-gtk-3.0-5 amd64 0.35-2 [274 kB]
> >>>> Get: 17 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 redshift
> >>>> amd64 1.12-1 [108 kB]
> >>>> Fetched 5,625 kB in 5s (1,134 kB/s)
> >>>> Retrieving bug reports... Done
> >>>> Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
> >>>> Reading changelogs... Done
> >>>> (Reading database ... 208745 files and directories currently
> >>>> installed.) Preparing to
> >>>> unpack .../00-aptitude_0.8.11-3_amd64.deb ... Unpacking aptitude
> >>>> (0.8.11-3) over (0.8.10-9) ... Preparing to
> >>>> unpack .../01-aptitude-common_0.8.11-3_all.deb ... Unpacking
> >>>> aptitude-common (0.8.11-3) over (0.8.10-9) ...
> >>>>
> >>>> . . . ]
> >>>>
> >>>> Note: sources list is okay:
> >>>>
> >>>> cat /etc/apt/sources.list
> >>>> # deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 9.4.0 _Stretch_ - Official amd64
> >>>> NETINST 20180310-11:21]/ buster contrib main non-free
> >>>>
> >>>> debhttp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/unstable
> >>>>

Re: update problem

[Jimmy Johnson]

On 09/10/2018 05:14 PM, Default User wrote:

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 20:09 Patrick Bartek  wrote:


On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 10:52:39 -0400
Default User  wrote:


UPDATE:

Problem still occurring as of 2018-09-09 14.50 UT.
No indication of whether anyone else is experiencing this condition.



I don't run Sid/Unstable, but "updates" on both Wheezy which I ran
for 5+ years and now Stretch on occasion stall, but very rarely like 4
or 5 times a year. I've traced this particular "problem" to a repo that
is not available for whatever reason. My guesses why are its files are
being updated and access is locked out, the server is very busy and too
overloaded to respond or is down for maintenance, its Internet access
is off line, or my ISP is having problems.  I usually just CTRL-C out
of it and try later which usually works.

As to your "bug reports" download.  This could be the crux of your
problem since that file is being updated to its most current status
BEFORE it's downloaded.  My take a lot of time.

And a third reason: You're using Sid.  It's called Unstable for
multiple reasons.

Have you tried using apt-get or apt instead of aptitude?  I haven't
used aptitude since I first installed Sarge a dozen+ years ago using
floppies.

Also, besides checking your sources.list, check what's in
sources.list.d, too.

B


On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 3:38 PM Default User
 wrote:


Hello . . .
Running Sid (amd-64) on standard x86-64 hardware, conventional
software setup, nothing unusual.

For several days now, after I do:

sudo aptitude -Pvv update

If there is anything to upgrade, if I do:

sudo aptitude -Pvv safe-upgrade

(or)

sudo aptitude -Pvv full-upgrade

it will "Get: " the new and/or update package(s), then it will
STALL FOR UP TO 5 MINUTES at:

Retrieving bug reports... 0%

then followed by:

Retrieving bug reports... Done
Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
Reading changelogs... Done

before finally "Unpacking, Preparing and Setting up" the packages to
complete the upgrade.

[See example fragment:

. . .

Get: 15 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64
libspice-client-glib-2.0-8 amd64 0.35-2 [528 kB]
Get: 16 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64
libspice-client-gtk-3.0-5 amd64 0.35-2 [274 kB]
Get: 17 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 redshift
amd64 1.12-1 [108 kB]
Fetched 5,625 kB in 5s (1,134 kB/s)
Retrieving bug reports... Done
Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
Reading changelogs... Done
(Reading database ... 208745 files and directories currently
installed.) Preparing to
unpack .../00-aptitude_0.8.11-3_amd64.deb ... Unpacking aptitude
(0.8.11-3) over (0.8.10-9) ... Preparing to
unpack .../01-aptitude-common_0.8.11-3_all.deb ... Unpacking
aptitude-common (0.8.11-3) over (0.8.10-9) ...

. . . ]

Note: sources list is okay:

cat /etc/apt/sources.list
# deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 9.4.0 _Stretch_ - Official amd64
NETINST 20180310-11:21]/ buster contrib main non-free

debhttp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/unstable
main  contrib  non-free
deb-srchttp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/unstable
main  contrib  non-free

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

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

and I have run netselect-apt to find the fastest mirror:

sudo netselect-apt -s -n sid

(trimmed for result only:)

The fastest 10 servers seem to be:

http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/
http://mirror.us.leaseweb.net/debian/
http://debian.ec.as6453.net/debian/
http://mirror.us.oneandone.net/debian/
http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/
http://mirrors.advancedhosters.com/debian/
http://mirror.cogentco.com/debian/
http://mirrors.gigenet.com/debian/
http://mirror.steadfast.net/debian/
http://ftp.utexas.edu/debian/

Of the hosts tested we choose the fastest valid for HTTP:
 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/

Writing sources.list.
sources.list exists, moving to sources.list.1536427463
Done.

(As expected.)

So . . .
1 - Has anyone else seen this "stall" during updating.
2 - any clue as to the cause? Maybe just a problem with whatever
site provides "bug reports" information to the aptitude updating
mechanism?







Hi, Patrick.
Thanks for the reply.

I have tried updating with:
- aptitude
- apt
- apt-get

No difference.

I checked /etc/apt/sources.list, it is unchanged and has worked ever since
I first upgraded to unstable, quite a while ago.

I even tried changing repository mirrors. Again no change.



Hi,

#--#
#   OFFICIAL DEBIAN REPOS
#

Re: update problem

[Default User]

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018, 20:09 Patrick Bartek  wrote:

> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 10:52:39 -0400
> Default User  wrote:
>
> > UPDATE:
> >
> > Problem still occurring as of 2018-09-09 14.50 UT.
> > No indication of whether anyone else is experiencing this condition.
> >
>
> I don't run Sid/Unstable, but "updates" on both Wheezy which I ran
> for 5+ years and now Stretch on occasion stall, but very rarely like 4
> or 5 times a year. I've traced this particular "problem" to a repo that
> is not available for whatever reason. My guesses why are its files are
> being updated and access is locked out, the server is very busy and too
> overloaded to respond or is down for maintenance, its Internet access
> is off line, or my ISP is having problems.  I usually just CTRL-C out
> of it and try later which usually works.
>
> As to your "bug reports" download.  This could be the crux of your
> problem since that file is being updated to its most current status
> BEFORE it's downloaded.  My take a lot of time.
>
> And a third reason: You're using Sid.  It's called Unstable for
> multiple reasons.
>
> Have you tried using apt-get or apt instead of aptitude?  I haven't
> used aptitude since I first installed Sarge a dozen+ years ago using
> floppies.
>
> Also, besides checking your sources.list, check what's in
> sources.list.d, too.
>
> B
>
> > On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 3:38 PM Default User
> >  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello . . .
> > > Running Sid (amd-64) on standard x86-64 hardware, conventional
> > > software setup, nothing unusual.
> > >
> > > For several days now, after I do:
> > >
> > > sudo aptitude -Pvv update
> > >
> > > If there is anything to upgrade, if I do:
> > >
> > > sudo aptitude -Pvv safe-upgrade
> > >
> > > (or)
> > >
> > > sudo aptitude -Pvv full-upgrade
> > >
> > > it will "Get: " the new and/or update package(s), then it will
> > > STALL FOR UP TO 5 MINUTES at:
> > >
> > > Retrieving bug reports... 0%
> > >
> > > then followed by:
> > >
> > > Retrieving bug reports... Done
> > > Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
> > > Reading changelogs... Done
> > >
> > > before finally "Unpacking, Preparing and Setting up" the packages to
> > > complete the upgrade.
> > >
> > > [See example fragment:
> > >
> > > . . .
> > >
> > > Get: 15 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64
> > > libspice-client-glib-2.0-8 amd64 0.35-2 [528 kB]
> > > Get: 16 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64
> > > libspice-client-gtk-3.0-5 amd64 0.35-2 [274 kB]
> > > Get: 17 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 redshift
> > > amd64 1.12-1 [108 kB]
> > > Fetched 5,625 kB in 5s (1,134 kB/s)
> > > Retrieving bug reports... Done
> > > Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
> > > Reading changelogs... Done
> > > (Reading database ... 208745 files and directories currently
> > > installed.) Preparing to
> > > unpack .../00-aptitude_0.8.11-3_amd64.deb ... Unpacking aptitude
> > > (0.8.11-3) over (0.8.10-9) ... Preparing to
> > > unpack .../01-aptitude-common_0.8.11-3_all.deb ... Unpacking
> > > aptitude-common (0.8.11-3) over (0.8.10-9) ...
> > >
> > > . . . ]
> > >
> > > Note: sources list is okay:
> > >
> > > cat /etc/apt/sources.list
> > > # deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 9.4.0 _Stretch_ - Official amd64
> > > NETINST 20180310-11:21]/ buster contrib main non-free
> > >
> > > debhttp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/unstable
> > > main  contrib  non-free
> > > deb-srchttp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/unstable
> > > main  contrib  non-free
> > >
> > > # deb  http://security.debian.org/debian-security
> > > buster/updates main  contrib  non-free
> > > # deb-src  http://security.debian.org/debian-security
> > > buster/updates main  contrib  non-free
> > >
> > > # buster-updates, previously known as 'volatile'
> > > # deb  http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/
> > > buster-updates main  contrib  non-free
> > > # deb-src  http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/
> > > buster-updates main  contrib  non-free
> > >
> > > and I have run netselect-apt to find the fastest mirror:
> > >
> > > sudo netselect-apt -s -n sid
> > &g

Re: update problem

[Patrick Bartek]

On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 10:52:39 -0400
Default User  wrote:

> UPDATE:
> 
> Problem still occurring as of 2018-09-09 14.50 UT.
> No indication of whether anyone else is experiencing this condition.
> 

I don't run Sid/Unstable, but "updates" on both Wheezy which I ran
for 5+ years and now Stretch on occasion stall, but very rarely like 4
or 5 times a year. I've traced this particular "problem" to a repo that
is not available for whatever reason. My guesses why are its files are
being updated and access is locked out, the server is very busy and too
overloaded to respond or is down for maintenance, its Internet access
is off line, or my ISP is having problems.  I usually just CTRL-C out
of it and try later which usually works.

As to your "bug reports" download.  This could be the crux of your
problem since that file is being updated to its most current status
BEFORE it's downloaded.  My take a lot of time.

And a third reason: You're using Sid.  It's called Unstable for
multiple reasons.

Have you tried using apt-get or apt instead of aptitude?  I haven't
used aptitude since I first installed Sarge a dozen+ years ago using
floppies.

Also, besides checking your sources.list, check what's in
sources.list.d, too.

B

> On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 3:38 PM Default User
>  wrote:
> 
> > Hello . . .
> > Running Sid (amd-64) on standard x86-64 hardware, conventional
> > software setup, nothing unusual.
> >
> > For several days now, after I do:
> >
> > sudo aptitude -Pvv update
> >
> > If there is anything to upgrade, if I do:
> >
> > sudo aptitude -Pvv safe-upgrade
> >
> > (or)
> >
> > sudo aptitude -Pvv full-upgrade
> >
> > it will "Get: " the new and/or update package(s), then it will
> > STALL FOR UP TO 5 MINUTES at:
> >
> > Retrieving bug reports... 0%
> >
> > then followed by:
> >
> > Retrieving bug reports... Done
> > Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
> > Reading changelogs... Done
> >
> > before finally "Unpacking, Preparing and Setting up" the packages to
> > complete the upgrade.
> >
> > [See example fragment:
> >
> > . . .
> >
> > Get: 15 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64
> > libspice-client-glib-2.0-8 amd64 0.35-2 [528 kB]
> > Get: 16 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64
> > libspice-client-gtk-3.0-5 amd64 0.35-2 [274 kB]
> > Get: 17 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 redshift
> > amd64 1.12-1 [108 kB]
> > Fetched 5,625 kB in 5s (1,134 kB/s)
> > Retrieving bug reports... Done
> > Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
> > Reading changelogs... Done
> > (Reading database ... 208745 files and directories currently
> > installed.) Preparing to
> > unpack .../00-aptitude_0.8.11-3_amd64.deb ... Unpacking aptitude
> > (0.8.11-3) over (0.8.10-9) ... Preparing to
> > unpack .../01-aptitude-common_0.8.11-3_all.deb ... Unpacking
> > aptitude-common (0.8.11-3) over (0.8.10-9) ...
> >
> > . . . ]
> >
> > Note: sources list is okay:
> >
> > cat /etc/apt/sources.list
> > # deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 9.4.0 _Stretch_ - Official amd64
> > NETINST 20180310-11:21]/ buster contrib main non-free
> >
> > debhttp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/unstable
> > main  contrib  non-free
> > deb-srchttp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/unstable
> > main  contrib  non-free
> >
> > # deb  http://security.debian.org/debian-security
> > buster/updates main  contrib  non-free
> > # deb-src  http://security.debian.org/debian-security
> > buster/updates main  contrib  non-free
> >
> > # buster-updates, previously known as 'volatile'
> > # deb  http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/
> > buster-updates main  contrib  non-free
> > # deb-src  http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/
> > buster-updates main  contrib  non-free
> >
> > and I have run netselect-apt to find the fastest mirror:
> >
> > sudo netselect-apt -s -n sid
> >
> > (trimmed for result only:)
> >
> > The fastest 10 servers seem to be:
> >
> > http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/
> > http://mirror.us.leaseweb.net/debian/
> > http://debian.ec.as6453.net/debian/
> > http://mirror.us.oneandone.net/debian/
> > http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/
> > http://mirrors.advancedhosters.com/debian/
> > http://mirror.cogentco.com/debian/
> > http://mirrors.gigenet.com/debian/
> > http://mirror.steadfast.net/debian/
> > http://ftp.utexas.edu/debian/
> >
> > Of the hosts tested we choose the fastest valid for HTTP:
> > http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/
> >
> > Writing sources.list.
> > sources.list exists, moving to sources.list.1536427463
> > Done.
> >
> > (As expected.)
> >
> > So . . .
> > 1 - Has anyone else seen this "stall" during updating.
> > 2 - any clue as to the cause? Maybe just a problem with whatever
> > site provides "bug reports" information to the aptitude updating
> > mechanism?
> >
> >
> >  

Re: update problem

[Default User]

UPDATE:

Problem still occurring as of 2018-09-09 14.50 UT.
No indication of whether anyone else is experiencing this condition.


On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 3:38 PM Default User 
wrote:

> Hello . . .
> Running Sid (amd-64) on standard x86-64 hardware, conventional software
> setup, nothing unusual.
>
> For several days now, after I do:
>
> sudo aptitude -Pvv update
>
> If there is anything to upgrade, if I do:
>
> sudo aptitude -Pvv safe-upgrade
>
> (or)
>
> sudo aptitude -Pvv full-upgrade
>
> it will "Get: " the new and/or update package(s), then it will STALL FOR
> UP TO 5 MINUTES at:
>
> Retrieving bug reports... 0%
>
> then followed by:
>
> Retrieving bug reports... Done
> Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
> Reading changelogs... Done
>
> before finally "Unpacking, Preparing and Setting up" the packages to
> complete the upgrade.
>
> [See example fragment:
>
> . . .
>
> Get: 15 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64
> libspice-client-glib-2.0-8 amd64 0.35-2 [528 kB]
> Get: 16 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64
> libspice-client-gtk-3.0-5 amd64 0.35-2 [274 kB]
> Get: 17 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 redshift
> amd64 1.12-1 [108 kB]
> Fetched 5,625 kB in 5s (1,134 kB/s)
> Retrieving bug reports... Done
> Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
> Reading changelogs... Done
> (Reading database ... 208745 files and directories currently installed.)
> Preparing to unpack .../00-aptitude_0.8.11-3_amd64.deb ...
> Unpacking aptitude (0.8.11-3) over (0.8.10-9) ...
> Preparing to unpack .../01-aptitude-common_0.8.11-3_all.deb ...
> Unpacking aptitude-common (0.8.11-3) over (0.8.10-9) ...
>
> . . . ]
>
> Note: sources list is okay:
>
> cat /etc/apt/sources.list
> # deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 9.4.0 _Stretch_ - Official amd64 NETINST
> 20180310-11:21]/ buster contrib main non-free
>
> debhttp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/unstable
> main  contrib  non-free
> deb-srchttp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/unstable
> main  contrib  non-free
>
> # deb  http://security.debian.org/debian-security  buster/updates
> main  contrib  non-free
> # deb-src  http://security.debian.org/debian-security  buster/updates
> main  contrib  non-free
>
> # buster-updates, previously known as 'volatile'
> # deb  http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/buster-updates
> main  contrib  non-free
> # deb-src  http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/buster-updates
> main  contrib  non-free
>
> and I have run netselect-apt to find the fastest mirror:
>
> sudo netselect-apt -s -n sid
>
> (trimmed for result only:)
>
> The fastest 10 servers seem to be:
>
> http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/
> http://mirror.us.leaseweb.net/debian/
> http://debian.ec.as6453.net/debian/
> http://mirror.us.oneandone.net/debian/
> http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/
> http://mirrors.advancedhosters.com/debian/
> http://mirror.cogentco.com/debian/
> http://mirrors.gigenet.com/debian/
> http://mirror.steadfast.net/debian/
> http://ftp.utexas.edu/debian/
>
> Of the hosts tested we choose the fastest valid for HTTP:
> http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/
>
> Writing sources.list.
> sources.list exists, moving to sources.list.1536427463
> Done.
>
> (As expected.)
>
> So . . .
> 1 - Has anyone else seen this "stall" during updating.
> 2 - any clue as to the cause? Maybe just a problem with whatever site
> provides "bug reports" information to the aptitude updating mechanism?
>
>
>

update problem

[Default User]

Hello . . .
Running Sid (amd-64) on standard x86-64 hardware, conventional software
setup, nothing unusual.

For several days now, after I do:

sudo aptitude -Pvv update

If there is anything to upgrade, if I do:

sudo aptitude -Pvv safe-upgrade

(or)

sudo aptitude -Pvv full-upgrade

it will "Get: " the new and/or update package(s), then it will STALL FOR UP
TO 5 MINUTES at:

Retrieving bug reports... 0%

then followed by:

Retrieving bug reports... Done
Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
Reading changelogs... Done

before finally "Unpacking, Preparing and Setting up" the packages to
complete the upgrade.

[See example fragment:

. . .

Get: 15 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64
libspice-client-glib-2.0-8 amd64 0.35-2 [528 kB]
Get: 16 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64
libspice-client-gtk-3.0-5 amd64 0.35-2 [274 kB]
Get: 17 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 redshift amd64
1.12-1 [108 kB]
Fetched 5,625 kB in 5s (1,134 kB/s)
Retrieving bug reports... Done
Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
Reading changelogs... Done
(Reading database ... 208745 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to unpack .../00-aptitude_0.8.11-3_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking aptitude (0.8.11-3) over (0.8.10-9) ...
Preparing to unpack .../01-aptitude-common_0.8.11-3_all.deb ...
Unpacking aptitude-common (0.8.11-3) over (0.8.10-9) ...

. . . ]

Note: sources list is okay:

cat /etc/apt/sources.list
# deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 9.4.0 _Stretch_ - Official amd64 NETINST
20180310-11:21]/ buster contrib main non-free

debhttp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/unstable
main  contrib  non-free
deb-srchttp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/unstable
main  contrib  non-free

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

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

and I have run netselect-apt to find the fastest mirror:

sudo netselect-apt -s -n sid

(trimmed for result only:)

The fastest 10 servers seem to be:

http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/
http://mirror.us.leaseweb.net/debian/
http://debian.ec.as6453.net/debian/
http://mirror.us.oneandone.net/debian/
http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/
http://mirrors.advancedhosters.com/debian/
http://mirror.cogentco.com/debian/
http://mirrors.gigenet.com/debian/
http://mirror.steadfast.net/debian/
http://ftp.utexas.edu/debian/

Of the hosts tested we choose the fastest valid for HTTP:
http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/

Writing sources.list.
sources.list exists, moving to sources.list.1536427463
Done.

(As expected.)

So . . .
1 - Has anyone else seen this "stall" during updating.
2 - any clue as to the cause? Maybe just a problem with whatever site
provides "bug reports" information to the aptitude updating mechanism?

Re: System Update Problem

[Stephen P. Molnar]

Many thanks
On 08/10/2018 07:29 AM, john doe wrote:

On 8/10/2018 12:33 PM, Stephen P. Molnar wrote:
I am running  Stretch on my 64 bit Linux platform. This morning, 
when  I run apt-get update as root I get:


root@AbNormal:/home/comp# apt update
Ign:1 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch InRelease
Hit:2 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch-updates InRelease
Hit:3 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch-backports InRelease
Hit:4 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch Release
Hit:5 https://desktop-download.mendeley.com/download/apt stable 
InRelease
Hit:6 http://security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates 
InRelease

Hit:7 https://repo.skype.com/deb stable InRelease
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
All packages are up to date.
W: Target Packages (main/binary-amd64/Packages) is configured 
multiple times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Packages (main/binary-i386/Packages) is configured multiple 
times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Packages (main/binary-all/Packages) is configured multiple 
times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Translations (main/i18n/Translation-en_US) is configured 
multiple times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Translations (main/i18n/Translation-en) is configured 
multiple times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Packages (main/binary-amd64/Packages) is configured 
multiple times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Packages (main/binary-i386/Packages) is configured multiple 
times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Packages (main/binary-all/Packages) is configured multiple 
times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Translations (main/i18n/Translation-en_US) is configured 
multiple times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Translations (main/i18n/Translation-en) is configured 
multiple times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24

root@AbNormal:/home/comp#

Needless to say, I am a bit concerned.  I run apt update several 
times a week, but have not had a problem.  Google gave a number of 
solutions for Ubuntu, but I am rather loathe to  mess with 
/ect/apt/sources.list:


# deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 9.3.0 _Stretch_ - Official amd64 DVD 
Binary-1 20171209-12:11]/ stretch contrib main


# deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 9.3.0 _Stretch_ - Official amd64 DVD 
Binary-1 20171209-12:11]/ stretch main contrib


deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch main non-free contrib
deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch main non-free contrib

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


# stretch-updates, previously known as 'volatile'
deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch-updates main contrib 
non-free
deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch-updates main 
contrib non-free


deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch-backports non-free 
contrib main
deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch-backports main 
contrib non-free


deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch-backports main

Comments will be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.



You have duplicate lines, so you simply need to remove the duplicate 
lines from your sources.list file.


$ cat /etc/apt/sources.list (just after installation)

deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stretch main non-free contrib
deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stretch main non-free contrib

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


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


# stretch-backports, previously on backports.debian.org
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stretch-backports main contrib 
non-free
deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stretch-backports main 
contrib non-free


The lines are folded by my mailer.


Problem solved.

Many thanks.

--
Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D.
Consultant
www.molecular-modeling.net
(614)312-7528 (c)
Skype: smolnar1

Re: System Update Problem

[john doe]

On 8/10/2018 12:33 PM, Stephen P. Molnar wrote:
I am running  Stretch on my 64 bit Linux platform. This morning, when  I 
run apt-get update as root I get:


root@AbNormal:/home/comp# apt update
Ign:1 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch InRelease
Hit:2 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch-updates InRelease
Hit:3 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch-backports InRelease
Hit:4 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch Release
Hit:5 https://desktop-download.mendeley.com/download/apt stable InRelease
Hit:6 http://security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates InRelease
Hit:7 https://repo.skype.com/deb stable InRelease
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
All packages are up to date.
W: Target Packages (main/binary-amd64/Packages) is configured multiple 
times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Packages (main/binary-i386/Packages) is configured multiple 
times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Packages (main/binary-all/Packages) is configured multiple 
times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Translations (main/i18n/Translation-en_US) is configured 
multiple times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Translations (main/i18n/Translation-en) is configured multiple 
times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Packages (main/binary-amd64/Packages) is configured multiple 
times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Packages (main/binary-i386/Packages) is configured multiple 
times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Packages (main/binary-all/Packages) is configured multiple 
times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Translations (main/i18n/Translation-en_US) is configured 
multiple times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Translations (main/i18n/Translation-en) is configured multiple 
times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24

root@AbNormal:/home/comp#

Needless to say, I am a bit concerned.  I run apt update several times a 
week, but have not had a problem.  Google gave a number  of solutions 
for Ubuntu, but I am rather loathe to  mess with /ect/apt/sources.list:


# deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 9.3.0 _Stretch_ - Official amd64 DVD 
Binary-1 20171209-12:11]/ stretch contrib main


# deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 9.3.0 _Stretch_ - Official amd64 DVD 
Binary-1 20171209-12:11]/ stretch main contrib


deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch main non-free contrib
deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch main non-free contrib

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


# stretch-updates, previously known as 'volatile'
deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch-updates main contrib 
non-free
deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch-updates main contrib 
non-free


deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch-backports non-free 
contrib main
deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch-backports main 
contrib non-free


deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch-backports main

Comments will be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.



You have duplicate lines, so you simply need to remove the duplicate 
lines from your sources.list file.


$ cat /etc/apt/sources.list (just after installation)

deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stretch main non-free contrib
deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stretch main non-free contrib

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


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


# stretch-backports, previously on backports.debian.org
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stretch-backports main contrib non-free
deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stretch-backports main contrib 
non-free


The lines are folded by my mailer.

--
John Doe

Re: System Update Problem

[Markus Schönhaber]

Stephen P. Molnar, Fr 10 Aug 2018 12:33:12 CEST:

> I am running  Stretch on my 64 bit Linux platform. This morning, when  I 
> run apt-get update as root I get:
> 
> root@AbNormal:/home/comp# apt update
> Ign:1 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch InRelease
> Hit:2 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch-updates InRelease
> Hit:3 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch-backports InRelease
> Hit:4 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch Release
> Hit:5 https://desktop-download.mendeley.com/download/apt stable InRelease
> Hit:6 http://security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates InRelease
> Hit:7 https://repo.skype.com/deb stable InRelease
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> All packages are up to date.
> W: Target Packages (main/binary-amd64/Packages) is configured multiple 
> times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
[...]
> root@AbNormal:/home/comp#

The warning message is pretty explicit. Take a look at the lines 17 and
24 of /etc/apt/sources.list.

> Needless to say, I am a bit concerned.  I run apt update several times a 
> week, but have not had a problem.  Google gave a number  of solutions 
> for Ubuntu, but I am rather loathe to  mess with /ect/apt/sources.list:

Don't know how the text below relates to the sources.list on your
machine (line-number-wise) but...

> # deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 9.3.0 _Stretch_ - Official amd64 DVD 
> Binary-1 20171209-12:11]/ stretch contrib main
> 
> # deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 9.3.0 _Stretch_ - Official amd64 DVD 
> Binary-1 20171209-12:11]/ stretch main contrib
> 
> deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch main non-free contrib
> deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch main non-free contrib
> 
> deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security/ stretch/updates main 
> contrib non-free
> deb-src http://security.debian.org/debian-security/ stretch/updates main 
> contrib non-free
> 
> # stretch-updates, previously known as 'volatile'
> deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch-updates main contrib 
> non-free
> deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch-updates main contrib 
> non-free
> 
> deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch-backports non-free 
> contrib main

...this ^^^ and..

> deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch-backports main 
> contrib non-free
> 
> deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch-backports main

...that ^^^ seem to be the duplication apt warns about.

-- 
Regards
  mks

System Update Problem

[Stephen P. Molnar]

I am running  Stretch on my 64 bit Linux platform. This morning, when  I 
run apt-get update as root I get:


root@AbNormal:/home/comp# apt update
Ign:1 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch InRelease
Hit:2 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch-updates InRelease
Hit:3 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch-backports InRelease
Hit:4 http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian stretch Release
Hit:5 https://desktop-download.mendeley.com/download/apt stable InRelease
Hit:6 http://security.debian.org/debian-security stretch/updates InRelease
Hit:7 https://repo.skype.com/deb stable InRelease
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
All packages are up to date.
W: Target Packages (main/binary-amd64/Packages) is configured multiple 
times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Packages (main/binary-i386/Packages) is configured multiple 
times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Packages (main/binary-all/Packages) is configured multiple 
times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Translations (main/i18n/Translation-en_US) is configured 
multiple times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Translations (main/i18n/Translation-en) is configured multiple 
times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Packages (main/binary-amd64/Packages) is configured multiple 
times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Packages (main/binary-i386/Packages) is configured multiple 
times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Packages (main/binary-all/Packages) is configured multiple 
times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Translations (main/i18n/Translation-en_US) is configured 
multiple times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24
W: Target Translations (main/i18n/Translation-en) is configured multiple 
times in /etc/apt/sources.list:17 and /etc/apt/sources.list:24

root@AbNormal:/home/comp#

Needless to say, I am a bit concerned.  I run apt update several times a 
week, but have not had a problem.  Google gave a number  of solutions 
for Ubuntu, but I am rather loathe to  mess with /ect/apt/sources.list:


# deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 9.3.0 _Stretch_ - Official amd64 DVD 
Binary-1 20171209-12:11]/ stretch contrib main


# deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 9.3.0 _Stretch_ - Official amd64 DVD 
Binary-1 20171209-12:11]/ stretch main contrib


deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch main non-free contrib
deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch main non-free contrib

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


# stretch-updates, previously known as 'volatile'
deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch-updates main contrib 
non-free
deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch-updates main contrib 
non-free


deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch-backports non-free 
contrib main
deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch-backports main 
contrib non-free


deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stretch-backports main

Comments will be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

--
Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D.
Consultant
www.molecular-modeling.net
(614)312-7528 (c)
Skype: smolnar1

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[Kenneth Parker]

> > Wow!  I said "bad things" about Ubuntu regarding this topic but, just
> > today, experienced the same kind of thing, with Debian Stretch, regarding
> > the vlc "uber Package".  Seems it's replacing libvlccore8 with
> libvlccore9,
> > along with several other replacements!  So Debian also uses this
> technique
> > (dist-upgrade) for, other than "Upgrading the Distribution".
> >
> > Sorry about that, Ubuntu.  :-)
> >
> > Kenneth Parker
>
> Your criticism of Debian is unjustified.   apt-get dist-upgrade   is
> required to upgrade libvlccore8 to libvlccore9 because, of course, the
> latter is a different package.
>

Sorry abut that.  I guess it's mainly a Teaching Moment for me.  With
Ubuntu, every Kernel Upgrade was handled this way, which had prompted my
prior comment, criticizing Ubuntu.

libvlccore8 is based on VLC version 2 and libvlccore9 is based on VLC 3.
> VLC is susceptible to DSA-4203 (CVE-2017-17670), so VLC 3 has been fixed
> in 3.0.2. As VLC 2.x will not get fixed, stretch had no alternative
> but to move from version 2 to 3.
>

And, of course, the Version Upgrade is for a very good reason. (The
vulnerability description is fascinating!)

Cheers,
> David.
>

Thanks for your patience.

Kenneth Parker

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[David Wright]

On Sun 03 Jun 2018 at 20:05:39 (-0400), Kenneth Parker wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Kenneth Parker  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> Warning:  Ubuntu ("close enough" to Debian to confuse me, multiple years)
> > regularly requires dist-upgrade to do their frequent Kernel Upgrades,
> > because they change Version Numbers on, among other things, the vmlinuz
> > file.  So, when I do "apt-get upgrade" on the remaining Ubuntu Laptop, I
> > regularly see things like,
> >
> > 
> 
> Wow!  I said "bad things" about Ubuntu regarding this topic but, just
> today, experienced the same kind of thing, with Debian Stretch, regarding
> the vlc "uber Package".  Seems it's replacing libvlccore8 with libvlccore9,
> along with several other replacements!  So Debian also uses this technique
> (dist-upgrade) for, other than "Upgrading the Distribution".
> 
> Sorry about that, Ubuntu.  :-)
> 
> Kenneth Parker

Your criticism of Debian is unjustified.   apt-get dist-upgrade   is
required to upgrade libvlccore8 to libvlccore9 because, of course, the
latter is a different package.

libvlccore8 is based on VLC version 2 and libvlccore9 is based on VLC 3.
VLC is susceptible to DSA-4203 (CVE-2017-17670), so VLC 3 has been fixed
in 3.0.2. As VLC 2.x will not get fixed, stretch had no alternative
but to move from version 2 to 3.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[Kenneth Parker]

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Kenneth Parker  wrote:

>
>
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> Warning:  Ubuntu ("close enough" to Debian to confuse me, multiple years)
> regularly requires dist-upgrade to do their frequent Kernel Upgrades,
> because they change Version Numbers on, among other things, the vmlinuz
> file.  So, when I do "apt-get upgrade" on the remaining Ubuntu Laptop, I
> regularly see things like,
>
> 

Wow!  I said "bad things" about Ubuntu regarding this topic but, just
today, experienced the same kind of thing, with Debian Stretch, regarding
the vlc "uber Package".  Seems it's replacing libvlccore8 with libvlccore9,
along with several other replacements!  So Debian also uses this technique
(dist-upgrade) for, other than "Upgrading the Distribution".

Sorry about that, Ubuntu.  :-)

Kenneth Parker

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[rhkramer]

On Saturday, May 26, 2018 02:08:59 PM Pétùr wrote:
> I don't use aptitude. I use only apt and apt-get but I believe apt is
> just a shortcut for apt-get. `apt update` is equivalent for me to
> `apt-get update` and `apt dist-upgrade` to `apt-get dist-upgrade`
> (correct me if I am wrong).

   * [[https://itsfoss.com/apt-vs-apt-get-difference/][Difference Between 
apt and apt-get Explained]]

> 
> My question was if apt (or apt-get) dist-upgrade was equivalent of apt
> (or apt-get) full-upgrade?

   * [[https://itsfoss.com/apt-vs-apt-get-difference/][Difference Between 
apt and apt-get Explained]]

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[Dan Norton]

On Wed, 30 May 2018 18:53:54 +0100
Brian  wrote:

> On Wed 30 May 2018 at 00:31:25 +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 29 May 2018 20:39:28 +0100 Brian said:
> >   
> > > If a package is upgraded, surely a user would want any new
> > > packages to be installed if they are required to satisfy
> > > dependencies. apt's designed behaviour looks more sensible than
> > > apt-get's.  
> > 
> > Then removal of blocking packages are equally (if not more)
> > sensible than installing new ones. There is a well designed clear
> > cut distinction between apt-get upgrade and dist-upgrade. "upgrade"
> > upgrades the system  
> 
> As there is between apt upgrade and apt full-upgrade.
> 
> > non-intrusively, while "dist-upgrade" does that intrusively as its
> > name suggests. OTOH apt upgrade's behavior is in-between,
> > semi-intrusive, and spoils that clear-cut distinction. Therefore I
> > think apt-get works more sensible than apt in this regard.  
> 
> I'm sorry, the "intrusive/non-intrusive" aspect doesn't seem that
> useful to me. After an update, apt can tell you which packages are
> upgradable. That aspect strikes me as being very informative.
> 

This discussion led me to use apt-get again, instead of apt, which I
used to keep stretch installations up to date. The occasion was a
security update notification for the git package.

apt-get update printed 30 lines or so (sorry, I did not save the
output) but mentioned nothing about the need to upgrade.

apt-get upgrade produced no output.

There is nothing in /var/log/apt/term.log or /var/log/apt/history.log
to indicate that apt-get was used.

apt update mentioned 3 packages needing upgrade
apt upgrade processed the 3 packages and /var/log/apt/term.log
and /var/log/apt/history.log show this.

Is the above to be expected and is there some configuration change
needed if I want to use apt-get again?

 -Dan

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[Curt]

On 2018-05-30, Brian  wrote:
>
> I'm at a loss to understand the argument here. 'apt update/upgrade'
> also provides information that the user can act on. If a package on
> your system acquires a new dependency X, 'apt-get upgrade' will not
> upgrade it (is that really an upgrade? :) ) but apt upgrade will (if
> it does require the removal of an existing package).
>
> The question becomes: do you really want the system to be upgraded or
> only half-upgraded?
>

They want to be sophisticated.

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[Brian]

On Wed 30 May 2018 at 10:37:32 -0400, John Cunningham wrote:

> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 5:37 PM Brian  wrote:
> 
> > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 15:52:12 -0400, John Cunningham wrote:
> >
> > > Not necessarily. Sometimes the dependencies get out of hand, like when a
> > > big project adopts a small utility and then decides that the entire
> > project
> > > is a dependency for the tiny utility.  It doesn't happen often, but it
> > has
> > > happened to me. I like that apt-get upgrade updates everything else. If I
> > > decide I can stomach the other packages, I can always do a apt-get
> > > dist-upgrade and install them.
> >
> > Your unfortunate (and undetailed) experience has to be balanced against
> > the benefits which accrue to most users in having an up-to-date Debian.
> 
> In my belief, it is right in the sweet spot in that regard.  It provides
> information and lets the user make the decision. It's much easier to do a
> dist-upgrade than to find and remove unwanted packages.

I'm at a loss to understand the argument here. 'apt update/upgrade'
also provides information that the user can act on. If a package on
your system acquires a new dependency X, 'apt-get upgrade' will not
upgrade it (is that really an upgrade? :) ) but apt upgrade will (if
it does require the removal of an existing package).

The question becomes: do you really want the system to be upgraded or
only half-upgraded?

-- 
Brian.

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[Brian]

On Wed 30 May 2018 at 00:31:25 +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:

> On Tue, 29 May 2018 20:39:28 +0100 Brian said:
> 
> > If a package is upgraded, surely a user would want any new packages
> > to be installed if they are required to satisfy dependencies. apt's
> > designed behaviour looks more sensible than apt-get's.
> 
> Then removal of blocking packages are equally (if not more) sensible than
> installing new ones. There is a well designed clear cut distinction between
> apt-get upgrade and dist-upgrade. "upgrade" upgrades the system

As there is between apt upgrade and apt full-upgrade.

> non-intrusively, while "dist-upgrade" does that intrusively as its name
> suggests. OTOH apt upgrade's behavior is in-between, semi-intrusive, and 
> spoils
> that clear-cut distinction. Therefore I think apt-get works more sensible than
> apt in this regard.

I'm sorry, the "intrusive/non-intrusive" aspect doesn't seem that useful
to me. After an update, apt can tell you which packages are upgradable.
That aspect strikes me as being very informative.

-- 
Brian.

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[Brian]

On Wed 30 May 2018 at 08:59:31 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 08:39:28PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > If a package is upgraded, surely a user would want any new packages
> > to be installed if they are required to satisfy dependencies. apt's
> > designed behaviour looks more sensible than apt-get's.
> 
> False dichotomy. More "newbie friendly" maybe. And that is what it
> was made for. For an experienced user, perhaps apt-get's behavior
> makes more sense.

True, experienced users have to adjust to the change in behaviour
(unless they were previously using --with-new-pkgs with apt-get),
but it is hardly a seismic event. The unification of apt-get and
apt-cache (some common directives only) is also beneficial to all
users (the target group for apt usage).
 
> Of course, it seems somewhat unfortunate that both apt and apt-get
> use the same subcommand name for slightly different things.

I agree, slightly inconvenient and takes some getting used to. We
could now argue about when is an "upgrade" not an "upgrade"? :).

-- 
Brian.

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[John Cunningham]

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 5:37 PM Brian  wrote:

> On Tue 29 May 2018 at 15:52:12 -0400, John Cunningham wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:39 PM Brian  wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 21:57:31 +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 29 May 2018 13:18:16 -0500 David Wright said:
> > > > > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 18:38:40 (+0300), Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:14:12 -0400 Greg Wooledge said:
> > > > > > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:31:14PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > --✁
> > > > > > > > I never use apt, so I am relying on the man page.
> > > > > --✃
> > > > >
> > > > > (That got snipped.)
> > > > >
> > > > > > > That's incorrect.  One of the differences between apt and
> apt-get
> > > is
> > > > > > > that apt WILL install new packages when doing "apt upgrade"
> (but it
> > > > > > > will not remove existing packages).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Another difference is that apt will remove all of the .deb
> files
> > > from
> > > > > > > /var/cache/apt/archives that were downloaded for the CURRENT
> apt
> > > command
> > > > > > > session (but will not remove any that were already there).
> (This
> > > > > > > behavior can be changed in a config file.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmm yes, apt upgrade do install new packages. I didn't look at
> the
> > > man page
> > > > > > for apt and assumed that -at least- the same keywords would work
> the
> > > same
> > > > > > in both apt and apt-get. I was wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mmm.
> > > >
> > > > I think I owe an explanation regarding whether I referred to the man
> > > page or
> > > > not. :)
> > > >
> > > > For different operations and keywords like full-upgrade vs.
> dist-upgrade
> > > I did
> > > > refer to the man page, but it didn't occur to me that the exact same
> > > keyword
> > > > (upgrade) would behave different in apt, so I didn't cross check
> > > behavior of
> > > > "upgrade" in respective man pages. I simply assumed apt upgrade would
> > > behave
> > > > ditto apt-get upgrade.
> > > >
> > > > This is how I both do and don't look up at the man pages at the same
> > > time.
> > >
> > > If a package is upgraded, surely a user would want any new packages
> > > to be installed if they are required to satisfy dependencies. apt's
> > > designed behaviour looks more sensible than apt-get's.
> >
> > Not necessarily. Sometimes the dependencies get out of hand, like when a
> > big project adopts a small utility and then decides that the entire
> project
> > is a dependency for the tiny utility.  It doesn't happen often, but it
> has
> > happened to me. I like that apt-get upgrade updates everything else. If I
> > decide I can stomach the other packages, I can always do a apt-get
> > dist-upgrade and install them.
>
> Your unfortunate (and undetailed) experience has to be balanced against
> the benefits which accrue to most users in having an up-to-date Debian.
>

In my belief, it is right in the sweet spot in that regard.  It provides
information and lets the user make the decision. It's much easier to do a
dist-upgrade than to find and remove unwanted packages.

--John

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 08:39:28PM +0100, Brian wrote:

[...]

> If a package is upgraded, surely a user would want any new packages
> to be installed if they are required to satisfy dependencies. apt's
> designed behaviour looks more sensible than apt-get's.

False dichotomy. More "newbie friendly" maybe. And that is what it
was made for. For an experienced user, perhaps apt-get's behavior
makes more sense.

Of course, it seems somewhat unfortunate that both apt and apt-get
use the same subcommand name for slightly different things.

Cheers
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlsOS9MACgkQBcgs9XrR2kafVgCggfwFc3aCiDTVfbsmxB4JXwvA
etcAnA41FTjMt3Vde9QA5nYcrGXHMybw
=5SVQ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[David Wright]

On Wed 30 May 2018 at 00:31:25 (+0300), Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2018 20:39:28 +0100 Brian said:
> 
> > If a package is upgraded, surely a user would want any new packages
> > to be installed if they are required to satisfy dependencies. apt's
> > designed behaviour looks more sensible than apt-get's.
> 
> Then removal of blocking packages are equally (if not more) sensible than
> installing new ones.

Yes and no. If I go shopping, I can put up with the kids each tossing
in some oranges or apples: they'll get eaten eventually. However, if
they were to remove the onions or the milk, there'd be trouble.

So the philosophy is that the "less sophisticated" don't mind extra
packages being thrown in but will be surprised by the disappearance
of packages they use.

> There is a well designed clear cut distinction between
> apt-get upgrade and dist-upgrade. "upgrade" upgrades the system
> non-intrusively, while "dist-upgrade" does that intrusively as its name
> suggests.

Agreed. That's one of the reasons apt-get is recommended for
scripting; another is the stable CLI interface.

> OTOH apt upgrade's behavior is in-between, semi-intrusive, and spoils
> that clear-cut distinction. Therefore I think apt-get works more sensible than
> apt in this regard.

That distinction may well be lost on many users, for whom apt might
be a better fit.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[David Wright]

On Tue 29 May 2018 at 22:37:08 (+0100), Brian wrote:
> On Tue 29 May 2018 at 15:52:12 -0400, John Cunningham wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:39 PM Brian  wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 21:57:31 +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 29 May 2018 13:18:16 -0500 David Wright said:
> > > > > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 18:38:40 (+0300), Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:14:12 -0400 Greg Wooledge said:
> > > > > > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:31:14PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > --✁
> > > > > > > > I never use apt, so I am relying on the man page.
> > > > > --✃
> > > > >
> > > > > (That got snipped.)
> > > > >
> > > > > > > That's incorrect.  One of the differences between apt and apt-get
> > > is
> > > > > > > that apt WILL install new packages when doing "apt upgrade" (but 
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > will not remove existing packages).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Another difference is that apt will remove all of the .deb files
> > > from
> > > > > > > /var/cache/apt/archives that were downloaded for the CURRENT apt
> > > command
> > > > > > > session (but will not remove any that were already there).  (This
> > > > > > > behavior can be changed in a config file.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmm yes, apt upgrade do install new packages. I didn't look at the
> > > man page
> > > > > > for apt and assumed that -at least- the same keywords would work the
> > > same
> > > > > > in both apt and apt-get. I was wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mmm.
> > > >
> > > > I think I owe an explanation regarding whether I referred to the man
> > > page or
> > > > not. :)
> > > >
> > > > For different operations and keywords like full-upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
> > > I did
> > > > refer to the man page, but it didn't occur to me that the exact same
> > > keyword
> > > > (upgrade) would behave different in apt, so I didn't cross check
> > > behavior of
> > > > "upgrade" in respective man pages. I simply assumed apt upgrade would
> > > behave
> > > > ditto apt-get upgrade.
> > > >
> > > > This is how I both do and don't look up at the man pages at the same
> > > time.
> > >
> > > If a package is upgraded, surely a user would want any new packages
> > > to be installed if they are required to satisfy dependencies. apt's
> > > designed behaviour looks more sensible than apt-get's.
> > 
> > Not necessarily. Sometimes the dependencies get out of hand, like when a
> > big project adopts a small utility and then decides that the entire project
> > is a dependency for the tiny utility.  It doesn't happen often, but it has
> > happened to me. I like that apt-get upgrade updates everything else. If I
> > decide I can stomach the other packages, I can always do a apt-get
> > dist-upgrade and install them.
> 
> Your unfortunate (and undetailed) experience has to be balanced against
> the benefits which accrue to most users in having an up-to-date Debian.

As I wrote (got snipped), "It [apt] wasn't designed to unify, but to
cherry-pick the parts most used by the "less sophisticated" (for want
of a better term) user. This explains the defaults chosen for it."
I guess that equates to your "most users". Fair enough.

In today's thread "File managers show files and directories in reverse order"
there was talk of Kate and Lyx, neither of which is installed here.
I toyed with installing kate just to see what the OP might be seeing.
Here's what would happen:

# apt-get -s install kate
Reading package lists...
Building dependency tree...
Reading state information...
The following additional packages will be installed:
  kactivities-bin kactivitymanagerd kate5-data kio kpackagelauncherqml
  kpackagetool5 ktexteditor-data ktexteditor-katepart libdbusmenu-qt5-2
  libfam0 libgit2-24 libgpgmepp6 libhttp-parser2.1 libkf5activities5
  libkf5archive5 libkf5attica5 libkf5auth-data libkf5auth5
  libkf5bookmarks-data libkf5bookmarks5 libkf5calendarevents5
  libkf5codecs-data libkf5codecs5 libkf5completion-data libkf5completion5
  libkf5config-bin libkf5config-data libkf5configcore5 libkf5configgui5
  libkf5configwidgets-data libkf5configwidgets5 libkf5coreaddons-data
  libkf5coreaddons5 libkf5crash5 libkf5dbusaddons-bin libkf5dbusaddons-data
  libkf5dbusaddons5 libkf5declarative-data libkf5declarative5
  libkf5globalaccel-bin libkf5globalaccel-data libkf5globalaccel5
  libkf5globalaccelprivate5 libkf5guiaddons5 libkf5i18n-data libkf5i18n5
  libkf5iconthemes-bin libkf5iconthemes-data libkf5iconthemes5
  libkf5itemmodels5 libkf5itemviews-data libkf5itemviews5
  libkf5jobwidgets-data libkf5jobwidgets5 libkf5kiocore5 libkf5kiofilewidgets5
  libkf5kiontlm5 libkf5kiowidgets5 libkf5newstuff-data libkf5newstuff5
  libkf5notifications-data libkf5notifications5 libkf5package-data
  libkf5package5 libkf5parts-data libkf5parts-plugins libkf5parts5
  libkf5plasma5 libkf5plasmaquick5 libkf5quickaddons5 libkf5service-bin
  libkf5service-data libkf5service5 libkf5solid5 

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[Brian]

On Tue 29 May 2018 at 15:52:12 -0400, John Cunningham wrote:

> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:39 PM Brian  wrote:
> 
> > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 21:57:31 +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 29 May 2018 13:18:16 -0500 David Wright said:
> > > > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 18:38:40 (+0300), Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:14:12 -0400 Greg Wooledge said:
> > > > > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:31:14PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > --✁
> > > > > > > I never use apt, so I am relying on the man page.
> > > > --✃
> > > >
> > > > (That got snipped.)
> > > >
> > > > > > That's incorrect.  One of the differences between apt and apt-get
> > is
> > > > > > that apt WILL install new packages when doing "apt upgrade" (but it
> > > > > > will not remove existing packages).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Another difference is that apt will remove all of the .deb files
> > from
> > > > > > /var/cache/apt/archives that were downloaded for the CURRENT apt
> > command
> > > > > > session (but will not remove any that were already there).  (This
> > > > > > behavior can be changed in a config file.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm yes, apt upgrade do install new packages. I didn't look at the
> > man page
> > > > > for apt and assumed that -at least- the same keywords would work the
> > same
> > > > > in both apt and apt-get. I was wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Mmm.
> > >
> > > I think I owe an explanation regarding whether I referred to the man
> > page or
> > > not. :)
> > >
> > > For different operations and keywords like full-upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
> > I did
> > > refer to the man page, but it didn't occur to me that the exact same
> > keyword
> > > (upgrade) would behave different in apt, so I didn't cross check
> > behavior of
> > > "upgrade" in respective man pages. I simply assumed apt upgrade would
> > behave
> > > ditto apt-get upgrade.
> > >
> > > This is how I both do and don't look up at the man pages at the same
> > time.
> >
> > If a package is upgraded, surely a user would want any new packages
> > to be installed if they are required to satisfy dependencies. apt's
> > designed behaviour looks more sensible than apt-get's.
> 
> Not necessarily. Sometimes the dependencies get out of hand, like when a
> big project adopts a small utility and then decides that the entire project
> is a dependency for the tiny utility.  It doesn't happen often, but it has
> happened to me. I like that apt-get upgrade updates everything else. If I
> decide I can stomach the other packages, I can always do a apt-get
> dist-upgrade and install them.

Your unfortunate (and undetailed) experience has to be balanced against
the benefits which accrue to most users in having an up-to-date Debian.

-- 
Brian.

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[John Cunningham]

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:39 PM Brian  wrote:

> On Tue 29 May 2018 at 21:57:31 +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 May 2018 13:18:16 -0500 David Wright said:
> > > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 18:38:40 (+0300), Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:14:12 -0400 Greg Wooledge said:
> > > > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:31:14PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu
> wrote:
> >
> > > --✁
> > > > > > I never use apt, so I am relying on the man page.
> > > --✃
> > >
> > > (That got snipped.)
> > >
> > > > > That's incorrect.  One of the differences between apt and apt-get
> is
> > > > > that apt WILL install new packages when doing "apt upgrade" (but it
> > > > > will not remove existing packages).
> > > > >
> > > > > Another difference is that apt will remove all of the .deb files
> from
> > > > > /var/cache/apt/archives that were downloaded for the CURRENT apt
> command
> > > > > session (but will not remove any that were already there).  (This
> > > > > behavior can be changed in a config file.)
> > > >
> > > > Hmm yes, apt upgrade do install new packages. I didn't look at the
> man page
> > > > for apt and assumed that -at least- the same keywords would work the
> same
> > > > in both apt and apt-get. I was wrong.
> > >
> > > Mmm.
> >
> > I think I owe an explanation regarding whether I referred to the man
> page or
> > not. :)
> >
> > For different operations and keywords like full-upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
> I did
> > refer to the man page, but it didn't occur to me that the exact same
> keyword
> > (upgrade) would behave different in apt, so I didn't cross check
> behavior of
> > "upgrade" in respective man pages. I simply assumed apt upgrade would
> behave
> > ditto apt-get upgrade.
> >
> > This is how I both do and don't look up at the man pages at the same
> time.
>
> If a package is upgraded, surely a user would want any new packages
> to be installed if they are required to satisfy dependencies. apt's
> designed behaviour looks more sensible than apt-get's.
>

Not necessarily. Sometimes the dependencies get out of hand, like when a
big project adopts a small utility and then decides that the entire project
is a dependency for the tiny utility.  It doesn't happen often, but it has
happened to me. I like that apt-get upgrade updates everything else. If I
decide I can stomach the other packages, I can always do a apt-get
dist-upgrade and install them.

--John

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[Brian]

On Tue 29 May 2018 at 21:57:31 +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:

> On Tue, 29 May 2018 13:18:16 -0500 David Wright said:
> > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 18:38:40 (+0300), Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:
> > > On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:14:12 -0400 Greg Wooledge said:
> > > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:31:14PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:  
> 
> > --✁
> > > > > I never use apt, so I am relying on the man page.  
> > --✃
> > 
> > (That got snipped.)
> > 
> > > > That's incorrect.  One of the differences between apt and apt-get is
> > > > that apt WILL install new packages when doing "apt upgrade" (but it
> > > > will not remove existing packages).
> > > > 
> > > > Another difference is that apt will remove all of the .deb files from
> > > > /var/cache/apt/archives that were downloaded for the CURRENT apt command
> > > > session (but will not remove any that were already there).  (This
> > > > behavior can be changed in a config file.)  
> > > 
> > > Hmm yes, apt upgrade do install new packages. I didn't look at the man 
> > > page
> > > for apt and assumed that -at least- the same keywords would work the same
> > > in both apt and apt-get. I was wrong.  
> > 
> > Mmm.
> 
> I think I owe an explanation regarding whether I referred to the man page or
> not. :)
> 
> For different operations and keywords like full-upgrade vs. dist-upgrade I did
> refer to the man page, but it didn't occur to me that the exact same keyword
> (upgrade) would behave different in apt, so I didn't cross check behavior of
> "upgrade" in respective man pages. I simply assumed apt upgrade would behave
> ditto apt-get upgrade.
> 
> This is how I both do and don't look up at the man pages at the same time.

If a package is upgraded, surely a user would want any new packages
to be installed if they are required to satisfy dependencies. apt's
designed behaviour looks more sensible than apt-get's.

-- 
Brian.

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[Abdullah Ramazanoğlu]

On Tue, 29 May 2018 13:18:16 -0500 David Wright said:
> On Tue 29 May 2018 at 18:38:40 (+0300), Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:14:12 -0400 Greg Wooledge said:
> > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:31:14PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:  

> --✁
> > > > I never use apt, so I am relying on the man page.  
> --✃
> 
> (That got snipped.)
> 
> > > That's incorrect.  One of the differences between apt and apt-get is
> > > that apt WILL install new packages when doing "apt upgrade" (but it
> > > will not remove existing packages).
> > > 
> > > Another difference is that apt will remove all of the .deb files from
> > > /var/cache/apt/archives that were downloaded for the CURRENT apt command
> > > session (but will not remove any that were already there).  (This
> > > behavior can be changed in a config file.)  
> > 
> > Hmm yes, apt upgrade do install new packages. I didn't look at the man page
> > for apt and assumed that -at least- the same keywords would work the same
> > in both apt and apt-get. I was wrong.  
> 
> Mmm.

I think I owe an explanation regarding whether I referred to the man page or
not. :)

For different operations and keywords like full-upgrade vs. dist-upgrade I did
refer to the man page, but it didn't occur to me that the exact same keyword
(upgrade) would behave different in apt, so I didn't cross check behavior of
"upgrade" in respective man pages. I simply assumed apt upgrade would behave
ditto apt-get upgrade.

This is how I both do and don't look up at the man pages at the same time.

Regards
-- 
Abdullah Ramazanoğlu

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[David Wright]

On Tue 29 May 2018 at 18:38:40 (+0300), Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:14:12 -0400 Greg Wooledge said:
> 
> > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:31:14PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:
> > > apt or apt-get upgrade does upgrade in passive mode: It never install new
> > > packages, never removes existing ones. Just upgrades existing ones as far 
> > > as
> > > possible.  

--✁
> > > I never use apt, so I am relying on the man page.
--✃

(That got snipped.)

> > That's incorrect.  One of the differences between apt and apt-get is
> > that apt WILL install new packages when doing "apt upgrade" (but it
> > will not remove existing packages).
> > 
> > Another difference is that apt will remove all of the .deb files from
> > /var/cache/apt/archives that were downloaded for the CURRENT apt command
> > session (but will not remove any that were already there).  (This
> > behavior can be changed in a config file.)
> 
> Hmm yes, apt upgrade do install new packages. I didn't look at the man page 
> for
> apt and assumed that -at least- the same keywords would work the same in both
> apt and apt-get. I was wrong.

Mmm.

> I wonder why apt should be so close to apt-get but confusingly different. One
> has dist-upgrade with certain functionality, the other has full-upgrade with
> different functionality. Upgrade function works different between them. Who
> knows what else.
> 
> AIUI apt-get is the older and more complete tool. I don't know what was the
> reason for inventing apt. It is not higher level, it is not as complete as
> apt-get, it is not conformant (to apt-get). Perhaps the idea was to unify
> apt-get and apt-cache into one tool, but it was done badly IMO.

It wasn't designed to unify, but to cherry-pick the parts most used by
the "less sophisticated" (for want of a better term) user. This
explains the defaults chosen for it. It may also evolve with time in
a way that might make it hazardous for script users, particularly if
they don't keep up with the man pages.

Wisely, the OP quoted the precise commands they used, something that
all too often doesn't happen. The confusion over command/actions arose
later in the thread for no good reason. That's not the fault of apt
or apt-get.

> I don't use apt anyway. Sticking to good old apt-get and apt-cache.

Their aim is to preserve their interface across upgrades, so that scripts
using them (as recommended) don't require incessant modification.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[Abdullah Ramazanoğlu]

On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:14:12 -0400 Greg Wooledge said:

> On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:31:14PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:
> > apt or apt-get upgrade does upgrade in passive mode: It never install new
> > packages, never removes existing ones. Just upgrades existing ones as far as
> > possible.  
> 
> That's incorrect.  One of the differences between apt and apt-get is
> that apt WILL install new packages when doing "apt upgrade" (but it
> will not remove existing packages).
> 
> Another difference is that apt will remove all of the .deb files from
> /var/cache/apt/archives that were downloaded for the CURRENT apt command
> session (but will not remove any that were already there).  (This
> behavior can be changed in a config file.)

Hmm yes, apt upgrade do install new packages. I didn't look at the man page for
apt and assumed that -at least- the same keywords would work the same in both
apt and apt-get. I was wrong.

I wonder why apt should be so close to apt-get but confusingly different. One
has dist-upgrade with certain functionality, the other has full-upgrade with
different functionality. Upgrade function works different between them. Who
knows what else.

AIUI apt-get is the older and more complete tool. I don't know what was the
reason for inventing apt. It is not higher level, it is not as complete as
apt-get, it is not conformant (to apt-get). Perhaps the idea was to unify
apt-get and apt-cache into one tool, but it was done badly IMO.

I don't use apt anyway. Sticking to good old apt-get and apt-cache.

Regards
-- 
Abdullah Ramazanoğlu

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[Greg Wooledge]

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:31:14PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:
> apt or apt-get upgrade does upgrade in passive mode: It never install new
> packages, never removes existing ones. Just upgrades existing ones as far as
> possible.

That's incorrect.  One of the differences between apt and apt-get is
that apt WILL install new packages when doing "apt upgrade" (but it
will not remove existing packages).

Another difference is that apt will remove all of the .deb files from
/var/cache/apt/archives that were downloaded for the CURRENT apt command
session (but will not remove any that were already there).  (This
behavior can be changed in a config file.)

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[David Wright]

On Sat 26 May 2018 at 15:45:02 (-0400), Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
> On 5/26/18, Pétùr  wrote:
> > Le 25/05/2018 à 21:33, Joe a écrit :
> >>> Le 19/05/2018 à 21:03, Hans a écrit :
>  Isn't it today "apt update" and "apt full-upgrade"?
> >>> Thanks, I didn't know this new "full-upgrade" command.
> >>>
> >>> Is "apt full-upgrade" equivalent to "apt-get dist-upgrade" (or apt
> >>> dist-upgrade)?
> >
> >> More or less. Apt-get is actually a bit less intelligent, but in the
> >> case of upgrades of very large numbers of packages (400+), that seems to
> >> work better. It has been recommended for several version upgrades in
> >> preference to aptitude.
> >>
> >> I haven't used apt, but I've used aptitude to upgrade long-neglected
> >> unstable installations, and I've known it to run overnight without
> >> finding a solution.
> >>
> >> For smaller numbers of packages, aptitude (and presumably apt) is
> >> generally quicker at reaching a solution, apt-get may have to be run a
> >> few times with selected packages to break an impasse.
> >
> > I don't use aptitude. I use only apt and apt-get but I believe apt is
> > just a shortcut for apt-get. `apt update` is equivalent for me to
> > `apt-get update` and `apt dist-upgrade` to `apt-get dist-upgrade`
> > (correct me if I am wrong).
> 
> 
> On occasion, I'm able to interchangeably use a suggest apt command
> with apt-get instead. That's most likely not 100%, though. Just means
> I got lucky a time or ten. :)
> 
> 
> > My question was if apt (or apt-get) dist-upgrade was equivalent of apt
> > (or apt-get) full-upgrade?
> 
> 
> I can't directly answer your question, but I *could* at least grab
> something from "man". :)
> 
> >From "man apt-get" (I only found dist-upgrade referenced there):
> 
> 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.
> 
> >From "man apt" (I only found full-upgrade referenced there):
> 
> full-upgrade (apt-get(8)): full-upgrade performs the function of
> upgrade but will remove currently installed packages if this is needed
> to upgrade the system as a whole.

I think that closes the circle:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2018/05/msg00847.html

Of course one is free to try both approaches and compare them
in at least a couple of ways:

→   -s for simulate,
→   just say no when asked to proceed.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[Cindy-Sue Causey]

On 5/26/18, Pétùr  wrote:
> Le 25/05/2018 à 21:33, Joe a écrit :
>>> Le 19/05/2018 à 21:03, Hans a écrit :
 Isn't it today "apt update" and "apt full-upgrade"?
>>> Thanks, I didn't know this new "full-upgrade" command.
>>>
>>> Is "apt full-upgrade" equivalent to "apt-get dist-upgrade" (or apt
>>> dist-upgrade)?
>
>> More or less. Apt-get is actually a bit less intelligent, but in the
>> case of upgrades of very large numbers of packages (400+), that seems to
>> work better. It has been recommended for several version upgrades in
>> preference to aptitude.
>>
>> I haven't used apt, but I've used aptitude to upgrade long-neglected
>> unstable installations, and I've known it to run overnight without
>> finding a solution.
>>
>> For smaller numbers of packages, aptitude (and presumably apt) is
>> generally quicker at reaching a solution, apt-get may have to be run a
>> few times with selected packages to break an impasse.
>
> I don't use aptitude. I use only apt and apt-get but I believe apt is
> just a shortcut for apt-get. `apt update` is equivalent for me to
> `apt-get update` and `apt dist-upgrade` to `apt-get dist-upgrade`
> (correct me if I am wrong).


On occasion, I'm able to interchangeably use a suggest apt command
with apt-get instead. That's most likely not 100%, though. Just means
I got lucky a time or ten. :)


> My question was if apt (or apt-get) dist-upgrade was equivalent of apt
> (or apt-get) full-upgrade?


I can't directly answer your question, but I *could* at least grab
something from "man". :)

>From "man apt-get" (I only found dist-upgrade referenced there):

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.

>From "man apt" (I only found full-upgrade referenced there):

full-upgrade (apt-get(8)): full-upgrade performs the function of
upgrade but will remove currently installed packages if this is needed
to upgrade the system as a whole.

*hm.* :)

Kind of sounds at least very similar, just that description is not as
verbose for "man apt". The "man apt-get" blurb helps *me* feel a
little more confident that I *might* better understand what *might* be
about to happen if I go that route.

With respect to "man apt-get" specifically suggesting/highlighting
"apt_preferences(5)"... the fun would be in determining what
individual packages might be direly affected such that an overriding
mechanism would be necessary.

"apt_preferences(5)" wasn't likewise specifically mentioned directly
related to "full-upgrade" in "man apt", but there was a helpful
bottom-of-the-page reference that did still point users toward "man 5
apt_preferences". It's then up to us users to heed those additionally
suggested manpages as potentially being important to whatever we may
be trying to accomplish. :)

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

* runs with duct tape *

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[Abdullah Ramazanoğlu]

On Sat, 26 May 2018 20:08:59 +0200 Pétùr said:
 
> I don't use aptitude. I use only apt and apt-get but I believe apt is
> just a shortcut for apt-get. `apt update` is equivalent for me to
> `apt-get update` and `apt dist-upgrade` to `apt-get dist-upgrade`
> (correct me if I am wrong).
> 
> My question was if apt (or apt-get) dist-upgrade was equivalent of apt
> (or apt-get) full-upgrade?

There is no "apt-get full-upgrade" nor "apt dist-upgrade".

apt or apt-get upgrade does upgrade in passive mode: It never install new
packages, never removes existing ones. Just upgrades existing ones as far as
possible.

apt-get dist-upgrade does upgrade in proactive mode: It installs new packages
and removes existing packages if need be.

OTOH apt full-upgrade works in between: It never installs new packages (as in
upgrade), but removes existing packages if need be.

I never use apt, so I am relying on the man page. It seems that there is no
equivalent of "apt-get dist-upgrade" in apt.

Regards
-- 
Abdullah Ramazanoğlu

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[Pétùr]

Le 25/05/2018 à 21:33, Joe a écrit :
>> Le 19/05/2018 à 21:03, Hans a écrit :
>>> Isn't it today "apt update" and "apt full-upgrade"?  
>> Thanks, I didn't know this new "full-upgrade" command.
>>
>> Is "apt full-upgrade" equivalent to "apt-get dist-upgrade" (or apt
>> dist-upgrade)?

> More or less. Apt-get is actually a bit less intelligent, but in the
> case of upgrades of very large numbers of packages (400+), that seems to
> work better. It has been recommended for several version upgrades in
> preference to aptitude.
> 
> I haven't used apt, but I've used aptitude to upgrade long-neglected
> unstable installations, and I've known it to run overnight without
> finding a solution.
> 
> For smaller numbers of packages, aptitude (and presumably apt) is
> generally quicker at reaching a solution, apt-get may have to be run a
> few times with selected packages to break an impasse.

I don't use aptitude. I use only apt and apt-get but I believe apt is
just a shortcut for apt-get. `apt update` is equivalent for me to
`apt-get update` and `apt dist-upgrade` to `apt-get dist-upgrade`
(correct me if I am wrong).

My question was if apt (or apt-get) dist-upgrade was equivalent of apt
(or apt-get) full-upgrade?

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[Kenneth Parker]

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Pétùr  wrote:

>
>
> >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.
>
> Warning:  Ubuntu ("close enough" to Debian to confuse me, multiple years)
regularly requires dist-upgrade to do their frequent Kernel Upgrades,
because they change Version Numbers on, among other things, the vmlinuz
file.  So, when I do "apt-get upgrade" on the remaining Ubuntu Laptop, I
regularly see things like,

>> root@EyeBlinkLenovo:~# apt-get -d upgrade
>> Reading package lists... Done
>> Building dependency tree
>> Reading state information... Done
>> Calculating upgrade... Done
>> The following packages have been kept back:
>>   linux-generic linux-headers-generic linux-image-generic
linux-signed-generic linux-signed-image-generic linux-tools-generic
>> 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 6 not upgraded.

But then, "apt-get dist-upgrade" gets me "new packages", where only a
"sub-version" is different.  For example, when the "smoke clears" from the
dist-upgrade, my "vmlinuz", in my /boot directory consists of (among other
things)

>> vmlinuz-4.4.0-124-generic
>> vmlinuz-4.4.0-127-generic

Note that these are different Packages.

Now I know, that Ubuntu is aimed, at a less technical audience, but this
threw me for a loop (and came to the foreground, when I didn't allocate a
large enough /boot partition.  I had to learn "apt-get autoremove" in a
HURRY!!!  Oh well.  I;m sure each of you have your own Administration War
Stories).

But this "Feature Creep" on the Linux Kernel, is why I am here now,
"upgrading" my Ubuntu Server Systems to Debian 9.4.  Once again, Go Debian!)

So, once again, watch out for "dist-upgrade", if there's any "hint" of
Ubuntu (i.e.   Mint, Elementary OS, and many others out there).

Word to the Wise.

Kenneth Parker

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[Joe]

On Fri, 25 May 2018 20:17:52 +0200
Pétùr  wrote:

> Le 19/05/2018 à 21:03, Hans a écrit :
> > Isn't it today "apt update" and "apt full-upgrade"?  
> 
> Thanks, I didn't know this new "full-upgrade" command.
> 
> Is "apt full-upgrade" equivalent to "apt-get dist-upgrade" (or apt
> dist-upgrade)?
> 
> According to the man pages (man apt and man apt-get), dist-upgrade
> "intelligently handles changing dependencies" when full-upgrade justs
> "remove currently installed packages if this is needed".
> 

More or less. Apt-get is actually a bit less intelligent, but in the
case of upgrades of very large numbers of packages (400+), that seems to
work better. It has been recommended for several version upgrades in
preference to aptitude.

I haven't used apt, but I've used aptitude to upgrade long-neglected
unstable installations, and I've known it to run overnight without
finding a solution.

For smaller numbers of packages, aptitude (and presumably apt) is
generally quicker at reaching a solution, apt-get may have to be run a
few times with selected packages to break an impasse.

-- 
Joe

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[Pétùr]

Le 19/05/2018 à 21:03, Hans a écrit :
> Isn't it today "apt update" and "apt full-upgrade"?

Thanks, I didn't know this new "full-upgrade" command.

Is "apt full-upgrade" equivalent to "apt-get dist-upgrade" (or apt
dist-upgrade)?

According to the man pages (man apt and man apt-get), dist-upgrade
"intelligently handles changing dependencies" when full-upgrade justs
"remove currently installed packages if this is needed".


>full-upgrade (apt-get(8))
>full-upgrade performs the function of upgrade but will remove 
> currently installed
>packages if this is needed to upgrade the system as a whole.
> 

>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.

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[Abdullah Ramazanoğlu]

On Sat, 19 May 2018 21:27:42 +0300 Abdullah Ramazanoğlu said:
> On Sat, 19 May 2018 10:37:08 -0400 Matthew Dyer said:

>> root@matt-the-cat:/home/matthew# apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade
>> Hit:1 http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing/updates InRelease
>> Hit:2 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian testing InRelease
>> Reading package lists... Done  
> 
> It seems to be the "apt-get update" part of output, which is curiously terse.
> If update is not working, then upgrade will neither work, naturally. Just to
> be sure that "update" output is not trimmed somehow, could you run the command
> below and attach the generated "update.log" file here?
> 
> # apt-get update 2>&1 | tee update.log
> 
> It would be better if you also attach /etc/apt/sources.list

While it is early yet to speculate, I would also check;

* /etc/apt/sources.list : This file should be same as the one in MATE
  installation.
* /etc/apt/preferences : This file should not exist.
* /etc/apt/preferences.d/ : This directory should be empty.
* /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ : This directory should be empty.
* /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/ : This directory should not have been tampered with.
* /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/99synaptic : This file either should not exist, or should
  be empty.

I would have compared these files and directories to the ones in the MATE
installation.

Regards
-- 
Abdullah Ramazanoğlu

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[songbird]

Matthew Dyer wrote:
...

these things come to mind:

  - perhaps you have automatic upgrades set up on
Gnome?

  there should be some record in /var/log/apt or
/var/log/dpkg.log of what is being updated.

  - if you have a fast enough connection it doesn't
hurt to make sure /var/lib/apt/lists files are 
consistent (i have erased them and redownloaded 
at times to get through strange apt-get issues).

  - if you have been messing with apt preferences you
may have messed that up.  dunno what you've been up
to.

  - there aren't any updates to apply at this time.


  songbird

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[Hans]

Am Samstag, 19. Mai 2018, 20:26:25 CEST schrieb songbird:

Isn't it today "apt update" and "apt full-upgrade"?

It is also possible, to use "aptitude" (aptitude update && aptittude dist-
upgrade) but be warned: aptitude for upgrading from one release to another is 
no good choice. However, aptitude does a good daily job at an actual and 
upgraded system. 

So, I suggest to try "apt update && apt full-upgrade", but this only works in 
testing.

Good luck!

Hans

Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[songbird]

Matthew Dyer wrote:
> Mornning all,
>
>
> A few days ago I reported a  problem whare the gnome testing system 
> which I am now using to write this message.  Here is the resault.
>
>
> I did a clean install of the system using the alfa testing image.  I 
> then edited the sources list and changed the lines from buster to 
> testing.  I then did a sudo apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade which 
> installed the securety updates it found yesterday.  his morning I did 
> the same command and here is the output from that update.
>
>
> root@matt-the-cat:/home/matthew# apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade
> Hit:1 http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing/updates InRelease
> Hit:2 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian testing InRelease
> Reading package lists... Done
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> Calculating upgrade... Done
> 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
> root@matt-the-cat:/home/matthew#
>
> Any ideas on why this is happens?  If any one has any ideas on how to 
> fix this without having to reinstall.
>
>>
>> root@matt-the-cat:/home/matthew# apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade
>> Hit:1 http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing/updates InRelease
>> Hit:2 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian testing InRelease
>> Reading package lists... Done
>> Reading package lists... Done
>> Building dependency tree
>> Reading state information... Done
>> Calculating upgrade... Done
>> 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
>> root@matt-the-cat:/home/matthew#
>> n
>   reinstall please let me know as it is really strange.  My mate system 
> does not have this problem.  Thanks.

  it looks like your /etc/apt/sources.list file doesn't
contain all the lines for testing or they are improperly 
formed?


mine look like:

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


  songbird

Update on my update problem with gnome system.

[Matthew Dyer]

Mornning all,


A few days ago I reported a  problem whare the gnome testing system 
which I am now using to write this message.  Here is the resault.



I did a clean install of the system using the alfa testing image.  I 
then edited the sources list and changed the lines from buster to 
testing.  I then did a sudo apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade which 
installed the securety updates it found yesterday.  his morning I did 
the same command and here is the output from that update.



root@matt-the-cat:/home/matthew# apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade
Hit:1 http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing/updates InRelease
Hit:2 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian testing InRelease
Reading package lists... Done
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
root@matt-the-cat:/home/matthew#

Any ideas on why this is happens?  If any one has any ideas on how to 
fix this without having to reinstall.




root@matt-the-cat:/home/matthew# apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade
Hit:1 http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing/updates InRelease
Hit:2 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian testing InRelease
Reading package lists... Done
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
root@matt-the-cat:/home/matthew#
n
 reinstall please let me know as it is really strange.  My mate system 
does not have this problem.  Thanks.



Matthew

apt update problem when it works with local apt-mirror repository

[Сергей Терехов]

My internet provider blocks e-mails sending to smtp server so sending a letter 
via the web.
It is seemed to 813786 resolved bug you can see:
From: Julian Andres Klode 
To: 813786-cl...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#813786: fixed in apt 1.4~beta3
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 21:03:45 +
But now problem is for  local repository .
I install or update a packets on my local computer with Debian 64 8.6 Unstable 
through 2 stages.
At first, through apt-mirror (0.5.1-1 or 0.5.2-1) i update  local repository on 
separated hard disk. At next, i install or update packets through apt, aptitude 
or synaptic from local repository. When i work in Debian Stable through  apt 
(1.0.9.8.3),  aptitude (0.6.11-1+b1) or  synaptic (0.81.2) it is all right.
But if i use more higher versions all is worst. Now I use:
Testing:
apt (1.4~beta2)
aptitude (0.8.4-1)
synaptic (0.83+nmu1)
For example :
root@A1:/home/u1# apt update
Rec:1 file:/media/u1/DebRepo/deb-repo/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian sid 
InRelease [209 kB]
Rec:1 file:/media/u1/DebRepo/deb-repo/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian sid 
InRelease [209 kB]
Read package lists… Ready
Building dependency tree
Read status information… Ready
Can be updated 1 package. Run "apt list --upgradable" for the show.
N: Can't drop privileges for downloading as file
«/media/u1/DebRepo/deb-repo/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian/dists/sid/InRelease» 
couldn't be accessed by user '_apt'. - pkgAcquire::Run (13: Permission non 
accordée).
synaptic (0.83+nmu1), when access to the local repository, issue such reports 
"Cannot be reset rights for download" and failing to access the repository.
Aptitude (0.8.4-1), when we update packets list (press button «u») it is showed
file:/media/u1/Debian/deb-repo/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian sid/main 
Translation.ru [Error]
file not found —  file:/media/u1/Debian/deb-repo/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian/ 
dists/sid/main/i18n/Translation-ru (2: file not found)
file:/media/u1/Debian/deb-repo/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian sid/main [Ignored]
Unstable:
apt (1.4)
synaptic (0.84.2)
For example :
root@A1:~# apt update
Get:1 file:/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian sid 
InRelease [231 kB]
Get:1 file:/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian sid 
InRelease [231 kB]
Get:2 file:/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian 
sid/main amd64 Contents (deb) [34.4 MB]
Ign:2 file:/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian 
sid/main amd64 Contents (deb)
Get:3 file:/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian 
sid/contrib amd64 Contents (deb) [117 kB]
Ign:3 file:/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian 
sid/contrib amd64 Contents (deb)
Get:4 file:/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian 
sid/non-free amd64 Contents (deb) [839 kB]
Ign:4 file:/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian 
sid/non-free amd64 Contents (deb)
Get:2 file:/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian 
sid/main amd64 Contents (deb) [34.4 MB]
Ign:2 file:/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian 
sid/main amd64 Contents (deb)
Get:3 file:/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian 
sid/contrib amd64 Contents (deb) [117 kB]
Ign:3 file:/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian 
sid/contrib amd64 Contents (deb)
Get:4 file:/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian 
sid/non-free amd64 Contents (deb) [839 kB]
Get:2 file:/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian 
sid/main amd64 Contents (deb) [504 MB]
Ign:4 file:/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian 
sid/non-free amd64 Contents (deb)
Err:2 file:/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian 
sid/main amd64 Contents (deb)
File not found - 
/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian/dists/sid/main/Contents-amd64
 (2: No such file or directory)
Get:3 file:/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian 
sid/contrib amd64 Contents (deb) [1,501 kB]
Ign:3 file:/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian 
sid/contrib amd64 Contents (deb)
Reading package lists... Done
N: Download is performed unsandboxed as root as file 
'/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian/dists/sid/InRelease'
 couldn't be accessed by user '_apt'. - pkgAcquire::Run (13: Permission denied)
E: Failed to fetch 
file:/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian/dists/sid/main/Contents-amd64
 File not found - 
/media/u1/DebRepo/DebianMirror/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian/dists/sid/main/Contents-amd64
 (2: No such file or directory)
E: Some index files failed to download. They have been ignored, or old ones 
used instead.
root@A1 :~#
Can be updated 1 package. Run "apt list --upgradable" for the show.
N: Download is performed unsandboxed as root as file 
'/media/u1/Debian/deb-repo/mirror/mirror.mephi.ru/debian/dists/sid/InRelease' 

Re: Package update problem...{***SOLVED***}

[Mark Neidorff]

On Wednesday, 12/14/16 11:06:52 AM Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 December 2016 19:23:49 Mark Neidorff wrote:
> > On Monday, 12/12/16 11:49:01 PM kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Mark Neidorff  wrote:
> > > > Sorry to seem stubborn, but I don't consider giving a user account
> > > > full
> > > > administrative access acceptable, even if there is only one user on
> > > > the
> > > > system. My reasoning is that by default if the user goes to a
> > > > "naughty"
> > > > web
> > > > page and somehow downloads destructive software only the user's files
> > > > are at risk. But, with full administrative access, the entire system
> > > > (plus any attached networks) are at risk.
> > > 
> > > I do not think you are being stubborn. You do not have to give the
> > > normal user ALL permissions. But you have to give him some permissions
> > > to be able to install/update/remove packages. For example, I
> > > configured my /etc/sudoers file such that my normal user account can
> > > run apt-get and install packages. Giving ALL permissions just makes
> > > things simpler but /etc/sudoers can be fine tuned to give just as much
> > > as control as needed.
> > > 
> > > > Question: Is not allowing an administrative (software update)task to
> > > > run when the root password is given a bug or is it by design? If by
> > > > design, why?
> > > 
> > > I do not understand the question. I am not here to defend any
> > > particular design choice. I can help you with how it can be done but
> > > not why it should be done one way or another. That is beyond my
> > > expertise.
> > > 
> > > > I see two alternatives to your suggestion, neither of which is
> > > > convenient.
> > > > 
> > > > 1. When I get a notification, log off and then log in as root. Then
> > > > when the updates are downloaded and applied, log back in as the user.
> > > 
> > > No. There is no need to logoff. For example, whenever I want to
> > > install a package, I simply open a konsole and run
> > > 
> > > sudo apt-get update
> > > sudo apt-get install PKGNAME
> > > 
> > > as a normal user. When it asks for password, I supply the password of
> > > my user account (not the password of the root account).
> > > 
> > > > 2. When I get a notification, use "su" to change to the root user and
> > > > then do the updates.
> > > 
> > > That is one way. I find sudo a bit more easier than su. Since with
> > > sudo, you do not even have to know the root password (once it is
> > > setup).
> > > 
> > > > But, I have been using linux (and KDE) for a long time and up until
> > > > now, when an update arrives I select to apply the update, give the
> > > > root
> > > > password, and the update is installed. Now, when I get an update
> > > > notification and supply the root password to apply the update, the
> > > > update is not applied. (I am returned to the password prompt)
> > > 
> > > hmm... no idea on this part. What program does KDE run when you try to
> > > update packages? May be run it from command line and see if it gives
> > > an error?
> > > 
> > > hth
> > > raju
> > 
> > Good news!  I solved the problem.  This solution came from the openSUSE
> > forums... (just giving credit where credit is due)
> 
> It isn't the solution to the problem you posed - how to make KDE update
> work. It is a solution to the problem of how to update automatically. 
> Quite different.  Though apparently it is a suitable alternative for you -
> and for many others.  Personally, I want control over updates.  I don't
> like "update".  But at least it doesn't run until you tell it to do so!
> 
> Lisi
> 
> > As root, in the folder /etc/cron.* (where * is either daily, hourly, etc.
> > depending on how often you want the check to take place):
> > 
> > 1. Create a file called autoupdate using your favorite editor (that sounds
> > like a good name).
> > 
> > 2. File contents:
> > #! /bin/bash
> > 
> > apt-get update
> > apt-get upgrade -y
> > apt-get autoclean
> > 
> > 3. Save the file, and then make it executable:
> > #chmod 755 autoupdate
> > 
> > 
> > Note the "apt-get autoclean" is optional.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Mark

You are right Lisi.  It is working around a KDE problem rather than fixing it.  
One of the e-mails that I got in this chain (which I think I have lost) warned 
of config files either getting overwritten or, due to syntax changes, not 
having 
the package work properly.  I'm going to rethink this again.  To put this in 
full context, the machine is a backup server that I'm building.  So, my first 
thought was to have updates applied automatically.  As I said, I'm rethinking 
that idea.

Mark

Re: Package update problem...{***SOLVED***}

[Lisi Reisz]

On Tuesday 13 December 2016 19:23:49 Mark Neidorff wrote:
> On Monday, 12/12/16 11:49:01 PM kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Mark Neidorff  wrote:
> > > Sorry to seem stubborn, but I don't consider giving a user account full
> > > administrative access acceptable, even if there is only one user on the
> > > system. My reasoning is that by default if the user goes to a "naughty"
> > > web
> > > page and somehow downloads destructive software only the user's files
> > > are at risk. But, with full administrative access, the entire system
> > > (plus any attached networks) are at risk.
> >
> > I do not think you are being stubborn. You do not have to give the
> > normal user ALL permissions. But you have to give him some permissions
> > to be able to install/update/remove packages. For example, I
> > configured my /etc/sudoers file such that my normal user account can
> > run apt-get and install packages. Giving ALL permissions just makes
> > things simpler but /etc/sudoers can be fine tuned to give just as much
> > as control as needed.
> >
> > > Question: Is not allowing an administrative (software update)task to
> > > run when the root password is given a bug or is it by design? If by
> > > design, why?
> >
> > I do not understand the question. I am not here to defend any
> > particular design choice. I can help you with how it can be done but
> > not why it should be done one way or another. That is beyond my
> > expertise.
> >
> > > I see two alternatives to your suggestion, neither of which is
> > > convenient.
> > >
> > > 1. When I get a notification, log off and then log in as root. Then
> > > when the updates are downloaded and applied, log back in as the user.
> >
> > No. There is no need to logoff. For example, whenever I want to
> > install a package, I simply open a konsole and run
> >
> > sudo apt-get update
> > sudo apt-get install PKGNAME
> >
> > as a normal user. When it asks for password, I supply the password of
> > my user account (not the password of the root account).
> >
> > > 2. When I get a notification, use "su" to change to the root user and
> > > then do the updates.
> >
> > That is one way. I find sudo a bit more easier than su. Since with
> > sudo, you do not even have to know the root password (once it is
> > setup).
> >
> > > But, I have been using linux (and KDE) for a long time and up until
> > > now, when an update arrives I select to apply the update, give the root
> > > password, and the update is installed. Now, when I get an update
> > > notification and supply the root password to apply the update, the
> > > update is not applied. (I am returned to the password prompt)
> >
> > hmm... no idea on this part. What program does KDE run when you try to
> > update packages? May be run it from command line and see if it gives
> > an error?
> >
> > hth
> > raju
>
> Good news!  I solved the problem.  This solution came from the openSUSE
> forums... (just giving credit where credit is due)

It isn't the solution to the problem you posed - how to make KDE update work.  
It is a solution to the problem of how to update automatically.  Quite 
different.  Though apparently it is a suitable alternative for you - and for 
many others.  Personally, I want control over updates.  I don't 
like "update".  But at least it doesn't run until you tell it to do so!

Lisi
> As root, in the folder /etc/cron.* (where * is either daily, hourly, etc.
> depending on how often you want the check to take place):
>
> 1. Create a file called autoupdate using your favorite editor (that sounds
> like a good name).
>
> 2. File contents:
> #! /bin/bash
>
> apt-get update
> apt-get upgrade -y
> apt-get autoclean
>
> 3. Save the file, and then make it executable:
> #chmod 755 autoupdate
>
>
> Note the "apt-get autoclean" is optional.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark

Re: Package update problem...{***SOLVED***}

[Mark Neidorff]

On Tuesday, 12/13/16 02:34:00 PM Henning Follmann wrote:
> > Good news!  I solved the problem.  This solution came from the openSUSE
> > forums... (just giving credit where credit is due)
> > 
> > As root, in the folder /etc/cron.* (where * is either daily, hourly, etc.
> > depending on how often you want the check to take place):
> > 
> > 1. Create a file called autoupdate using your favorite editor (that sounds
> > like a good name).
> > 
> > 2. File contents:
> > #! /bin/bash
> > 
> > apt-get update
> > apt-get upgrade -y
> > apt-get autoclean
> > 
> > 3. Save the file, and then make it executable:
> > #chmod 755 autoupdate
> > 
> > 
> > Note the "apt-get autoclean" is optional.
> 
> Well, not what yousked though.
> The answer given to you (adding the user to sudo group) was the right
> answer.
> 
> Anyway if you want unsupwerwised updated
> 
> apt-get install cron-apt
> 
> Would have been the right choice.
> 
> 
> -H


Good to know about cron-apt.  I'll check it out.

Many thanks,

Mark

Re: Package update problem...{***SOLVED***}

[Henning Follmann]

> 
> 
> Good news!  I solved the problem.  This solution came from the openSUSE 
> forums... (just giving credit where credit is due)
> 
> As root, in the folder /etc/cron.* (where * is either daily, hourly, etc. 
> depending on how often you want the check to take place):
> 
> 1. Create a file called autoupdate using your favorite editor (that sounds 
> like 
> a good name).
> 
> 2. File contents:
> #! /bin/bash
> 
> apt-get update
> apt-get upgrade -y
> apt-get autoclean
> 
> 3. Save the file, and then make it executable:
> #chmod 755 autoupdate
> 
> 
> Note the "apt-get autoclean" is optional.
> 

Well, not what yousked though.
The answer given to you (adding the user to sudo group) was the right
answer.

Anyway if you want unsupwerwised updated

apt-get install cron-apt

Would have been the right choice.


-H



-- 
Henning Follmann   | hfollm...@itcfollmann.com

Re: Package update problem...{***SOLVED***}

[Mark Neidorff]

On Monday, 12/12/16 11:49:01 PM kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Mark Neidorff  wrote:
> > Sorry to seem stubborn, but I don't consider giving a user account full
> > administrative access acceptable, even if there is only one user on the
> > system. My reasoning is that by default if the user goes to a "naughty"
> > web
> > page and somehow downloads destructive software only the user's files are
> > at risk. But, with full administrative access, the entire system (plus
> > any attached networks) are at risk.
> 
> I do not think you are being stubborn. You do not have to give the
> normal user ALL permissions. But you have to give him some permissions
> to be able to install/update/remove packages. For example, I
> configured my /etc/sudoers file such that my normal user account can
> run apt-get and install packages. Giving ALL permissions just makes
> things simpler but /etc/sudoers can be fine tuned to give just as much
> as control as needed.
> 
> > Question: Is not allowing an administrative (software update)task to run
> > when the root password is given a bug or is it by design? If by design,
> > why?
> I do not understand the question. I am not here to defend any
> particular design choice. I can help you with how it can be done but
> not why it should be done one way or another. That is beyond my
> expertise.
> 
> > I see two alternatives to your suggestion, neither of which is convenient.
> > 
> > 1. When I get a notification, log off and then log in as root. Then when
> > the updates are downloaded and applied, log back in as the user.
> 
> No. There is no need to logoff. For example, whenever I want to
> install a package, I simply open a konsole and run
> 
> sudo apt-get update
> sudo apt-get install PKGNAME
> 
> as a normal user. When it asks for password, I supply the password of
> my user account (not the password of the root account).
> 
> > 2. When I get a notification, use "su" to change to the root user and then
> > do the updates.
> 
> That is one way. I find sudo a bit more easier than su. Since with
> sudo, you do not even have to know the root password (once it is
> setup).
> 
> > But, I have been using linux (and KDE) for a long time and up until now,
> > when an update arrives I select to apply the update, give the root
> > password, and the update is installed. Now, when I get an update
> > notification and supply the root password to apply the update, the update
> > is not applied. (I am returned to the password prompt)
> 
> hmm... no idea on this part. What program does KDE run when you try to
> update packages? May be run it from command line and see if it gives
> an error?
> 
> hth
> raju


Good news!  I solved the problem.  This solution came from the openSUSE 
forums... (just giving credit where credit is due)

As root, in the folder /etc/cron.* (where * is either daily, hourly, etc. 
depending on how often you want the check to take place):

1. Create a file called autoupdate using your favorite editor (that sounds like 
a good name).

2. File contents:
#! /bin/bash

apt-get update
apt-get upgrade -y
apt-get autoclean

3. Save the file, and then make it executable:
#chmod 755 autoupdate


Note the "apt-get autoclean" is optional.

Thanks,

Mark

Re: Package update problem...

[kamaraju kusumanchi]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Mark Neidorff  wrote:
>
> Sorry to seem stubborn, but I don't consider giving a user account full
> administrative access acceptable, even if there is only one user on the
> system. My reasoning is that by default if the user goes to a "naughty" web
> page and somehow downloads destructive software only the user's files are at
> risk. But, with full administrative access, the entire system (plus any
> attached networks) are at risk.

I do not think you are being stubborn. You do not have to give the
normal user ALL permissions. But you have to give him some permissions
to be able to install/update/remove packages. For example, I
configured my /etc/sudoers file such that my normal user account can
run apt-get and install packages. Giving ALL permissions just makes
things simpler but /etc/sudoers can be fine tuned to give just as much
as control as needed.


> Question: Is not allowing an administrative (software update)task to run
> when the root password is given a bug or is it by design? If by design, why?

I do not understand the question. I am not here to defend any
particular design choice. I can help you with how it can be done but
not why it should be done one way or another. That is beyond my
expertise.

> I see two alternatives to your suggestion, neither of which is convenient.
>
> 1. When I get a notification, log off and then log in as root. Then when the
> updates are downloaded and applied, log back in as the user.
>

No. There is no need to logoff. For example, whenever I want to
install a package, I simply open a konsole and run

sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install PKGNAME

as a normal user. When it asks for password, I supply the password of
my user account (not the password of the root account).

> 2. When I get a notification, use "su" to change to the root user and then
> do the updates.

That is one way. I find sudo a bit more easier than su. Since with
sudo, you do not even have to know the root password (once it is
setup).

> But, I have been using linux (and KDE) for a long time and up until now,
> when an update arrives I select to apply the update, give the root password,
> and the update is installed. Now, when I get an update notification and
> supply the root password to apply the update, the update is not applied. (I
> am returned to the password prompt)

hmm... no idea on this part. What program does KDE run when you try to
update packages? May be run it from command line and see if it gives
an error?

hth
raju
-- 
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi | http://raju.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Blog

Re: Package update problem...

[Mark Neidorff]

On Sunday, 12/11/16 02:45:41 PM kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Mark Neidorff  
wrote:
> > I'm running Jesse 8.6 with a KDE desktop.
> > 
> > I get a desktop notification that there is one or more package 
updates
> > available.  I select the package(s) and then I'm asked for 
authentication.
> > I type in the root password, but it is rejected.  I also try my user
> > password, but that is also rejected. (Tried multiple times, so it doesn't
> > seem to be a typo problem)
> > 
> > If I go to the command line--as root--and do apt-get update and 
upgrade,
> > then the update installs correctly.
> > 
> > This sounds like something easy to fix, but I just don't know where to 
fix
> > and what fix to apply. Please let me know.
> 
> The technical term you are looking for is called "Privilege escalation".
> 
> On a Debian system, "administrative" privileges are required to
> install/upgrade/remove packages. When you run the command as root, 
you
> have all the necessary privileges. A normal user does not have them
> enabled by default. This explains why the commands fail unless they
> are run as root. One possible approach (I am only guessing here and
> have not tested this) is to grant the necessary privileges to this
> user and see if the KDE application respects that.
> 
> You can do this by modifying /etc/sudoers which is explained in
> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch01.en.html#_sudo_confi
> guration
> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch04.en.html#_sudo
> https://debian-handbook.info/browse/stable/sect.config-misc.html#sect.shari
> ng-admin-rights
> 
> The only caution is that /etc/sudoers can't be edited interactively in
> an editor. You need to use another program called visudo to do that.
> 
> You can accomplish some really complex tasks by tweaking the sudoers
> configuration file (see man sudoers for all the gory details). But for
> your use case, granting ALL permissions to one normal user should
> probably be sufficient.
> 
> hope that helps
> raju

Sorry to seem stubborn, but I don't consider giving a user account full 
administrative access acceptable, even if there is only one user on the 
system.  My reasoning is that by default if the user goes to a "naughty" 
web page and somehow downloads destructive software only the user's 
files are at risk.  But, with full administrative access, the entire system 
(plus any attached networks) are at risk.

Question: Is not allowing an administrative (software update)task to run 
when the root password is given a bug or is it by design?  If by design, why?  

I see two alternatives to your suggestion, neither of which is convenient.
1. When I get a notification, log off and then log in as root.  Then when the 
updates are downloaded and applied, log back in as the user.
2. When I get a notification, use "su" to change to the root user and then 
do the updates.

Both of these add more steps.  If I have to add these steps, then I have to.  
But, I have been using linux (and KDE) for a long time and up until now, 
when an update arrives I select to apply the update, give the root 
password, and the update is installed.  Now, when I get an update 
notification and supply the root password to apply the update, the update 
is not applied. (I am returned to the password prompt)

Thanks,

Mark  

Re: Package update problem...

[kamaraju kusumanchi]

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Mark Neidorff  wrote:
> I'm running Jesse 8.6 with a KDE desktop.
>
> I get a desktop notification that there is one or more package updates
> available.  I select the package(s) and then I'm asked for authentication. I
> type in the root password, but it is rejected.  I also try my user password,
> but that is also rejected. (Tried multiple times, so it doesn't seem to be a
> typo problem)
>
> If I go to the command line--as root--and do apt-get update and upgrade, then
> the update installs correctly.
>
> This sounds like something easy to fix, but I just don't know where to fix and
> what fix to apply. Please let me know.

The technical term you are looking for is called "Privilege escalation".

On a Debian system, "administrative" privileges are required to
install/upgrade/remove packages. When you run the command as root, you
have all the necessary privileges. A normal user does not have them
enabled by default. This explains why the commands fail unless they
are run as root. One possible approach (I am only guessing here and
have not tested this) is to grant the necessary privileges to this
user and see if the KDE application respects that.

You can do this by modifying /etc/sudoers which is explained in
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch01.en.html#_sudo_configuration
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch04.en.html#_sudo
https://debian-handbook.info/browse/stable/sect.config-misc.html#sect.sharing-admin-rights

The only caution is that /etc/sudoers can't be edited interactively in
an editor. You need to use another program called visudo to do that.

You can accomplish some really complex tasks by tweaking the sudoers
configuration file (see man sudoers for all the gory details). But for
your use case, granting ALL permissions to one normal user should
probably be sufficient.

hope that helps
raju
-- 
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi | http://raju.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Blog

Package update problem...

[Mark Neidorff]

I'm running Jesse 8.6 with a KDE desktop.

I get a desktop notification that there is one or more package updates 
available.  I select the package(s) and then I'm asked for authentication. I 
type in the root password, but it is rejected.  I also try my user password, 
but that is also rejected. (Tried multiple times, so it doesn't seem to be a 
typo problem)

If I go to the command line--as root--and do apt-get update and upgrade, then 
the update installs correctly.

This sounds like something easy to fix, but I just don't know where to fix and 
what fix to apply. Please let me know.

Thanks,

Mark

Re: Wheezy to Jessie update problem: packages with bugs

[Bill Harris]

Lisi Reisz  writes:

> I would do the dist-upgrade first and clear up any mess remaining afterwards.

Thanks, Lisi.  I was coming to that conclusion, too, but I was looking
for any sort of confirmation that I wasn't guaranteed to brick the
machine. 

I'll report back, assuming that the results of this adventure don't
brick my machine /and/ my network. :-)

Bill

Re: Wheezy to Jessie update problem: packages with bugs

[Lisi Reisz]

On Monday 04 July 2016 21:52:49 Bill Harris wrote:
> Gary Dale  writes:
> > On 04/07/16 03:23 PM, Bill Harris wrote:
> >>> The simplest solution would be to reinstall the offending
> >>> packages. Apt-get doesn't have that option but aptitude does. I can't
> >>> try this at home but it may resolve the conflicts. Install aptitude
> >>> and give it a try.
> >>
> >> Gary,
> >>
> >> I like simple.  To be clear, is this the sequence you're proposing?
> >>
> >> - Now that I've deleted backports from my sources.list, run `aptitude
> >>install emacs24` and so forth through the list.
> >>
> >> - Then run `apt-get dist-upgrade`.
> >>
> >> - Reboot into Jessie.
> >>
> >> The alternative seems to be
> >>
> >> - Run `apt-get dist-upgrade`.
> >>
> >> - Run `aptitude install emacs24` and so forth through the list.
> >>
> >> - Reboot into Jessie.
> >>
> >> The first sounds correct, but this isn't fully a Jessie system yet, and
> >> I'd be reinstalling packages that only came with dist-upgrade.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Bill
> >
> > Not even close. I was suggesting installing aptitude then use the
> > reinstall option to reinstall the packages.
>
> I think I'm not understanding.  I'll try to be clearer on my end to see
> if that helps:
>
> - I do have aptitude, so I don't have to install it.  In fact, I usually
>   use aptitude, but the release notes for Wheezy
>  
> (https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en
>.html#upgradingpackages) suggested using apt-get for this upgrade to reduce
> the chance of problems.
>
> - I have yet to do the `apt dist-upgrade` (I downloaded all the packages
>   and then quit), so I've got to do that at some time.
>
> - My question was whether I
>
>   - reinstall the packages first, and then do the dist-upgrade later, or
>
>   - do the dist-upgrade first, and then reinstall the packages later.
>
>   - I am guessing that I should reinstall the packages first.
>
> - No matter which order I use, it sounds like I have at least two
>   choices for the reinstall:
>
>   - `apt-get install  --reinstall`
>
> Thanks; I had guessed the --reinstall would come before install.
>
>   Not that it matters, but, from a bit of reading, it sounds as if
>   `apt-get install /wheezy` might work, too.
>
>   - `aptitude reinstall `
>
> Which is, in a way, cleaner, although I seem to recall cautions
> about mixing apt-get and aptitude, and this would be mixing them
> closely.  (Yes, I know I'll be mixing them anyway, if I go back to
> aptitude once Wheezy is fully installed.
>
> Thanks to you and Cindy for your help.
>
> Does that clarify my remaining confusion?
>
> Bill

I would do the dist-upgrade first and clear up any mess remaining afterwards.

Lisi

Re: Wheezy to Jessie update problem: packages with bugs

[Bill Harris]

Bill Harris  writes:

> - I have yet to do the `apt dist-upgrade` (I downloaded all the packages
>   and then quit), so I've got to do that at some time.
>
> - My question was whether I
>
>   - reinstall the packages first, and then do the dist-upgrade later, or
>
>   - do the dist-upgrade first, and then reinstall the packages later.
>
>   - I am guessing that I should reinstall the packages first.
>
> - No matter which order I use, it sounds like I have at least two
>   choices for the reinstall:
>
>   - `apt-get install  --reinstall`
>
> Thanks; I had guessed the --reinstall would come before install.
>
>   Not that it matters, but, from a bit of reading, it sounds as if
>   `apt-get install /wheezy` might work, too.  
>
>   - `aptitude reinstall `
>
> Which is, in a way, cleaner, although I seem to recall cautions
> about mixing apt-get and aptitude, and this would be mixing them
> closely.  (Yes, I know I'll be mixing them anyway, if I go back to
> aptitude once Wheezy is fully installed.

Starting the first option (reinstall packages first), I did reinstall
emacs24, and it brought along a number of other packages.  I was going
to reinstall dbus, the next in the list I posted, but apt complained
that I lack libaudit1.  I started to install that, but apt said it would
upgrade 494, install 324 new, and /remove/ 1310 packages.  That seemed
risky.

In continuing experimentation, the list of packages with bugs I get when
runnign apt-get dist-upgrade changes--or at least the order
changes--each time I run it.  In addition, if I follow up on individual
bugs, sometimes I see mention of sid, which is not part of my
sources.list, and I've never run sid on this machine.

I know no one can know the answer to this, but what do you see as the
risk in just running `apt-get dist-upgrade` in my current state?  

- I /think/ it might be able to resolve things by itself, and the bugs
  might turn out to be cases I never see.  My other Jessie machine seems
  to be working fine, except that suspending broke on some update a
  month or so ago.

- In the worst case, I'd need to go to another machine, make a
  netinstall disk, and start over from scratch.  That's an obvious pain,
  but my /home should be okay (it's backed up, and it's on a separate
  partition, too).

Any suggestions?  If I should just keep trying reinstalling, I can do
that, but I figure that dist-upgrade might do a better job than me of
keeping dependencies in mind.  In other words, I get nervous when
installing one packages leads to deleting lots of packages.

Thanks,

Bill

Re: Wheezy to Jessie update problem: packages with bugs

[Bill Harris]

Gary Dale  writes:

> On 04/07/16 03:23 PM, Bill Harris wrote:

>>> The simplest solution would be to reinstall the offending
>>> packages. Apt-get doesn't have that option but aptitude does. I can't
>>> try this at home but it may resolve the conflicts. Install aptitude
>>> and give it a try.
>>
>> Gary,
>>
>> I like simple.  To be clear, is this the sequence you're proposing?
>>
>> - Now that I've deleted backports from my sources.list, run `aptitude
>>install emacs24` and so forth through the list.
>>
>> - Then run `apt-get dist-upgrade`.
>>
>> - Reboot into Jessie.
>>
>> The alternative seems to be
>>
>> - Run `apt-get dist-upgrade`.
>>
>> - Run `aptitude install emacs24` and so forth through the list.
>>
>> - Reboot into Jessie.
>>
>> The first sounds correct, but this isn't fully a Jessie system yet, and
>> I'd be reinstalling packages that only came with dist-upgrade.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bill
>>
> Not even close. I was suggesting installing aptitude then use the
> reinstall option to reinstall the packages.

I think I'm not understanding.  I'll try to be clearer on my end to see
if that helps:

- I do have aptitude, so I don't have to install it.  In fact, I usually
  use aptitude, but the release notes for Wheezy
  
(https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#upgradingpackages)
  suggested using apt-get for this upgrade to reduce the chance of
  problems.

- I have yet to do the `apt dist-upgrade` (I downloaded all the packages
  and then quit), so I've got to do that at some time.

- My question was whether I

  - reinstall the packages first, and then do the dist-upgrade later, or

  - do the dist-upgrade first, and then reinstall the packages later.

  - I am guessing that I should reinstall the packages first.

- No matter which order I use, it sounds like I have at least two
  choices for the reinstall:

  - `apt-get install  --reinstall`

Thanks; I had guessed the --reinstall would come before install.

  Not that it matters, but, from a bit of reading, it sounds as if
  `apt-get install /wheezy` might work, too.  

  - `aptitude reinstall `

Which is, in a way, cleaner, although I seem to recall cautions
about mixing apt-get and aptitude, and this would be mixing them
closely.  (Yes, I know I'll be mixing them anyway, if I go back to
aptitude once Wheezy is fully installed.

Thanks to you and Cindy for your help.

Does that clarify my remaining confusion?  

Bill

Re: Wheezy to Jessie update problem: packages with bugs

[Gary Dale]

On 04/07/16 03:23 PM, Bill Harris wrote:

Gary Dale  writes:


On 04/07/16 12:32 PM, Bill Harris wrote:

Summary:
   emacs24(1 bug), dbus(1 bug), gnome-settings-daemon(1 bug), libxml2(1 bug), 
debhelper(1 bug), openbsd-inetd(1 bug), smartmontools(1 bug), ruby-hpricot(1 
bug), cdrdao(1 bug), libgluegen2-rt-java(1 bug), ndiff(1 bug), 
apt-xapian-index(1 bug), firefox-esr(3 bugs), dasher(1 bug), minissdpd(1 bug), 
iceweasel(1 bug), evolution-data-server(1 bug), python-mock(1 bug), 
grub-pc-bin(1 bug), hdparm(1 bug), gdm3(3 bugs), libpoppler-glib8(1 bug), 
logrotate(1 bug), evolution(2 bugs), xserver-xorg-video-siliconmotion(1 bug), 
q4wine(1 bug), lynx-cur(1 bug), gparted(1 bug), freehdl(1 bug), totem(1 bug), 
nfs-common(1 bug), python-paramiko(1 bug), ed(1 bug), libfreetype6(1 bug), 
busybox(1 bug), libarchive13(1 bug), libnl-3-200(1 bug), googleearth-package(1 
bug), grub2-common(1 bug), empathy(1 bug), samba-common-bin(1 bug), udisks2(1 
bug), stunnel4(2 bugs), pinentry-gtk2(1 bug), synergy(1 bug), cron(1 bug), 
dh-python(2 bugs), init-system-helpers(1 bug), cups-driver-gutenprint(1 bug)
Here is my sources.list:

,
| #
|
| # deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 6.0.3 _Jessie_ - Official amd64 NETINST 
Binary-1 20111008-19:52]/ jessie main
|
| # deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 6.0.3 _Jessie_ - Official amd64 NETINST 
Binary-1 20111008-19:52]/ jessie main
|
| deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ jessie main non-free contrib
| deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ jessie main non-free contrib
|
| deb http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main contrib non-free
| deb-src http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main contrib non-free
|
| # jessie-updates, previously known as 'volatile'
| deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ jessie-updates main contrib non-free
| deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ jessie-updates main contrib non-free
|
| # R backports at http://cran.fhcrc.org/
| deb http://cran.fhcrc.org/bin/linux/debian jessie-cran3/
|
| # Jessie backports http://backports-master.debian.org/Instructions/
| # deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian jessie-backports main contrib non-free
|
`

The simplest solution would be to reinstall the offending
packages. Apt-get doesn't have that option but aptitude does. I can't
try this at home but it may resolve the conflicts. Install aptitude
and give it a try.


Gary,

I like simple.  To be clear, is this the sequence you're proposing?

- Now that I've deleted backports from my sources.list, run `aptitude
   install emacs24` and so forth through the list.

- Then run `apt-get dist-upgrade`.

- Reboot into Jessie.

The alternative seems to be

- Run `apt-get dist-upgrade`.

- Run `aptitude install emacs24` and so forth through the list.

- Reboot into Jessie.

The first sounds correct, but this isn't fully a Jessie system yet, and
I'd be reinstalling packages that only came with dist-upgrade.

Thanks,

Bill

Not even close. I was suggesting installing aptitude then use the 
reinstall option to reinstall the packages.


However, as Cindy pointed out, you can just use the --reinstall flag 
with apt-get. That would be:

  apt-get install  --reinstall

Re: Wheezy to Jessie update problem: packages with bugs

[Bill Harris]

Gary Dale  writes:

> On 04/07/16 12:32 PM, Bill Harris wrote:

>> Summary:
>>   emacs24(1 bug), dbus(1 bug), gnome-settings-daemon(1 bug), libxml2(1 bug), 
>> debhelper(1 bug), openbsd-inetd(1 bug), smartmontools(1 bug), ruby-hpricot(1 
>> bug), cdrdao(1 bug), libgluegen2-rt-java(1 bug), ndiff(1 bug), 
>> apt-xapian-index(1 bug), firefox-esr(3 bugs), dasher(1 bug), minissdpd(1 
>> bug), iceweasel(1 bug), evolution-data-server(1 bug), python-mock(1 bug), 
>> grub-pc-bin(1 bug), hdparm(1 bug), gdm3(3 bugs), libpoppler-glib8(1 bug), 
>> logrotate(1 bug), evolution(2 bugs), xserver-xorg-video-siliconmotion(1 
>> bug), q4wine(1 bug), lynx-cur(1 bug), gparted(1 bug), freehdl(1 bug), 
>> totem(1 bug), nfs-common(1 bug), python-paramiko(1 bug), ed(1 bug), 
>> libfreetype6(1 bug), busybox(1 bug), libarchive13(1 bug), libnl-3-200(1 
>> bug), googleearth-package(1 bug), grub2-common(1 bug), empathy(1 bug), 
>> samba-common-bin(1 bug), udisks2(1 bug), stunnel4(2 bugs), pinentry-gtk2(1 
>> bug), synergy(1 bug), cron(1 bug), dh-python(2 bugs), init-system-helpers(1 
>> bug), cups-driver-gutenprint(1 bug)

>> Here is my sources.list:
>>
>> ,
>> | #
>> |
>> | # deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 6.0.3 _Jessie_ - Official amd64 NETINST 
>> Binary-1 20111008-19:52]/ jessie main
>> |
>> | # deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 6.0.3 _Jessie_ - Official amd64 NETINST 
>> Binary-1 20111008-19:52]/ jessie main
>> |
>> | deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ jessie main non-free contrib
>> | deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ jessie main non-free contrib
>> |
>> | deb http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main contrib non-free
>> | deb-src http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main contrib non-free
>> |
>> | # jessie-updates, previously known as 'volatile'
>> | deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ jessie-updates main contrib non-free
>> | deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ jessie-updates main contrib 
>> non-free
>> |
>> | # R backports at http://cran.fhcrc.org/
>> | deb http://cran.fhcrc.org/bin/linux/debian jessie-cran3/
>> |
>> | # Jessie backports http://backports-master.debian.org/Instructions/
>> | # deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian jessie-backports main contrib non-free
>> |
>> `

> The simplest solution would be to reinstall the offending
> packages. Apt-get doesn't have that option but aptitude does. I can't
> try this at home but it may resolve the conflicts. Install aptitude
> and give it a try.


Gary,

I like simple.  To be clear, is this the sequence you're proposing?

- Now that I've deleted backports from my sources.list, run `aptitude
  install emacs24` and so forth through the list.

- Then run `apt-get dist-upgrade`.

- Reboot into Jessie.

The alternative seems to be

- Run `apt-get dist-upgrade`.

- Run `aptitude install emacs24` and so forth through the list.

- Reboot into Jessie.

The first sounds correct, but this isn't fully a Jessie system yet, and
I'd be reinstalling packages that only came with dist-upgrade.

Thanks,

Bill

Re: Wheezy to Jessie update problem: packages with bugs

[Bill Harris]

Cindy-Sue Causey  writes:

> I've used  "apt-get install --reinstall" successfully a couple times
> during issues. From "man apt-get", this flag's description is:
>
> "Re-install packages that are already installed and at the newest version."

I thought I had seen that apt could do that.  Thanks.

> Just thinking out loud. :)

Thanks, Cindy.

Is there an easy way to `apt-get install --reinstall` and have it pick
up those packages with bugs, or is it easier to enter the command once
for each package?

Bill

Re: Wheezy to Jessie update problem: packages with bugs

[Brian]

On Mon 04 Jul 2016 at 15:09:35 -0400, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:

> On 7/4/16, Gary Dale  wrote:
> >
> > The simplest solution would be to reinstall the offending packages.
> > Apt-get doesn't have that option but aptitude does. I can't try this at
> > home but it may resolve the conflicts. Install aptitude and give it a try.
> 
> 
> I've used  "apt-get install --reinstall" successfully a couple times
> during issues. From "man apt-get", this flag's description is:
> 
> "Re-install packages that are already installed and at the newest version."

Ditto. I used it today to track down a bug.

> Just thinking out loud. :)

And doing it very well. Just don't make a habit of it. :)

Re: Wheezy to Jessie update problem: packages with bugs

[Cindy-Sue Causey]

On 7/4/16, Gary Dale  wrote:
> On 04/07/16 12:32 PM, Bill Harris wrote:
>> I updated one laptop a month or two ago using the process on
>> https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html,
>> and it worked smoothly.  Then I tried the same thing yesterday on a
>> second laptop, except that I forgot to get rid of a wheezy backports
>> entry; instead, I just did a blanket replace of wheezy with jessie.
>>
>> After doing the apt-get upgrade, I got a few packages with bugs, but I
>> let them proceed, as the bugs didn't seem to apply to me (one referred
>> to difficulties when running in a VM, for example).
>>
>> After the apt-get dist-upgrade, lots more bugs were reported:
>>
< extensive package status output and sources.list snipped >
>>
>> I commented out the backports entry and ran apt-get update, apt-get
>> upgrade, and apt-get dist-upgrade before getting the above output.
>>
>> I am guessing there are two problems--one with texlive and one with
>> packages with errors.  Any advice on how to proceed efficiently and
>> successfully?
>
> The simplest solution would be to reinstall the offending packages.
> Apt-get doesn't have that option but aptitude does. I can't try this at
> home but it may resolve the conflicts. Install aptitude and give it a try.


I've used  "apt-get install --reinstall" successfully a couple times
during issues. From "man apt-get", this flag's description is:

"Re-install packages that are already installed and at the newest version."

Just thinking out loud. :)

Cindy :)

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

* runs with duct tape *

Re: Wheezy to Jessie update problem: packages with bugs

[Gary Dale]

On 04/07/16 12:32 PM, Bill Harris wrote:

I updated one laptop a month or two ago using the process on
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html,
and it worked smoothly.  Then I tried the same thing yesterday on a
second laptop, except that I forgot to get rid of a wheezy backports
entry; instead, I just did a blanket replace of wheezy with jessie.

After doing the apt-get upgrade, I got a few packages with bugs, but I
let them proceed, as the bugs didn't seem to apply to me (one referred
to difficulties when running in a VM, for example).

After the apt-get dist-upgrade, lots more bugs were reported:



   .
   .
   .
   texlive-base:amd64 conflicts with texlive-font-utils:amd64
   texlive-base:amd64 conflicts with texlive-bibtex-extra:amd64
   texlive-base:amd64 conflicts with texlive-binaries:amd64
   texlive-base:amd64 conflicts with texlive-extra-utils:amd64
   texlive-base:amd64 conflicts with texlive-bibtex-extra:amd64
   texlive-base:amd64 conflicts with texlive-binaries:amd64
 texlive-base:amd64 conflicts with texlive-bibtex-extra:amd64
   libtk8.5:amd64 conflicts with tk8.5:amd64
Retrieving bug reports... Done
Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
critical bugs of evolution-data-server (3.4.4-3+deb7u1 -> 
3.12.9~git20141128.5242b0-2+deb8u2) 
  #787398 - evolution-data-server: SMTP connection lost while reading message 
data (Fixed: evolution-data-server/3.16.2-1)
critical bugs of pinentry-gtk2 (0.8.1-1 -> 0.8.3-2) 
  #750521 - scim-gtk-immodule breaks pinentry-gtk2 and impairs gnome-keyring 
(Fixed: pinentry/0.9.6-1)
serious bugs of emacs24 (-> 24.4+1-5) 
  #766397 - emacs/gnus: Uses s_client to for SSL.
serious bugs of firefox-esr (-> 45.2.0esr-1~deb8u1) 
  #822715 - firefox-esr: FTBFS with GCC 6: 'malloc' was not declared in this 
scope
critical bugs of udisks2 (-> 2.1.3-5) 
  #821126 - gparted: mount is unsupported. (Fixed: udisks2/2.1.5-1)
Merged with: 782838
grave bugs of libgluegen2-rt-java (-> 2.2.4-2) 
  #779482 - support for powerpc, ppc64el and s390x not complete (Fixed: 
gluegen2/2.3.2-3)
grave bugs of firefox-esr (-> 45.2.0esr-1~deb8u1) 
  #825909 - firefox-esr: crash when loading videos (Fixed: 
firefox-esr/45.2.0esr-1)
grave bugs of python-mock (-> 1.0.1-3) 
  #794461 - RequirementParseError: Expected version spec in funcsigs; python_version<"3.3" 
at ; python_version<"3.3" (Fixed: python-mock/1.3.0-2.1)
grave bugs of gdm3 (3.4.1-8 -> 3.14.1-7) 
  #784671 - gdm3 wouldn't start until caribou path changed (Fixed: 
gdm3/3.14.1-8)
grave bugs of libpoppler-glib8 (0.18.4-6+deb7u1 -> 0.26.5-2+deb8u1) 
  #767659 - evince 3.14.1-1 gets undefined symbol with libpoppler46:i386 
earlier than 0.26.5-2 (Fixed: poppler/0.26.5-3)
Merged with: 768475 768985 771329
grave bugs of evolution (3.4.4-3 -> 3.12.9~git20141130.241663-1+b1) 
  #788029 - evolution: undefined symbol: e_file_lock_get_pid Must depend on 
same libevolution version (Fixed: evolution/3.16.5-1)
grave bugs of lynx-cur (2.8.8dev.12-2 -> 2.8.9dev1-2+deb8u1) 
  #776073 - lynx-cur: can connect to site with expired certificate (Fixed: 
lynx-cur/2.8.9dev4-1)
grave bugs of totem (3.0.1-8 -> 3.14.0-2) 
  #785538 - [totem] totem crashes at start, no way to start it. (Fixed: 
totem/3.16.2-1)
grave bugs of python-paramiko (1.7.7.1-3.1 -> 1.15.1-1) 
  #754851 - paramiko fails with int too long or returns broken filenames 
(Fixed: paramiko/2.0.0-1 paramiko/1.15.3-1)
grave bugs of libarchive13 (-> 3.1.2-11+deb8u1) 
  #823984 - libarchive13/unstable is older than libarchive13/stable (Fixed: 
libarchive/3.2.1-1 libarchive/3.1.2-11.1)
grave bugs of init-system-helpers (-> 1.22) 
  #827191 - invoke-rc.d don't start systemd services (Fixed: 
init-system-helpers/1.35)
serious bugs of dbus (1.6.8-1+deb7u6 -> 1.8.20-0+deb8u1) 
  #813970 - dbus: purge fails: invoke-rc.d: initscript dbus, action "stop" 
failed. (Fixed: dbus/1.11.2-1 dbus/1.10.8-1)
serious bugs of libxml2 (2.8.0+dfsg1-7+wheezy6 -> 2.9.1+dfsg1-5+deb8u2) 
  #795279 - libvirt0: Libvirt reports malformed URI for active connection 
(Fixed: libxml2/2.9.1+dfsg1-5+deb8u3 libxml2/2.9.2+really2.9.1+dfsg1-0.2 
libxml2/2.9.2+zdfsg1-4)
Merged with: 781232 797450 797490 827223
serious bugs of debhelper (9.20120909 -> 9.20150101) 
  #747141 - debhelper: dh_installdocs --link-doc forces source-version 
dependencies (Fixed: debhelper/9.20150501)
serious bugs of smartmontools (5.41+svn3365-1 -> 6.3+svn4002-2+b2) 
  #777583 - incorrect debian/copyright for smartmontools violates Debian policy 
(Fixed: smartmontools/6.4+svn4214-1)
serious bugs of apt-xapian-index (0.45 -> 0.47) 
  #803936 - goplay: not installable using aptitude with "apt-xapian-index.postinst: 
update-python-modules: not found" (Fixed: apt-xapian-index/0.47+nmu1)
Merged with: 793681
serious bugs of hdparm (9.39-1+b1 -> 9.43-2) 
  #725284 - hdparm 

Wheezy to Jessie update problem: packages with bugs

[Bill Harris]

I updated one laptop a month or two ago using the process on
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html,
and it worked smoothly.  Then I tried the same thing yesterday on a
second laptop, except that I forgot to get rid of a wheezy backports
entry; instead, I just did a blanket replace of wheezy with jessie.

After doing the apt-get upgrade, I got a few packages with bugs, but I
let them proceed, as the bugs didn't seem to apply to me (one referred
to difficulties when running in a VM, for example).  

After the apt-get dist-upgrade, lots more bugs were reported:



  .
  .
  .
  texlive-base:amd64 conflicts with texlive-font-utils:amd64
  texlive-base:amd64 conflicts with texlive-bibtex-extra:amd64
  texlive-base:amd64 conflicts with texlive-binaries:amd64
  texlive-base:amd64 conflicts with texlive-extra-utils:amd64
  texlive-base:amd64 conflicts with texlive-bibtex-extra:amd64
  texlive-base:amd64 conflicts with texlive-binaries:amd64
texlive-base:amd64 conflicts with texlive-bibtex-extra:amd64
  libtk8.5:amd64 conflicts with tk8.5:amd64
Retrieving bug reports... Done
Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
critical bugs of evolution-data-server (3.4.4-3+deb7u1 -> 
3.12.9~git20141128.5242b0-2+deb8u2) 
 #787398 - evolution-data-server: SMTP connection lost while reading message 
data (Fixed: evolution-data-server/3.16.2-1)
critical bugs of pinentry-gtk2 (0.8.1-1 -> 0.8.3-2) 
 #750521 - scim-gtk-immodule breaks pinentry-gtk2 and impairs gnome-keyring 
(Fixed: pinentry/0.9.6-1)
serious bugs of emacs24 (-> 24.4+1-5) 
 #766397 - emacs/gnus: Uses s_client to for SSL.
serious bugs of firefox-esr (-> 45.2.0esr-1~deb8u1) 
 #822715 - firefox-esr: FTBFS with GCC 6: 'malloc' was not declared in this 
scope
critical bugs of udisks2 (-> 2.1.3-5) 
 #821126 - gparted: mount is unsupported. (Fixed: udisks2/2.1.5-1)
   Merged with: 782838
grave bugs of libgluegen2-rt-java (-> 2.2.4-2) 
 #779482 - support for powerpc, ppc64el and s390x not complete (Fixed: 
gluegen2/2.3.2-3)
grave bugs of firefox-esr (-> 45.2.0esr-1~deb8u1) 
 #825909 - firefox-esr: crash when loading videos (Fixed: 
firefox-esr/45.2.0esr-1)
grave bugs of python-mock (-> 1.0.1-3) 
 #794461 - RequirementParseError: Expected version spec in funcsigs; 
python_version<"3.3" at ; python_version<"3.3" (Fixed: python-mock/1.3.0-2.1)
grave bugs of gdm3 (3.4.1-8 -> 3.14.1-7) 
 #784671 - gdm3 wouldn't start until caribou path changed (Fixed: gdm3/3.14.1-8)
grave bugs of libpoppler-glib8 (0.18.4-6+deb7u1 -> 0.26.5-2+deb8u1) 
 #767659 - evince 3.14.1-1 gets undefined symbol with libpoppler46:i386 earlier 
than 0.26.5-2 (Fixed: poppler/0.26.5-3)
   Merged with: 768475 768985 771329
grave bugs of evolution (3.4.4-3 -> 3.12.9~git20141130.241663-1+b1) 
 #788029 - evolution: undefined symbol: e_file_lock_get_pid Must depend on same 
libevolution version (Fixed: evolution/3.16.5-1)
grave bugs of lynx-cur (2.8.8dev.12-2 -> 2.8.9dev1-2+deb8u1) 
 #776073 - lynx-cur: can connect to site with expired certificate (Fixed: 
lynx-cur/2.8.9dev4-1)
grave bugs of totem (3.0.1-8 -> 3.14.0-2) 
 #785538 - [totem] totem crashes at start, no way to start it. (Fixed: 
totem/3.16.2-1)
grave bugs of python-paramiko (1.7.7.1-3.1 -> 1.15.1-1) 
 #754851 - paramiko fails with int too long or returns broken filenames (Fixed: 
paramiko/2.0.0-1 paramiko/1.15.3-1)
grave bugs of libarchive13 (-> 3.1.2-11+deb8u1) 
 #823984 - libarchive13/unstable is older than libarchive13/stable (Fixed: 
libarchive/3.2.1-1 libarchive/3.1.2-11.1)
grave bugs of init-system-helpers (-> 1.22) 
 #827191 - invoke-rc.d don't start systemd services (Fixed: 
init-system-helpers/1.35)
serious bugs of dbus (1.6.8-1+deb7u6 -> 1.8.20-0+deb8u1) 
 #813970 - dbus: purge fails: invoke-rc.d: initscript dbus, action "stop" 
failed. (Fixed: dbus/1.11.2-1 dbus/1.10.8-1)
serious bugs of libxml2 (2.8.0+dfsg1-7+wheezy6 -> 2.9.1+dfsg1-5+deb8u2) 
 #795279 - libvirt0: Libvirt reports malformed URI for active connection 
(Fixed: libxml2/2.9.1+dfsg1-5+deb8u3 libxml2/2.9.2+really2.9.1+dfsg1-0.2 
libxml2/2.9.2+zdfsg1-4)
   Merged with: 781232 797450 797490 827223
serious bugs of debhelper (9.20120909 -> 9.20150101) 
 #747141 - debhelper: dh_installdocs --link-doc forces source-version 
dependencies (Fixed: debhelper/9.20150501)
serious bugs of smartmontools (5.41+svn3365-1 -> 6.3+svn4002-2+b2) 
 #777583 - incorrect debian/copyright for smartmontools violates Debian policy 
(Fixed: smartmontools/6.4+svn4214-1)
serious bugs of apt-xapian-index (0.45 -> 0.47) 
 #803936 - goplay: not installable using aptitude with 
"apt-xapian-index.postinst: update-python-modules: not found" (Fixed: 
apt-xapian-index/0.47+nmu1)
   Merged with: 793681
serious bugs of hdparm (9.39-1+b1 -> 9.43-2) 
 #725284 - hdparm + systemd: Configuration not restored after resume (Fixed: 
hdparm/9.48+ds-1)

Re: libssl update problem

[Gene Heskett]

On Monday 09 May 2016 03:39:49 Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:

> If no amd64 packages needed on this machine, maybe the amd64
> architecture could be removed:
>
>   dpkg --remove-architecture amd64
>
> Then it won't install another amd64 package in the future.
>
Which is how I got into this mess in the first place.  Because the RTAI 
patched 64 bit kernels still don't have anywhere near the low latency 
needed to run machinery, as in cnc machinery, that a 32 bit kernel can 
achieve, I had added that architecture so I could run a 64 bit amd64 
kernel so I could do my own latency measurements.  This also had th 
added advantage of using all 8Gb in this machine, whereas the RTAI 
patches to a 32 bit kernel also wipe out the PAE, so I am 500 megs into 
swap in a days runtime. Performance of course goes in the toilet.

That worked although the latency was up some, but I only run the 
simulated LCNC on this machine.  Then I got the brilliant (not) idea of 
converting this 32 bit install into a full 64 bit amd64, but quickly ran 
into dependency hell since you can't easily replace libc6 on a running 
system. Everything was cool and I had removed most of the :amd64 stuff 
until the latest libssl fix hit the repo's.  It wouldn't configure as 
the amd64 kit was still installed.  Anyway, the procedure I posted fixed 
it all back up.  The above command in your post had already been done.

So overall, this 64 bit kernel runs much better, but the latency of this 
kernel,

gene@coyote:~/bin$ uname -a
Linux coyote 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 3.16.7-ckt25-2~bpo70+1 
(2016-04-12) x86_64 GNU/Linux

is such that I could never run a stepper motor with this machine, the 25  
micro-second base-thread has up to an 83 millisecond jitter, whereas the 
RTAI patched 32 bit kernel is, on the right cpu, capable of a 3 
microsecond jitter, and the 1 millisecond servo-thread will show above 
100 milliseconds without too long a wait.  But that doesn't prevent me 
from writing gcode and testing it for correctness by running a simulated 
virtual machine on this machine from a comfy chair.  My eyes cannot see 
the timing jitter as the code is being simulated, but that would totally 
destroy both the workpiece, and maybe even the real machinery itself as 
it tries to follow orders that could be up to 100+ milliseconds late.

> Regards,
> jvp.


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

Re: libssl update problem

[Jörg-Volker Peetz]

If no amd64 packages needed on this machine, maybe the amd64 architecture could
be removed:

  dpkg --remove-architecture amd64

Then it won't install another amd64 package in the future.

Regards,
jvp.

Re: libssl update problem

[Gene Heskett]

On Sunday 08 May 2016 06:10:36 Gene Heskett wrote:

> Greetings;
>
> Synaptic is telling me it cannot configure the new i386 version of
> libssl and friends on an i386 install, because it THINKS the amd64
> version is installed.  It's been hand nuked when I found that it was
> not available to be nuked if the architecture wasn't set to include
> amd64 stuff. Short of enabling that architecture again, how can I
> clean up this mess?
>
> Thanks all.
>
> Cheers, Gene Heskett

Never mind, I played 10,000 monkeys and got it.

For the record in case it helps somebody else:

sudo dpkg --configure -a

returns a list which contained the offending file.  Then

sudo dpkg --purge libssl1.0.0:amd64

Which did clean up its database.  Then:

sudo dpkg --configure -a

which then returned this:

Setting up libssl1.0.0:i386 (1.0.1e-2+deb7u21) ...
Setting up openssl (1.0.1e-2+deb7u21) ...
Setting up libssl-dev (1.0.1e-2+deb7u21) ...
Setting up libpkcs11-helper1:i386 (1.09-1) ...
Setting up libp11-2:i386 (0.2.8-2) ...

which completed the i386 versions installation. I probably need to reboot 
but I am behind a firewall in a dd-wrt reflashed router.

Yeah, nothing but kmail is running, nightly backup is done.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

libssl update problem

[Gene Heskett]

Greetings;

Synaptic is telling me it cannot configure the new i386 version of libssl 
and friends on an i386 install, because it THINKS the amd64 version is 
installed.  It's been hand nuked when I found that it was not available 
to be nuked if the architecture wasn't set to include amd64 stuff.  
Short of enabling that architecture again, how can I clean up this mess?

Thanks all.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

Re: apt-get update problem

[Darac Marjal]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 06:20:38PM -0700, John Conover wrote:
 
 Running apt-get update on one of my machines gives:
 
 W: Failed to fetch 
 copy:/var/lib/apt/lists/partial/Debian%20GNU_Linux%207%20%5fWheezy%5f%20-%20Official%20Snapshot%20i386%20LIVE_INSTALL%20Binary%2020140723-18:32_dists_wheezy_main_binary-i386_Packages
   Failed to stat - stat (2: No such file or directory)

That looks like you're installing from a CD/DVD. I might be wrong but I
don't think you need to do update if you're using a CD; apt-cdrom will
take care of fetching the index from the disc.

So, if your only source of packages is the CD, then ignore the warning
and install away. If you are using a mixture of CD and internet, then
you probably want to remove the CD from your /etc/apt/sources.list as it
will soon get outdated by the internet mirrors.

 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: apt-get update problem

[John Conover]

Darac Marjal writes:
 On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 06:20:38PM -0700, John Conover wrote:
  
  Running apt-get update on one of my machines gives:
  
  W: Failed to fetch 
  copy:/var/lib/apt/lists/partial/Debian%20GNU_Linux%207%20%5fWheezy%5f%20-%20Official%20Snapshot%20i386%20LIVE_INSTALL%20Binary%2020140723-18:32_dists_wheezy_main_binary-i386_Packages
Failed to stat - stat (2: No such file or directory)
 
 That looks like you're installing from a CD/DVD. I might be wrong but I
 don't think you need to do update if you're using a CD; apt-cdrom will
 take care of fetching the index from the disc.
 
 So, if your only source of packages is the CD, then ignore the warning
 and install away. If you are using a mixture of CD and internet, then
 you probably want to remove the CD from your /etc/apt/sources.list as it
 will soon get outdated by the internet mirrors.


That was exactly what it was-the CD line /etc/apt/sources.list was not
commented out from the install from the DVD.

Thanks, Darac,

John

-- 

John Conover, cono...@rahul.net, http://www.johncon.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/20140923123010.7176.qm...@rahul.net

Re: apt-get update problem

[Chris Bannister]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 06:20:38PM -0700, John Conover wrote:
 
 Running apt-get update on one of my machines gives:
 
 W: Failed to fetch 
 copy:/var/lib/apt/lists/partial/Debian%20GNU_Linux%207%20%5fWheezy%5f%20-%20Official%20Snapshot%20i386%20LIVE_INSTALL%20Binary%2020140723-18:32_dists_wheezy_main_binary-i386_Packages
   Failed to stat - stat (2: No such file or directory)
 
 E: Some index files failed to download. They have been ignored, or old 
 ones used instead.
 
 and apt-get stops.
 
 Can this be repaired without a reinstall?

Of course!

What is the output of:

grep -v '^$\|^#\|^\s*\#' /etc/apt/sources.list{,.d/*}


Is this the first time you are running apt-get update on this machine.

Personally, I'd run as root

# rm /var/lib/apt/lists/partial/* 

then try running apt-get update again, and see if that fixes it.

It won't do any harm. 

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


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140923131429.GJ11965@tal

apt-get update problem

[John Conover]

Running apt-get update on one of my machines gives:

W: Failed to fetch 
copy:/var/lib/apt/lists/partial/Debian%20GNU_Linux%207%20%5fWheezy%5f%20-%20Official%20Snapshot%20i386%20LIVE_INSTALL%20Binary%2020140723-18:32_dists_wheezy_main_binary-i386_Packages
  Failed to stat - stat (2: No such file or directory)

E: Some index files failed to download. They have been ignored, or old ones 
used instead.

and apt-get stops.

Can this be repaired without a reinstall?

Thanks,

John

-- 

John Conover, cono...@rahul.net, http://www.johncon.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/20140923012040.16559.qm...@rahul.net

Re: update problem

[Darac Marjal]

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 01:08:08PM +0800, lina wrote:
 Hi,
 
 when I tried to update, it showed me something like:
 
 libgnutlsxx26 removed (configs remain) ;  install (was: install).  Extra
 
 # apt-get install libgnutlsxx2
^ you missed a 6 here.
 Reading package lists... Done
 Building dependency tree
 Reading state information... Done
 E: Unable to locate package libgnutlsxx2
 
 I don't know how to do next, sorry

According to http://packages.debian.org/libgnutlsxx26, libgnutlsxx26
only exists on alpha, hppa, powerpcspe sparc64 and hurd-i386
architectures. Are you using one of them? If not, there appears to be a
libgnutlsxx27 package available in testing and above which might be
suitable. If you have something that depends on libgnutlsxx26 and you're
not on one of the above architectures, then you probably need to file a
bug against that package.


-- 
Darac Marjal


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: update problem

[lina]

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Darac Marjal mailingl...@darac.org.uk wrote:
 On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 01:08:08PM +0800, lina wrote:
 Hi,

 when I tried to update, it showed me something like:

 libgnutlsxx26 removed (configs remain) ;  install (was: install).  Extra

 # apt-get install libgnutlsxx2
                                ^ you missed a 6 here.
 Reading package lists... Done
 Building dependency tree
 Reading state information... Done
 E: Unable to locate package libgnutlsxx2

 I don't know how to do next, sorry

 According to http://packages.debian.org/libgnutlsxx26, libgnutlsxx26
 only exists on alpha, hppa, powerpcspe sparc64 and hurd-i386
 architectures. Are you using one of them? If not, there appears to be a

I use amd64, I checked on debian package before, not so sure amd
belongs to any of them. ( seems not)

 libgnutlsxx27 package available in testing and above which might be
 suitable. If you have something that depends on libgnutlsxx26 and you're

I removed it:
The following packages will be REMOVED:
  libgnutlsxx26*

Why there was a  libgnutlsxx26 on my laptop?

I don't know which package depended on it.

Thanks, if no problems and I won't try  libgnutlsxx27


 not on one of the above architectures, then you probably need to file a
 bug against that package.


 --
 Darac Marjal




-- 
Best Regards,

lina


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAG9cJmk4WUo5hmJbx5_Aht-sGq-vkS=ycjq6c+k9osnytng...@mail.gmail.com

Re: update problem

[lina]

My laptop just forzen,

can't react, is it possible due to lack of package? and this certain
package, libgnutlsxx27

lina

P.S I can't ssh from outside either.

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 6:31 PM, lina lina.lastn...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Darac Marjal mailingl...@darac.org.uk 
 wrote:
 On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 01:08:08PM +0800, lina wrote:
 Hi,

 when I tried to update, it showed me something like:

 libgnutlsxx26 removed (configs remain) ;  install (was: install).  Extra

 # apt-get install libgnutlsxx2
                                ^ you missed a 6 here.
 Reading package lists... Done
 Building dependency tree
 Reading state information... Done
 E: Unable to locate package libgnutlsxx2

 I don't know how to do next, sorry

 According to http://packages.debian.org/libgnutlsxx26, libgnutlsxx26
 only exists on alpha, hppa, powerpcspe sparc64 and hurd-i386
 architectures. Are you using one of them? If not, there appears to be a

 I use amd64, I checked on debian package before, not so sure amd
 belongs to any of them. ( seems not)

 libgnutlsxx27 package available in testing and above which might be
 suitable. If you have something that depends on libgnutlsxx26 and you're

 I removed it:
 The following packages will be REMOVED:
  libgnutlsxx26*

 Why there was a  libgnutlsxx26 on my laptop?

 I don't know which package depended on it.

 Thanks, if no problems and I won't try  libgnutlsxx27


 not on one of the above architectures, then you probably need to file a
 bug against that package.


 --
 Darac Marjal




 --
 Best Regards,

 lina




-- 
Best Regards,

lina


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAG9cJmn+2hUgJvEpqbEtyz7UZv=_eQmL38Jf25vnjXr-h=r...@mail.gmail.com

Re: update problem

[Brad Rogers]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:23:16 +0800
lina lina.lastn...@gmail.com wrote:

Hello lina,

 My laptop just forzen,
 
 can't react, is it possible due to lack of package? and this certain
 package, libgnutlsxx27

That package does TLS/SSL negotiation stuff over a network  It's
unlikely, I would have thought, to freeze a machine.

-- 
 Regards  _
 / )   The blindingly obvious is
/ _)radnever immediately apparent
People stare like they've seen a ghost
Titanic (My Over) Reaction - 999


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: update problem

[lina]

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Brad Rogers b...@fineby.me.uk wrote:
 On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:23:16 +0800
 lina lina.lastn...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hello lina,

 My laptop just forzen,

 can't react, is it possible due to lack of package? and this certain
 package, libgnutlsxx27

 That package does TLS/SSL negotiation stuff over a network  It's
 unlikely, I would have thought, to freeze a machine.

I just realized that during this morning's updating, the libgnutlsxx27
had already been installed. and also the fglrx-driver was updated.

my laptop I felt it's now like an old machine, sometimes react slow.
it's not supposed to be like this.

Thanks,


 --
  Regards  _
         / )           The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent
 People stare like they've seen a ghost
 Titanic (My Over) Reaction - 999




-- 
Best Regards,

lina


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAG9cJmmiy5cukTkUkhQXRahZv+wAfgytcq_BE3ssJUR=9pb...@mail.gmail.com

Re: update problem

[lina]

libgnutlsxx26 depends on libgnutls26 (= 2.10.5-3)

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:08 PM, lina lina.lastn...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi,

 when I tried to update, it showed me something like:

 libgnutlsxx26 removed (configs remain) ;  install (was: install).  Extra

 # apt-get install libgnutlsxx2
 Reading package lists... Done
 Building dependency tree
 Reading state information... Done
 E: Unable to locate package libgnutlsxx2

 I don't know how to do next, sorry

 --
 Best Regards,

 lina




-- 
Best Regards,

lina


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAG9cJmk7Zm61yK26M+=Nb5GAV0n9FETRzW8y4RmjRMXs+MH=g...@mail.gmail.com

gcc-avr update problem

[J.Hwan.Kim]

Hi, everyone

I'm using gcc-avr in etch.

If I upgrade my debian to lenny and wish to use gcc-avr etch version not
lenny version,
how can I install gcc-avr and avr other package of etch in lenny
environment?

Regards,
J.H.Kim





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

Re: gcc-avr update problem

[Umarzuki Mochlis]

2009/6/17 J.Hwan.Kim frog1...@gmail.com

 Hi, everyone

 I'm using gcc-avr in etch.

 If I upgrade my debian to lenny and wish to use gcc-avr etch version not
 lenny version,
 how can I install gcc-avr and avr other package of etch in lenny
 environment?


maybe apt pinnning can be of use



 Regards,
 J.H.Kim





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




-- 
Regards,

Umarzuki Mochlis
http://gameornot.net

apt-get update problem

[Account for Debian group mail]

Hello,

We have 2 (of out many) machines that will not do a apt-get update 
properly (since the 4.0 upgrade a couple days ago). These 2 machine are 
old but have working just fine. The message I get on both of these 
machines are:


Get:5 http://security.debian.org etch/updates/main Sources [56.5kB] 99% [5 
Sources gzip 0]
[Waiting for headers] gzip: stdin: not in gzip format

Err http://security.debian.org etch/updates/main Sources  Sub-process gzip 
returned an error code (1)

Failed to fetch 
http://security.debian.org/dists/etch/updates/main/source/Sources.gz Sub-process gzip returned an error code (1)



I change the IP address for security.debian.org to see if that would make 
a change - no change.


I did a lynx on this file: lynx 
http://security.debian.org/dists/etch/updates/main/source/Sources.gz;
and it worked just fine and was able to un-archive it as well.

The gzip program is the same version as on the other machines that work.

Not sure which direction to go now, anyone have an idea?

Thanks,

Ken


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Waiting for headers] gzip: stdin: not in gzip format (was Re: apt-get update problem)

[Chris Bannister]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:42:34AM -0700, Account for Debian group mail wrote:
 Hello,

 We have 2 (of out many) machines that will not do a apt-get update  
 properly (since the 4.0 upgrade a couple days ago). These 2 machine are  
 old but have working just fine. The message I get on both of these  
 machines are:

 Get:5 http://security.debian.org etch/updates/main Sources [56.5kB] 99% [5 
 Sources gzip 0]
 [Waiting for headers] gzip: stdin: not in gzip format

 Err http://security.debian.org etch/updates/main Sources  Sub-process gzip 
 returned an error code (1)

 Failed to fetch  
 http://security.debian.org/dists/etch/updates/main/source/Sources.gz 
 Sub-process gzip returned an error code (1)

Try apt-get clean then apt-get update

Still no good? then delete contents of:
/var/lib/apt/lists/partial

Then try apt-get update again.

TIP
===
To further analyse problems like this or indeed any problem where a well
defined error message is produced; PASTE the exact error message into
google and you will *ususally* find lots of posts about it.

I posted [Waiting for headers] gzip: stdin: not in gzip format into
google and got *at least* those answers I've given above.

Try the simplest solutions first, moving up to the more *drastic* ones
if it seems necessary.

Anyway it would be good, if you could post back if none of these work.
If another solution, which you could get off google, works, please post
that back here. No doubt others will experience the same thing.

P.S. Changed subject to more accurately depict your problem.

-- 
Chris.
==
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
   -- Stephen F Roberts


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ftp.debian.org update - Problem solved.

[David Fox]

On 12/3/07, Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   Were you getting the same thing from apt-get commands?

I didn't try apt-get commands, actually.


   Daniel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ftp.debian.org update - Problem solved.

[David Fox]

On 12/3/07, David Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Previously:


 OK, I got bitten and just checked my /etc/apt/sources.list, and
 noticed all my debian references were to ftp.debian.org. I beg
 penance.

snip explanation and aptitude output.

Found what I think is the issue. I still had a few ftp.debian.org
lists in my /var/lib/apt/lists subdirectory, plus one reference to
ftp.debian.org still unedited in /etc/apt/sources.list. I removed the
ftp.debian.org* files in /var/lib/apt/lists, because I was getting the
same segfault on all aptitude requests, even 'autoclean' and 'clean'.
The segfault on 'sudo aptitude autoclean' went away when I removed the
ftp.debian.org files, so I was on the right track.

It just took a little extra inspection and removal of ftp.debian.org
files in /var/lib/apt/lists - so bear this in mind when you update
your chosen mirrors :).

HTH


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ftp.debian.org update - Problem solved.

[Daniel Burrows]

On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 09:52:33PM -0800, David Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] was 
heard to say:
 On 12/3/07, David Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 Previously:
 
 
  OK, I got bitten and just checked my /etc/apt/sources.list, and
  noticed all my debian references were to ftp.debian.org. I beg
  penance.
 
 snip explanation and aptitude output.
 
 Found what I think is the issue. I still had a few ftp.debian.org
 lists in my /var/lib/apt/lists subdirectory, plus one reference to
 ftp.debian.org still unedited in /etc/apt/sources.list. I removed the
 ftp.debian.org* files in /var/lib/apt/lists, because I was getting the
 same segfault on all aptitude requests, even 'autoclean' and 'clean'.
 The segfault on 'sudo aptitude autoclean' went away when I removed the
 ftp.debian.org files, so I was on the right track.
 
 It just took a little extra inspection and removal of ftp.debian.org
 files in /var/lib/apt/lists - so bear this in mind when you update
 your chosen mirrors :).

  Were you getting the same thing from apt-get commands?

  Daniel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: aptitude update Problem

[Randy Patterson - [Tech]]

On Tuesday 16 October 2007 21:37, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
 On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:09:50PM -0500, Randy Patterson - [Tech] wrote:
  Hey,
 
  When I run this command;
 
  aptitude update
 
  I get the following output;
 
  Hit ftp://debian.mirrors.tds.net lenny Release.gpg
  Get:1 ftp://debian.mirrors.tds.net lenny/main Translation-en_US

 [snip similar]

  Hit ftp://debian.mirrors.tds.net lenny/non-free Sources/DiffIndex
  E: dpkg was interrupted, you must manually run 'dpkg --configure -a' to
  correct the problem.
  E: Couldn't rebuild package cache
 
  I have tried this in Kpackage as  well and get the same results. When I
  run the dpkp command as instructed, it seems to run and perform the
  update but I can run aptitude update again with the same results so the
  problem wasn't corrected. I'm at a loss to know how to fix this.

 Assuming that your souces list is correct (has worked before), I would
 try a different mirror just to see.  Change the sources list and run
 aptitude update again.

 Doug.

I switched sources list back to the debian.org site and ran the command again 
with the same results.

Thanks,
Randy


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: aptitude update Problem

[Robert Jerrard]

On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 07:01 -0500, Randy Patterson - [Tech] wrote:
 On Tuesday 16 October 2007 21:37, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
  On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 06:09:50PM -0500, Randy Patterson - [Tech] wrote:
   Hey,
  
   When I run this command;
  
   aptitude update
  
   I get the following output;
  
   Hit ftp://debian.mirrors.tds.net lenny Release.gpg
   Get:1 ftp://debian.mirrors.tds.net lenny/main Translation-en_US
 
  [snip similar]
 
   Hit ftp://debian.mirrors.tds.net lenny/non-free Sources/DiffIndex
   E: dpkg was interrupted, you must manually run 'dpkg --configure -a' to
   correct the problem.
   E: Couldn't rebuild package cache
  
   I have tried this in Kpackage as  well and get the same results. When I
   run the dpkp command as instructed, it seems to run and perform the
   update but I can run aptitude update again with the same results so the
   problem wasn't corrected. I'm at a loss to know how to fix this.
 
  Assuming that your souces list is correct (has worked before), I would
  try a different mirror just to see.  Change the sources list and run
  aptitude update again.
 
  Doug.
 
 I switched sources list back to the debian.org site and ran the command again 
 with the same results.
 
 Thanks,
 Randy

Hi Randy, the last time I had a problem with aptitude it was a different
problem than yours but I found a suggestion to:

rm /var/cache/apt/*.bin

then try aptitude again and that fixed my problem. These are just caches
that will be rebuilt from scratch when not there so there does not
appear to be any harm removing them in any event.

Good luck, Bob
-- 
Dr. Robert J. Jerrard, Professor of Mathematics,
Concordia University College of Alberta,
7128 Ada Blvd., Edmonton, Alberta, T5B 4E4, Canada.
Phone: (780) 479-9291, Fax: (780) 474-1933.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

aptitude update Problem

[Randy Patterson - [Tech]]

Hey,

When I run this command;

aptitude update

I get the following output;

Hit ftp://debian.mirrors.tds.net lenny Release.gpg
Get:1 ftp://debian.mirrors.tds.net lenny/main Translation-en_US
Ign ftp://debian.mirrors.tds.net lenny/main Translation-en_US
Get:2 ftp://debian.mirrors.tds.net lenny/contrib Translation-en_US
Ign ftp://debian.mirrors.tds.net lenny/contrib Translation-en_US
Get:3 ftp://debian.mirrors.tds.net lenny/non-free Translation-en_US
Ign ftp://debian.mirrors.tds.net lenny/non-free Translation-en_US
Hit ftp://debian.mirrors.tds.net lenny Release
Hit ftp://debian.mirrors.tds.net lenny/main Packages/DiffIndex
Hit ftp://debian.mirrors.tds.net lenny/contrib Packages/DiffIndex
Hit ftp://debian.mirrors.tds.net lenny/non-free Packages/DiffIndex
Hit ftp://debian.mirrors.tds.net lenny/main Sources/DiffIndex
Hit ftp://debian.mirrors.tds.net lenny/contrib Sources/DiffIndex
Hit ftp://debian.mirrors.tds.net lenny/non-free Sources/DiffIndex
E: dpkg was interrupted, you must manually run 'dpkg --configure -a' to 
correct the problem.
E: Couldn't rebuild package cache

I have tried this in Kpackage as  well and get the same results. When I run 
the dpkp command as instructed, it seems to run and perform the update but I 
can run aptitude update again with the same results so the problem wasn't 
corrected. I'm at a lose to know how to fix this.

Thanks for any help given,
Randy


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]