Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:49:12 +0100, Lisi wrote in message <201204111549.12321.lisi.re...@gmail.com>: > On Wednesday 04 April 2012 17:07:16 Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:28:59 +0100, Lisi wrote in message > > > > <201204041128.59935.lisi.re...@gmail.com>: > > > On Wednesday 04 April 2012 10:01:47 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > Note that since Lenny, apt-get *installs* recommended packages > > > > by default. > > > > > > ...since Lenny, apt-get *has installed*.. > > > > ..and not "Note that since Lenny, apt-get *installations* > > recommended packages by default."? ;o) > > > > ..no "has" is a _wee_ bit different from your "Note that since > > Lenny, apt-get *installed* recommended packages by default." ;o) > > > > Arnt - > > This appears to be aimed at me, but I cannot make out what you are > trying to say. > > I certainly never said "Note that since Lenny, apt-get *installed* > recommended packages by default." as you appear to be saying that I > did. ..well, I must admit I do remember trying to be nuanced and then getting sidetracked by another amusement. ;o) > And "installations" is a noun not a verb. ..now that would depend on what kinda grammar you refer to, ;o), I boycotted what I call "classic grammar" from day one in grade 4, in favor of my own "language ear", and later I was eminently pleased to name an AI grammar method coded in Java that I was shown, "associative grammar", for the way the program was able to recognise and associate various moral etc concepts with words and sentences, that came from a random web news story on Clinton and Monica Levinsky back when the neo-Cons were trying to impeach him. ..it used 3 classes of words, "object", "subject" and "action" AFAIR, and it was meant to try predict stock market prices by sniffing out trend triggers off the web and from news stories. "Version 1" did that without using the associative grammar, "it merely counted the words." ;oD -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- 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/20120412235650.6ca1a...@nb6.lan
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012, Nicolas Bercher wrote: I get 2220 packages, (and 995 with "~i~M") No, the above command doesn't show automatically installed packages. sorry, but the link you gave: http://algebraicthunk.net/~dburrows/projects/aptitude/doc/en/ch02s03s05.html actually corresponds to the Aptitude Reference Manual (package aptitude-doc-en) and it gives: ?automatic, ~M Matches packages which were automatically installed. regards, -- Pierre Frenkiel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1204112154010.4...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Wednesday 04 April 2012 17:07:16 Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:28:59 +0100, Lisi wrote in message > > <201204041128.59935.lisi.re...@gmail.com>: > > On Wednesday 04 April 2012 10:01:47 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > Note that since Lenny, apt-get *installs* recommended packages by > > > default. > > > > ...since Lenny, apt-get *has installed*.. > > ..and not "Note that since Lenny, apt-get *installations* > recommended packages by default."? ;o) > > ..no "has" is a _wee_ bit different from your "Note that since > Lenny, apt-get *installed* recommended packages by default." ;o) > > -- > ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen > ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... > Scenarios always come in sets of three: > best case, worst case, and just in case. Arnt - This appears to be aimed at me, but I cannot make out what you are trying to say. I certainly never said "Note that since Lenny, apt-get *installed* recommended packages by default." as you appear to be saying that I did. And "installations" is a noun not a verb. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204111549.12321.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:28:59 +0100, Lisi wrote in message <201204041128.59935.lisi.re...@gmail.com>: > On Wednesday 04 April 2012 10:01:47 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > Note that since Lenny, apt-get *installs* recommended packages by > > default. > > ...since Lenny, apt-get *has installed*.. ..and not "Note that since Lenny, apt-get *installations* recommended packages by default."? ;o) ..no "has" is a _wee_ bit different from your "Note that since Lenny, apt-get *installed* recommended packages by default." ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- 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/20120404180716.2234d...@nb6.lan
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
Le 09/04/2012 11:12, Pierre Frenkiel a écrit : aptitude search ~i\!~M -F "%p" This shows manually and automatically installed packages. I get 2220 packages, (and 995 with "~i~M") No, the above command doesn't show automatically installed packages. Sorry, retry it without -F "%p" to get a clearer output: aptitude search ~i\!~M you won't see any line beginning with iA. (The A stands for auto) I think you used to installed packages with apt-get: in its not-so-old versions, it didn't know about manual/automatic installation bits and packages installed this way were considered manually installed. The confusions comes from these many packages (2220) reported as manual instead of being reported as auto, and that fact you sometimes used aptitude and get 995 ones marked as auto. Nicolas -- PS: checkout this excellent page: http://algebraicthunk.net/~dburrows/projects/aptitude/doc/en/ch02s03s05.html -- 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/4f856a65.9040...@yahoo.fr
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Nicolas Bercher wrote: Did you upgrade aptitude first? Not after modifying the sources.list, I don't see that in the recommendations for upgrade, but nevertheless that seems a good thing to do (and for apt-get also) This might solve many problems. May-be, but it's too late now... Check the list of manually installed packages aptitude search ~i\!~M -F "%p" This shows manually and automatically installed packages. I get 2220 packages, (and 995 with "~i~M") Anyway, as the upgrade with apt-get worked perfectly, for Squeeze to Wheezy as well as for Wheezy to Sid, it seems useless now to play with aptitde, except may-be for daily maintenance, Also, running apt-listbugs give interesting informations on Squeeze apt-listbugs --severity all list aptitude: aptitude(572 bugs) apt-listbugs --severity important list aptitude: aptitude(40 bugs) apt-listbugs --severity serious list aptitude: aptitude(1 bug) apt-listbugs --severity all list apt-get: no bug on Sid apt-listbugs --severity all list aptitude: aptitude(627 bugs) apt-listbugs --severity important list aptitude: aptitude(50 bugs) apt-listbugs --severity serious list aptitude: aptitude(1 bug) apt-listbugs --severity all list apt-get: no bug regards, -- Pierre Frenkiel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1204091025390.23...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On 21/03/2012 11:01, Pierre Frenkiel wrote: hi, I wanted to upgrade from Squeeze to Wheezy, and as I saw in several places that aptitude should be preferred to apt-get, I first tried with it. I started with only 1 line in sources.list: deb http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free and tried several times "aptitude safe-upgrade" Each time, aptitude stayed indefinitely on "resolving dependencies" and did nothing else. I then issued: "apt-get dist-upgrade", and all worked perfectly, in less than 30 minutes. My question: is it better to also revert to apt-get for package management, or is the problem specific to the upgrade to a new release? regards, Did you upgrade aptitude first? aptitude install aptitude This might solve many problems. I also found aptitude lost in resolve madness while I had too many foreign packages. Check the list of manually installed packages aptitude search ~i\!~M -F "%p" to see if you have some of them not provided by the repo pointed in your one-line sources.list. Play with =apt-cache policy= to see if update are available for such foreign-suspected packages. Nicolas -- 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/4f81e9bb.8000...@yahoo.fr
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
In linux.debian.user, Charles Kroeger wrote: > > I don't have aptitude, never used it. Why would one need apt-get and aptitude > together? > As a debian user since 2003 I was so accustomed to using apt-get that I just stuck with it until squeeze, at which point curiosity compelled me to fool with aptitude. My conclusion? Aptitude is more complete and useful, so it's become my preferred package management tool now. :) Old dogs sometimes do learn new tricks I guess... :) -- ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ Indulekha -- 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/20120408151529.GA21039@radhesyama
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
> I never use it any other way. I tend to forget that it has an ncurses > mode. Which would explain why I thought that both apt and aptitude can be > used for day to day operations. I don't have aptitude, never used it. Why would one need apt-get and aptitude together? -- CK -- 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/9ucnf8fpa...@mid.individual.net
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 08:28:33PM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote: > funny. Now if it was a picture of two hippos in a river... that would > make perfect sense. :-) What about the poor hippo who kept swimming in circles after they kicked him off the hippo campus? -- "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." -- Napoleon Bonaparte -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120407235019.GA19625@tal
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Saturday 07 April 2012 11:28:33 Scott Ferguson wrote: > On 07/04/12 19:54, Lisi wrote: > > On Saturday 07 April 2012 00:39:58 Scott Ferguson wrote: > >>> That is about spelling, not grammar. Since requires the perfect tense. > >>> It is quite simply wrong in English to say "since installs". Leave > >>> out the words "since Lenny", and "installs" becomes correct, but loses > >>> some of the intended meaning. > >>> > >>> Lisi > > Re-editing so that it resembles the post you didn't understand:- > ===re-insert start=== > > >>> One of the keys to "plain English" is brevity. > >> > >> http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=4904#comment-303296 > > ===re-insert end= > > >> That comment is tediously laboured attempt at humour in a monetising > >> "story" ripped off from another April Fools joke. Any relevance to > >> anything is entirely coincidental. > > > > Sorry, don't understand. > > Which bit don't you understand - the comment I was referring to (it's > the comment in the link Chris inserted) or my comment on the comment the > link referenced? Thanks, Scott. That makes sense now! I really must try to get more sleep. ;-) Lisi Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204071553.58564.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On 07/04/12 19:54, Lisi wrote: > On Saturday 07 April 2012 00:39:58 Scott Ferguson wrote: >>> That is about spelling, not grammar. Since requires the perfect tense. >>> It is quite simply wrong in English to say "since installs". Leave >>> out the words "since Lenny", and "installs" becomes correct, but loses >>> some of the intended meaning. >>> >>> Lisi Re-editing so that it resembles the post you didn't understand:- ===re-insert start=== >>> One of the keys to "plain English" is brevity. >> http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=4904#comment-303296 ===re-insert end= >> >> That comment is tediously laboured attempt at humour in a monetising >> "story" ripped off from another April Fools joke. Any relevance to >> anything is entirely coincidental. > > Sorry, don't understand. Which bit don't you understand - the comment I was referring to (it's the comment in the link Chris inserted) or my comment on the comment the link referenced? > > Lisi > > I couldn't see the connection with the post and didn't realise it's insertion in the thread was meant to be a joke (I didn't read Chris's later post explaining it was meant to be a joke until, oddly, later). I still don't get why inserting it into the thread was meant to be funny. Now if it was a picture of two hippos in a river... that would make perfect sense. :-) Kind regards -- Iceweasel/Firefox/Chrome/Chromium/Iceape/IE extensions for finding answers to questions about Debian:- https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/Scott_Ferguson/debian/ -- 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/4f8016d1.7000...@gmail.com
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Saturday 07 April 2012 00:39:58 Scott Ferguson wrote: > > That is about spelling, not grammar. Since requires the perfect tense. > > It is quite simply wrong in English to say "since installs". Leave > > out the words "since Lenny", and "installs" becomes correct, but loses > > some of the intended meaning. > > > > Lisi > > That comment is tediously laboured attempt at humour in a monetising > "story" ripped off from another April Fools joke. Any relevance to > anything is entirely coincidental. Sorry, don't understand. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204071054.16564.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Friday 06 April 2012 23:43:37 Chris Bannister wrote: > > > > One of the keys to "plain English" is brevity. ;-) > > > > > > http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=4904#comment-303296 > > > > That is about spelling, not grammar. Since requires the perfect tense. > > It is > > It was supposed to be a joke. :( I didn't snip severly enough. I am, I'm afraid, missing a joke-detecting radar. So blame my inability to detect a joke, not your own snipping. The first French I ever learnt was "Vous prenez les choses au pied de la lettre". (You take things too litterally.) 57 years later, I still do. :-( Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204071050.28482.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012, Chris Bannister wrote: AIUI, no one knows *yet* whether aptitude or apt-get will be preferred for Wheezy until the usual testing takes place near the time of actual release. look at this (from the Debian Project News, 23 Jan 2012) http://www.perrier.eu.org/weblog/2012/01/14#aptitude-revival -- Pierre Frenkiel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1204070838260.6...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On 07/04/12 05:54, Lisi wrote: > On Friday 06 April 2012 20:34:28 Chris Bannister wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 11:38:29AM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote: >>> On 04/04/12 07:46, Lisi wrote: On Tuesday 03 April 2012 22:35:00 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > Note that apt-get *installs* recommended packages by default since > Lenny and starting with Squeeze is the preferred program to > perform system installation and major system upgrades. Note that apt-get *has installed* recommended packages etc. surely? >>> >>> "since" makes that redundant. >>> One of the keys to "plain English" is brevity. ;-) >> >> http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=4904#comment-303296 >> >> -- >> "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." >>-- Napoleon Bonaparte > > That is about spelling, not grammar. Since requires the perfect tense. It is > quite simply wrong in English to say "since installs". Leave out the > words "since Lenny", and "installs" becomes correct, but loses some of the > intended meaning. > > Lisi > > That comment is tediously laboured attempt at humour in a monetising "story" ripped off from another April Fools joke. Any relevance to anything is entirely coincidental. Kind regards -- Iceweasel/Firefox/Chrome/Chromium/Iceape/IE extensions for finding answers to questions about Debian:- https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/Scott_Ferguson/debian/ -- 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/4f7f7ece.9030...@gmail.com
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On 07/04/12 05:34, Chris Bannister wrote: > > http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=4904#comment-303296 > You shouldn't have eaten those mushrooms. Kind regards -- Iceweasel/Firefox/Chrome/Chromium/Iceape/IE extensions for finding answers to questions about Debian:- https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/Scott_Ferguson/debian/ -- 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/4f7f7ce8.2040...@gmail.com
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 08:54:47PM +0100, Lisi wrote: > On Friday 06 April 2012 20:34:28 Chris Bannister wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 11:38:29AM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote: > > > On 04/04/12 07:46, Lisi wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 03 April 2012 22:35:00 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > >> Note that apt-get *installs* recommended packages by default since > > > >> Lenny and starting with Squeeze is the preferred program to > > > >> perform system installation and major system upgrades. > > > > > > > > Note that apt-get *has installed* recommended packages etc. surely? > > > > > > "since" makes that redundant. > > > One of the keys to "plain English" is brevity. ;-) > > > > http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=4904#comment-303296 > > That is about spelling, not grammar. Since requires the perfect tense. It is It was supposed to be a joke. :( I didn't snip severly enough. Scott Ferguson wrote: One of the keys to "plain English" is brevity. ;-) Chris Bannister should have written: Not too brief or: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=4904#comment-303296 -- "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." -- Napoleon Bonaparte -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120406224337.GB24134@tal
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Friday 06 April 2012 21:38:44 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Vi, 06 apr 12, 20:54:47, Lisi wrote: > > That is about spelling, not grammar. Since requires the perfect tense. > > It is quite simply wrong in English to say "since installs". Leave > > out the words "since Lenny", and "installs" becomes correct, but loses > > some of the intended meaning. > > Debian documentation is generally written in US English, does the above > still apply? I have done some Googling. It appears that the present tense _can_ sometimes be used with "since" in the USA. None-the-less, in the USA the perfect tense with since is perfectly acceptable, which means that the perfect tense would be OK in both the USA and the UK. So, you are right to ask the question, Andrei. But using the perfect would upset no-one, whereas using the present tense would. ;-) Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204062156.17567.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Vi, 06 apr 12, 20:54:47, Lisi wrote: > > That is about spelling, not grammar. Since requires the perfect tense. It is > quite simply wrong in English to say "since installs". Leave out the > words "since Lenny", and "installs" becomes correct, but loses some of the > intended meaning. Debian documentation is generally written in US English, does the above still apply? Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 12:35:00AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Mi, 04 apr 12, 02:01:41, Chris Bannister wrote: > > > > For a start it is possibly all just hot air unless it is discussed on > > the debian-doc list and/or a patch submitted against the debian-faq > > package. I know that you are involved in translations and hence have > > some influence/knowledge so I suggest: > > I already offered to send a patch :) > > > Note: Starting with Squeeze, apt-get now installs recommended packages > > by default and is the preferred program to perform system installation > > and major system upgrades. Aptitude may be preferred for interactive > > package management. > > I like the simplicity of it, but it's not correct as it is now (apt-get > installs recommends since lenny). Let me try to rephrase it: OK. > Note that apt-get installs recommended packages by default since > Lenny and starting with Squeeze is the preferred program to perform > system installation and major system upgrades. Aptitude may be > preferred for interactive package management. Is the point of "installing recommended packages by default" related to apt-get being the preferred program for "major system upgrades". That is, do they need to be in the same paragraph? AIUI, no one knows *yet* whether aptitude or apt-get will be preferred for Wheezy until the usual testing takes place near the time of actual release. So: Note: Starting with Lenny, apt-get has installed recommended packages by default. For Squeeze it is the preferred program to perform system installation and major system upgrades. Aptitude may be preferred for interactive package management. Is it *really* an FAQ? -- "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." -- Napoleon Bonaparte -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120406201529.GH15055@tal
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Friday 06 April 2012 20:34:28 Chris Bannister wrote: > On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 11:38:29AM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote: > > On 04/04/12 07:46, Lisi wrote: > > > On Tuesday 03 April 2012 22:35:00 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > >> Note that apt-get *installs* recommended packages by default since > > >> Lenny and starting with Squeeze is the preferred program to > > >> perform system installation and major system upgrades. > > > > > > Note that apt-get *has installed* recommended packages etc. surely? > > > > "since" makes that redundant. > > One of the keys to "plain English" is brevity. ;-) > > http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=4904#comment-303296 > > -- > "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." >-- Napoleon Bonaparte That is about spelling, not grammar. Since requires the perfect tense. It is quite simply wrong in English to say "since installs". Leave out the words "since Lenny", and "installs" becomes correct, but loses some of the intended meaning. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204062054.47999.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 11:38:29AM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote: > On 04/04/12 07:46, Lisi wrote: > > On Tuesday 03 April 2012 22:35:00 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > >> Note that apt-get *installs* recommended packages by default since > >> Lenny and starting with Squeeze is the preferred program to perform > >> system installation and major system upgrades. > > > > Note that apt-get *has installed* recommended packages etc. surely? > > "since" makes that redundant. > One of the keys to "plain English" is brevity. ;-) http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=4904#comment-303296 -- "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." -- Napoleon Bonaparte -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120406193428.GG15055@tal
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2012 schrieb Lisi: > On Wednesday 04 April 2012 18:58:07 Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Lisi: > > > On Wednesday 04 April 2012 10:01:47 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > Note that since Lenny, apt-get *installs* recommended packages > > > > by > > > > > > > > default. > > > > > > ...since Lenny, apt-get *has installed*.. > > > > Why? It still does. > > Yes, that is why it should be in the perfect. It did and still does. > The perfect tense in English describes a present state due to a past > action, and is in many ways a present tense rather than a past one. > "Installs" excludes the past, "has installed" includes past and > present. This is one of the many English tenses/moods which is > difficult for non-native speakers to understand, let alone get right. > > "Since Lenny apt-get installs" is wrong grammatically in English. (You > and I can discuss this off-list if you like, Andrei.) No thanks. Whatever is correct english. I am no native speaker. If perfect tense - I darkly remember something like that from my english lessons in school quite some time ago - also includes the present I am fine with it. Thanks, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- 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/201204051324.37178.mar...@lichtvoll.de
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude (now with added apt)
On 05/04/12 18:45, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Jo, 05 apr 12, 09:05:53, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> On 05/04/12 04:24, Martin Steigerwald wrote: >>> >>> It would be nice if I could now whether I installed a packages manually >>> via dpkg -i and m-a a-i, well which uses dpkg, it whether apt-get or >>> aptitude installed it, i.e. whether I installed the package via a package >>> manager or a package repository manager. >> >> I agree, that would be a very useful ability. I've recently had to deal >> with a, um, "differently" designed network where the boxes mixed >> releases and had a lot of self-built packages. Such a capability would >> have saved us considerable time. >> It's possible it can already be done (by someone knowledgeable), but I >> don't see anything in dpkg status or logs that hold that info. >> >> Perhaps just alias some logging to dpkg? > > Why dpkg? Because all packages are installed through dpkg :-D ie. that would allow the log to show whether dpkg was called directly or not. At least that was my initial "thought"[*1]. But I suspect it'll only work if using a package cacher or proxy logging (and it turns out to be a waste of time then). > Since all packages are installed through dpkg I think a > possible implementation would mean diff'ing the list of installed > packages with the list of packages installed via apt-get/aptitude. Sort of. My original idea was that if dpkg was called directly then a repository was being used - turns out to be wrong[*1], but the following scenario might work[*2]. I could query a list of installed packages against apt-cacher/packages[*3], as those package managers always result in a file being added to the package cache there. apt-cacher/private might be used to tell me which repository they came from. apt-show-versions might then be used to show whether they're still available. > > Kind regards, > Andrei [*1] I spent an entertaining hour this morning forcing an install of xbmc debian packages onto Squeeze - to get around a broken system I was forced to (pun there) use dpkg directly (even though they came from a repository). So logging what called dpkg is unnecessary - the list of installed packages minus the list of corresponding packages in apt-cacher should show custom/non-repository packages. If those (remaining) packages aren't beneath linux/debian/$release/packages then I've stuffed up somewhere. [*2] Provided my total lack of thought, planning, and research hasn't overlooked an existing system that works better. [*3] The office and client networks have "software servers" that include an installation of apt-cacher, even when a local mirror is used. Kind regards -- Iceweasel/Firefox/Chrome/Chromium/Iceape/IE extensions for finding answers to questions about Debian:- https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/Scott_Ferguson/debian/ -- 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/4f7d68f3.9060...@gmail.com
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude (now with added apt)
On Jo, 05 apr 12, 09:05:53, Scott Ferguson wrote: > On 05/04/12 04:24, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > > > It would be nice if I could now whether I installed a packages manually > > via dpkg -i and m-a a-i, well which uses dpkg, it whether apt-get or > > aptitude installed it, i.e. whether I installed the package via a package > > manager or a package repository manager. > > I agree, that would be a very useful ability. I've recently had to deal > with a, um, "differently" designed network where the boxes mixed > releases and had a lot of self-built packages. Such a capability would > have saved us considerable time. > It's possible it can already be done (by someone knowledgeable), but I > don't see anything in dpkg status or logs that hold that info. > > Perhaps just alias some logging to dpkg? Why dpkg? Since all packages are installed through dpkg I think a possible implementation would mean diff'ing the list of installed packages with the list of packages installed via apt-get/aptitude. Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude (now with added apt)
On 05/04/12 04:24, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Scott Ferguson: >>> Hope this explains, >> > > It would be nice if I could now whether I installed a packages manually > via dpkg -i and m-a a-i, well which uses dpkg, it whether apt-get or > aptitude installed it, i.e. whether I installed the package via a package > manager or a package repository manager. I agree, that would be a very useful ability. I've recently had to deal with a, um, "differently" designed network where the boxes mixed releases and had a lot of self-built packages. Such a capability would have saved us considerable time. It's possible it can already be done (by someone knowledgeable), but I don't see anything in dpkg status or logs that hold that info. Perhaps just alias some logging to dpkg? > > This way I could purge files that are still no longer available in the > archive but have been before, without removed self compiled kernels, > modules or packages installed from files. > I just use hold for custom packages, and let autoremove, deborphan, and (rarely) debfoster do the work. Kind regards -- Iceweasel/Firefox/Chrome/Chromium/Iceape/IE extensions for finding answers to questions about Debian:- https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/Scott_Ferguson/debian/ -- 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/4f7cd3d1.8060...@gmail.com
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Wednesday 04 April 2012 19:00:44 Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Lisi: > > On Wednesday 04 April 2012 12:14:55 Scott Ferguson wrote: > > > ... since Lenny, apt-get will continue to install recommended > > > packages by default. So I believe "has" is redundant, even though > > > it's correct. > > > > What is wrong with : > > > > Apt-get will continue to install recommended packages by default. > > How long? Maybe it stops doing so tomorrow? > > I am perfectly fine with "installs". Thats what it does up to do today. > Since Lenny says since then, but past tense is IMHO misleading since apt- > get still does it. Of course I can write: > > apt-get has installed recommended packages since Lenny. It still installs > recommended packages in Squeeze. It is likely that it will install > recommended packages in Wheezy. And heck it might even do that in Wheezy > +1. > > Now seriously, I prefer the one sentence version of it with "installs". But it is grammatically incorrect in English. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204050001.53301.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Wednesday 04 April 2012 18:58:07 Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Lisi: > > On Wednesday 04 April 2012 10:01:47 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > Note that since Lenny, apt-get *installs* recommended packages by > > > > > > default. > > > > ...since Lenny, apt-get *has installed*.. > > Why? It still does. Yes, that is why it should be in the perfect. It did and still does. The perfect tense in English describes a present state due to a past action, and is in many ways a present tense rather than a past one. "Installs" excludes the past, "has installed" includes past and present. This is one of the many English tenses/moods which is difficult for non-native speakers to understand, let alone get right. "Since Lenny apt-get installs" is wrong grammatically in English. (You and I can discuss this off-list if you like, Andrei.) Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204042344.04517.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Scott Ferguson: > > Hope this explains, > > Thanks. > Sort of explains things to me - I'm still lost as to why I'd want to > remove packages for which no repository is currently listed in > /etc/apt/sources.list or /etc/apt/sources.list.d/*.list > Packages that custom packages, packages for which there no longer is a > repository (Google packages, temp custom repos) and packages installed > using repositories enabled only to install that package (eg. Debian > Multimedia). It would be nice if I could now whether I installed a packages manually via dpkg -i and m-a a-i, well which uses dpkg, it whether apt-get or aptitude installed it, i.e. whether I installed the package via a package manager or a package repository manager. This way I could purge files that are still no longer available in the archive but have been before, without removed self compiled kernels, modules or packages installed from files. -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- 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/201204042024.07364.mar...@lichtvoll.de
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
Am Montag, 2. April 2012 schrieb Lisi: > On Monday 02 April 2012 22:15:08 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > As I understand it the latest recommendation is to use apt-get from > > command line and aptitude interactively. > > Ah! Do you not use aptitude at the command line? Is that what you are > saying? > > I never use it any other way. I tend to forget that it has an ncurses > mode. Which would explain why I thought that both apt and aptitude can > be used for day to day operations. In fact, I am sure that I saw that > - but not that it was the most recent utterance from on high, and from > what you say, it wasn't. I use some other functions of aptitude quite often meanwhile aptitude purge ~c and some searches. While for simple searches I prefer apt-cache search since it *and's* words instead of *or'ing* them. (And now I am not sure whether apostroph is expected here or not. I am no native english speaker or writer.) Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- 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/201204042019.11661.mar...@lichtvoll.de
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
Am Montag, 2. April 2012 schrieb Andrei POPESCU: > On Lu, 02 apr 12, 17:32:44, Lisi wrote: > > On Monday 02 April 2012 10:48:24 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > I'd suggest this instead: > > > > > > Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages by default > > > and is, for its robustness, the preferred program for package > > > management from console, to perform system installation, and major > > > system upgrades to releases as of Squeeze. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > That isn't how I had understood things - though I feel that you are > > more likely to be right on this than I am. As I had understood it, > > we have gone from aptitude being recommended for everything, to > > apt-get being recommended for major upgrades and the two of them > > being equal for day to day use at the command line. > > As I understand it the latest recommendation is to use apt-get from > command line and aptitude interactively. > > As it happens I'm doing just that: > - on stable machines I usually just install or purge one or the other > package and apply security updates. apt-get is a bit faster for such > simple operations > - on the sid install on my laptop I always have aptitude running > because I upgrade very often, but also lookup (new) packages, etc. and > aptitude's interactive mode is *very* useful when dealing with sid I tend to use apt-get these days, unless the solution it offers me for some conflict resolution it offers me it not suitable for my taste. Then I try aptitude. I use aptitude interactively from time to time to clean up stuff. But I find that aptitude sometimes is quite confused and wants to install packages again that I removed with apt-get. Meanwhile I usually do a aptitude keep-all prior to starting it interactively. I thought aptitude and apt-get would share the same state, but it seems that still holds not true for everything. Another thing is aptitude hold/unhold which apt-get did not use last time I tried. The other way around via dpkg --set-selections seems to work in apt-get and aptitude tough. -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- 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/201204042017.09626.mar...@lichtvoll.de
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Lisi: > On Wednesday 04 April 2012 12:14:55 Scott Ferguson wrote: > > ... since Lenny, apt-get will continue to install recommended > > packages by default. So I believe "has" is redundant, even though > > it's correct. > > What is wrong with : > > Apt-get will continue to install recommended packages by default. How long? Maybe it stops doing so tomorrow? I am perfectly fine with "installs". Thats what it does up to do today. Since Lenny says since then, but past tense is IMHO misleading since apt- get still does it. Of course I can write: apt-get has installed recommended packages since Lenny. It still installs recommended packages in Squeeze. It is likely that it will install recommended packages in Wheezy. And heck it might even do that in Wheezy +1. Now seriously, I prefer the one sentence version of it with "installs". -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- 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/201204042000.44363.mar...@lichtvoll.de
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Lisi: > On Wednesday 04 April 2012 10:01:47 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > Note that since Lenny, apt-get *installs* recommended packages by > > > > default. > > ...since Lenny, apt-get *has installed*.. Why? It still does. -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- 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/201204041958.07419.mar...@lichtvoll.de
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Wednesday 04 April 2012 12:14:55 Scott Ferguson wrote: > ... since Lenny, apt-get will continue to install recommended packages > by default. So I believe "has" is redundant, even though it's correct. What is wrong with : Apt-get will continue to install recommended packages by default. Why, at this stage and now the aim is clarity, not leave out the "since Lenny"? The page could be dated, so that it is clear that it does not refer to e.g. 2005, for the benefit of those who cannot cope with advice given some years ago conflicting with advice given now. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204041228.19729.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On 04/04/12 20:28, Lisi wrote: > On Wednesday 04 April 2012 10:01:47 Andrei POPESCU wrote: >> Note that since Lenny, apt-get *installs* recommended packages by >> default. > > ...since Lenny, apt-get *has installed*.. > > ;-) > Lisi > > Even trickier - since Lenny developers have been much more cautious about "recommending" packages. Since Lenny SOE engineers have not had to modify apt.conf so unnecessary and unwanted packages weren't automatically installed as "recommended" (Sarge and Etch had problems in that respect). So it's not just a line in apt.conf that changed with Lenny becoming stable. Oh, and... ... since Lenny, apt-get will continue to install recommended packages by default. So I believe "has" is redundant, even though it's correct. Kind regards -- Iceweasel/Firefox/Chrome/Chromium/Iceape/IE extensions for finding answers to questions about Debian:- https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/Scott_Ferguson/debian/ -- 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/4f7c2d2f.30...@gmail.com
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On 04/04/12 19:01, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Mi, 04 apr 12, 11:38:29, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> My suggestions:- >> >> 1. rephrased for clarity, but hardly succin*c*t. >> Note that since Lenny, apt-get installs recommended[*1] packages by default. >> Beginning with the release of Squeeze[*2], apt is the recommended >> program to perform system installation and major system upgrades. >> >> 2. How I'd write it:- >> Apt is the recommended program to perform system installation and major >> system upgrades.[*3] >> >> 3. To avoid confusion people should read the fine Debian documentation >> in their native language. > > Not fair, most languages don't have enough contributors to translate the > documentation, and translations may have issues themselves. That's a problem that requires solving, the alternative is to expect people to master a second language. That *is not fair*. > >> [*1] tempting to treat that as a noun :-) > > I see where you're coming from, but wouldn't it be too much jargon? IMO Yes (too much jargon). Best to keep it simple. Footnotes could be used for those who don't understand what "recommended" means in the context of Debian packaging Is the question "which tool to upgrade?" or "which tool is best to install packages?" They both have correct answers, but only the second question has multiple correct answers. My preference is "drill up" for detail in this instance (the basics are most easily accessed). It's like instructions for operating a vending machine as opposed to a manual for building one. Developer docs and mans should be drill down for simple. > >> [*2] Surely outdated advice for archived releases belongs in the >> archives. IMO counter arguments don't belong in documentation, they >> usually only appear there as a futile attempt to quiet the trolls. > > Do you mean the mention of aptitude? I don't see it as a counter > argument, but a genuine recommendation. As mentioned elsewhere in this > thread, it's very useful for me and probably others too. No. I meant the historical context (before, since, etc). Aptitude works well for many people - as do other package managers. Are any but apt relevant in this particular context? If I were writing instructions for a plant label on how to pot the plant out - I'll recommend using a spade for digging a hole. Other implements can be used to dig holes, and in some situations are better than (some) spades, and then there are different spades but that information belongs in a booklet/degree "How to dig a hole". (Yes, you can use a shovel, but a spade is recommended) > > One more try: > > Note that since Lenny, apt-get installs recommended packages by > default. I suspect that would be correctly understood by most English speakers. I would insert a footnote explaining "recommended" and possibly the relevant stanza in apt.conf. > Beginning with the release of Squeeze, Some will have problems with the historical context - does that mean that on that day all Debian releases "installed recommended"? And is it relevant? (it's not Debian FAQ 2008). > apt-get is also the > recommended program to perform system installation and major system > upgrades. Some will want to know why waijig and cupt aren't mentioned. Perhaps the following belongs in a footnote also. > aptitude may be preferred for interactive use. IMO the documentation should be written (and read) in the current context, which is Squeeze and later. Historical references only confuse the issue. I maintain a number of older Debian installs (Sarge and Etch) - but I don't expect the current documentation to be relevant to them, or Spud. Then there's the future... > > Kind regards, > Andrei Kind regards -- Iceweasel/Firefox/Chrome/Chromium/Iceape/IE extensions for finding answers to questions about Debian:- https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/Scott_Ferguson/debian/ -- 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/4f7c29b7@gmail.com
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Wednesday 04 April 2012 10:01:47 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > Note that since Lenny, apt-get *installs* recommended packages by > default. ...since Lenny, apt-get *has installed*.. ;-) Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204041128.59935.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Wednesday 04 April 2012 02:38:29 Scott Ferguson wrote: > 2. How I'd write it:- > Apt is the recommended program to perform system installation and major > system upgrades.[*3] > > 3. To avoid confusion people should read the fine Debian documentation > in their native language. :-) +1 Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204041124.01525.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Mi, 04 apr 12, 11:38:29, Scott Ferguson wrote: > My suggestions:- > > 1. rephrased for clarity, but hardly succint. > Note that since Lenny, apt-get installs recommended[*1] packages by default. > Beginning with the release of Squeeze[*2], apt is the recommended > program to perform system installation and major system upgrades. > > 2. How I'd write it:- > Apt is the recommended program to perform system installation and major > system upgrades.[*3] > > 3. To avoid confusion people should read the fine Debian documentation > in their native language. Not fair, most languages don't have enough contributors to translate the documentation, and translations may have issues themselves. > [*1] tempting to treat that as a noun :-) I see where you're coming from, but wouldn't it be too much jargon? > [*2] Surely outdated advice for archived releases belongs in the > archives. IMO counter arguments don't belong in documentation, they > usually only appear there as a futile attempt to quiet the trolls. Do you mean the mention of aptitude? I don't see it as a counter argument, but a genuine recommendation. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it's very useful for me and probably others too. One more try: Note that since Lenny, apt-get installs recommended packages by default. Beginning with the release of Squeeze, apt-get is also the recommended program to perform system installation and major system upgrades. aptitude may be preferred for interactive use. > [*3] "it's not what it said last year" Likewise the weather forecast. > "in my day we wore onions on our belts" We call it evolution. Move along. He, he :) Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Mi, 04 apr 12, 10:58:52, Scott Ferguson wrote: > Sort of explains things to me - I'm still lost as to why I'd want to > remove packages for which no repository is currently listed in > /etc/apt/sources.list or /etc/apt/sources.list.d/*.list > Packages that custom packages, packages for which there no longer is a > repository (Google packages, temp custom repos) and packages installed > using repositories enabled only to install that package (eg. Debian > Multimedia). It makes sense on a pure Debian machine (or at least with maintained external repositories), because packages that are not in any archive also don't get (security) upgrades ;) Even on my sid machine I only have one orphaned package, which I can't remove because it is depended on, but since it's marked auto-installed I don't even have to worry about it, aptitude will deal with it as needed. Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On 04/04/12 07:46, Lisi wrote: > On Tuesday 03 April 2012 22:35:00 Andrei POPESCU wrote: >> Note that apt-get *installs* recommended packages by default since >> Lenny and starting with Squeeze is the preferred program to perform >> system installation and major system upgrades. > > Note that apt-get *has installed* recommended packages etc. surely? "since" makes that redundant. One of the keys to "plain English" is brevity. ;-) > > Lisi > > My suggestions:- 1. rephrased for clarity, but hardly succint. Note that since Lenny, apt-get installs recommended[*1] packages by default. Beginning with the release of Squeeze[*2], apt is the recommended program to perform system installation and major system upgrades. 2. How I'd write it:- Apt is the recommended program to perform system installation and major system upgrades.[*3] 3. To avoid confusion people should read the fine Debian documentation in their native language. [*1] tempting to treat that as a noun :-) [*2] Surely outdated advice for archived releases belongs in the archives. IMO counter arguments don't belong in documentation, they usually only appear there as a futile attempt to quiet the trolls. [*3] "it's not what it said last year" Likewise the weather forecast. "in my day we wore onions on our belts" We call it evolution. Move along. Kind regards -- Iceweasel/Firefox/Chrome/Chromium/Iceape/IE extensions for finding answers to questions about Debian:- https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/Scott_Ferguson/debian/ -- 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/4f7ba615.5040...@gmail.com
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On 04/04/12 07:25, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 03 apr 12, 10:40:45, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 03/04/12 08:16, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, I only use aptitude from command line for things such as
>>>
>>> aptitude purge ~o
>>>
>>> which are impossible to achieve with apt-get alone and not easy even if
>>> you combine it with other tools.
>>
>> # apt-get --purge autoremove
>
> Definitely not the same thing.
Agreed, having since installed aptitude and tried it.
Perhaps I was thinking of debfoster (more likely just senility).
NOTE: I don't advocate apt over aptitude, it's a personal preference.
I've not seen anything only aptitude can do that I would ever use. I
don't know aptitude well enough to say the reverse (build-dep?)
>
> I remember deborphan had several modes of operation, but the main one
> was still the equivalent of apt-get's autoremove.
No, it's (default invocation) is different from autoremove.
# apt-get -s autoremove
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages will be REMOVED:
aqbanking-tools dctrl-tools dlocate info2www
libaqbanking-plugins-libgwenhywfar47 libaqbanking29 libaqbanking29-plugins
libaqbanking29-plugins-qt libaqhbci17 libaqofxconnect5 libbs2b0
libdigest-sha1-perl libfile-ncopy-perl libfilesys-diskspace-perl
libgtkhtml3.14-19 libgwenhywfar47 libmime-types-perl libqbanking8
libx264-116
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 19 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
# apt-get -s remove `deborphan`
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer
required:
libfile-ncopy-perl libmime-types-perl libgwenhywfar47
libaqbanking29-plugins
libaqofxconnect5 libqbanking8 libaqbanking29
libaqbanking-plugins-libgwenhywfar47 libmozjs10d dctrl-tools info2www
libaqhbci17 libfilesys-diskspace-perl aqbanking-tools
libaqbanking29-plugins-qt
dlocate libdigest-sha1-perl
Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them.
The following packages will be REMOVED:
diff libavcore0 libbluedevil1 libbs2b0 libdb4.6 libdb4.6++ libgadu3
libglib1.2ldbl libgssrpc4 libgtkhtml3.14-19 libkleo4 libkpgp4 libksieve4
libktnef4 libmeanwhile1 libmediastreamer0 libmessagecore4 libmimelib4
libmozjs6d libmozjs7d libmsn0.3 libopts25 libotr2 libqalculate5
libscim8c2a
libtunepimp5 libuu0 libx264-116 xulrunner-10.0 xulrunner-9.0
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 30 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
# aptitude purge ~o
The following packages will be REMOVED:
alien{u} amaya{p} debhelper{u} debian-multimedia-keyring{p}
google-desktop-linux{p} google-earth-stable{p} google-talkplugin{p}
handbrake-gtk{p} html2text{u} infokon{p} java-package{p} kernelcheck{p}
libavcore0{p} libavfilter1{p} libavutil50{p} libbs2b0{p} libdvdcss2{p}
libelf1{u} libfaac0{p} libglib1.2ldbl{p} libgtk1.2-common{p}
libid3-3.8.3c2a{u} libmjpegtools-1.9{p} libmkv0{p} libmozjs6d{p}
libmozjs7d{p} libmozjs9d{p} libqt4-gui{u} libquicktime1{u} librpm1{u}
librpmbuild1{u} librpmio1{u} libx264-112{p} libx264-118{p}
linux-headers-3.1.0-1.dmz.2-liquorix-686{p} liquorix-archive-keyring{p}
liquorix-keyring{p} liquorix-keyrings{p} lsb-core{u} mjpegtools{p}
nerolinux{p} pax{u} picasa{p} rpm{u} rpm-common{u} rpm2cpio{u} skype{p}
skype-call-recorder{p} transcode{p} transcode-doc{p} twolame{u}
w32codecs{p}
xulrunner-9.0{p} zenity{u}
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 54 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
>
> To explain, aptitude's ~o pattern stands for "orphaned", that is
> installed packages that are not available from any of the *currently*
> configured sources: it may be the package has been dropped from the
> archive (can happen for unstable and testing, very seldom also for
> stable) or you removed the corresponding deb line your from
> sources.list.
A different meaning of orphan (no place/homes, as opposed to
unrequired/unwanted). I'm not sure that I'd ever use the aptitude
de-orphaning tool - it would leave my systems broken whereas deborphan
removes broken packages (and debfoster can remove stranded ones).
>
> apt-show-versions can be used to generate the package list for apt
>
> $ apt-show-versions | grep libxmlrpc-ruby
> libxmlrpc-ruby 4.2 installed: No available version in archive
>
> but you have do some piping first.
# apt-show-versions | grep "No available"
amaya 11.4.4-1 installed: No available version in archive
debian-multimedia-keyring 2010.12.26 installed: No available version in
archive
google-desktop-linux 1.2.0.0088 installed: No available version in archive
google-earth-stable 6.0.3.2197-r0 installed: No available version in archive
google-talkplugin 2.6.1.0-1 installed: No available version in archive
handbrake-gtk 0.9.5-0.1 installed: No available version in archive
infokon 0.2-1 installed: No available version in archive
java-package 0.42 installed: No available version in archive
kernelcheck 1.2.5+bzr20100416-1mlrepo1 i
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Tuesday 03 April 2012 22:35:00 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > Note that apt-get *installs* recommended packages by default since > Lenny and starting with Squeeze is the preferred program to perform > system installation and major system upgrades. Note that apt-get *has installed* recommended packages etc. surely? A present state due to a past action. "Depuis" in French requires the present, but surely not "since" in English? [I hasten to say that I am referring to the English dialect of English ;-) ] Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204032246.33688.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Mi, 04 apr 12, 02:01:41, Chris Bannister wrote: > > For a start it is possibly all just hot air unless it is discussed on > the debian-doc list and/or a patch submitted against the debian-faq > package. I know that you are involved in translations and hence have > some influence/knowledge so I suggest: I already offered to send a patch :) > Note: Starting with Squeeze, apt-get now installs recommended packages > by default and is the preferred program to perform system installation > and major system upgrades. Aptitude may be preferred for interactive > package management. I like the simplicity of it, but it's not correct as it is now (apt-get installs recommends since lenny). Let me try to rephrase it: Note that apt-get installs recommended packages by default since Lenny and starting with Squeeze is the preferred program to perform system installation and major system upgrades. Aptitude may be preferred for interactive package management. Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Ma, 03 apr 12, 10:40:45, Scott Ferguson wrote: > On 03/04/12 08:16, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > Yes, I only use aptitude from command line for things such as > > > > aptitude purge ~o > > > > which are impossible to achieve with apt-get alone and not easy even if > > you combine it with other tools. > > # apt-get --purge autoremove Definitely not the same thing. > OR (belt and corset) > > # apt-get --purge remove `deborphan`; apt-get --purge autoremove I remember deborphan had several modes of operation, but the main one was still the equivalent of apt-get's autoremove. To explain, aptitude's ~o pattern stands for "orphaned", that is installed packages that are not available from any of the *currently* configured sources: it may be the package has been dropped from the archive (can happen for unstable and testing, very seldom also for stable) or you removed the corresponding deb line your from sources.list. apt-show-versions can be used to generate the package list for apt $ apt-show-versions | grep libxmlrpc-ruby libxmlrpc-ruby 4.2 installed: No available version in archive but you have do some piping first. Hope this explains, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
debian-faq (was ... Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude)
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 12:48:24PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > I'd suggest this instead: > > Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages by default and > is, for its robustness, the preferred program for package management > from console, to perform system installation, and major system > upgrades to releases as of Squeeze. > > What do you think? For a start it is possibly all just hot air unless it is discussed on the debian-doc list and/or a patch submitted against the debian-faq package. I know that you are involved in translations and hence have some influence/knowledge so I suggest: Note: Starting with Squeeze, apt-get now installs recommended packages by default and is the preferred program to perform system installation and major system upgrades. Aptitude may be preferred for interactive package management. -- "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." -- Napoleon Bonaparte -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120403140140.GB2071@tal
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On 03/04/12 08:16, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Lu, 02 apr 12, 22:28:18, Lisi wrote: >> On Monday 02 April 2012 22:15:08 Andrei POPESCU wrote: >>> As I understand it the latest recommendation is to use apt-get from >>> command line and aptitude interactively. >> >> Ah! Do you not use aptitude at the command line? Is that what you are >> saying? > > Yes, I only use aptitude from command line for things such as > > aptitude purge ~o > > which are impossible to achieve with apt-get alone and not easy even if > you combine it with other tools. # apt-get --purge autoremove OR (belt and corset) # apt-get --purge remove `deborphan`; apt-get --purge autoremove I usually have "Apt::Get::Purge "true";" set so I don't need to add the --purge switch. Kind regards -- Iceweasel/Firefox/Chrome/Chromium/Iceape/IE extensions for finding answers to questions about Debian:- https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/Scott_Ferguson/debian/ -- 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/4f7a470d.9060...@gmail.com
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Lu, 02 apr 12, 22:28:18, Lisi wrote: > On Monday 02 April 2012 22:15:08 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > As I understand it the latest recommendation is to use apt-get from > > command line and aptitude interactively. > > Ah! Do you not use aptitude at the command line? Is that what you are > saying? Yes, I only use aptitude from command line for things such as aptitude purge ~o which are impossible to achieve with apt-get alone and not easy even if you combine it with other tools. > I never use it any other way. I tend to forget that it has an ncurses > mode. The interactive mode is very powerful once you understand how it works and remember the keystrokes. > Which would explain why I thought that both apt and aptitude can be used for > day to day operations. In fact, I am sure that I saw that - but not that it > was the most recent utterance from on high, and from what you say, it wasn't. aptitude can and is used for day to day operations by at least one user (me :p ), but I also try to use the best tool for the job. For example: $ time aptitude install base-files Reading package lists... Building dependency tree... Reading state information... Reading extended state information... Initializing package states... E: Could not open lock file /var/lib/dpkg/lock - open (13: Permission denied) E: Unable to lock the administration directory (/var/lib/dpkg/), are you root? real0m3.162s user0m3.056s sys 0m0.092s $ time apt-get install base-files E: Could not open lock file /var/lib/dpkg/lock - open (13: Permission denied) E: Unable to lock the administration directory (/var/lib/dpkg/), are you root? real0m0.363s user0m0.004s sys 0m0.000s As you can see, aptitude takes 3 seconds just to tell me that I'm not root and this is on a somewhat capable machine (Intel Dual Core T2330@1.6 GHz with 2 GB RAM), but I have it running all the time anyway. On my PIII 500Mhz aptitude takes almost three times as long, while apt-get doesn't have a noticeable (for me) increase. Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On 20120402_083627, Pierre Frenkiel wrote: > On Sun, 1 Apr 2012, Paul E Condon wrote: > > >> Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and is, > >> for its robustness, the preferred program for package management from > >> console to perform system installation and major system upgrades to > >> releases posterior to Lenny. > > ^ > > > >The better English word to use here is 'prior', which means earlier in > >time rather than the backside of, > > As far as I know, Squeeze is posterior to Lenny, and the recommended ^ This is the wrong word in English to describe the relation between Squeeze and Lenny. Maybe OK in some other European language, but not in English. If Squeeze and Lenny were mules in a pack train, and mule Lenny were the lead mule in the train, then mule Squeeze would be posterior to Lenny. But this use is far too refined for the world of mule drivers, and not OK because mule train drivers just don't use high falutin words like that. For named releases of software and to express a relationship in time, posterior is the wrong word in English. Since the thread seemed mainly about correct English usage, I thought it would be helpful to point this out before the word got incorporated into Debian documentation. HTH -- Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net -- 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/20120402220623.go3...@big.lan.gnu
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Monday 02 April 2012 22:15:08 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > As I understand it the latest recommendation is to use apt-get from > command line and aptitude interactively. Ah! Do you not use aptitude at the command line? Is that what you are saying? I never use it any other way. I tend to forget that it has an ncurses mode. Which would explain why I thought that both apt and aptitude can be used for day to day operations. In fact, I am sure that I saw that - but not that it was the most recent utterance from on high, and from what you say, it wasn't. Lisi > As it happens I'm doing just that: > - on stable machines I usually just install or purge one or the other > package and apply security updates. apt-get is a bit faster for such > simple operations > - on the sid install on my laptop I always have aptitude running because > I upgrade very often, but also lookup (new) packages, etc. and > aptitude's interactive mode is *very* useful when dealing with sid > > Hope this explains, -- 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/20120408.18341.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Lu, 02 apr 12, 17:32:44, Lisi wrote: > On Monday 02 April 2012 10:48:24 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > I'd suggest this instead: > > > > Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages by default and > > is, for its robustness, the preferred program for package management > > from console, to perform system installation, and major system > > upgrades to releases as of Squeeze. > > > > What do you think? > > That isn't how I had understood things - though I feel that you are more > likely to be right on this than I am. As I had understood it, we have gone > from aptitude being recommended for everything, to apt-get being recommended > for major upgrades and the two of them being equal for day to day use at the > command line. As I understand it the latest recommendation is to use apt-get from command line and aptitude interactively. As it happens I'm doing just that: - on stable machines I usually just install or purge one or the other package and apply security updates. apt-get is a bit faster for such simple operations - on the sid install on my laptop I always have aptitude running because I upgrade very often, but also lookup (new) packages, etc. and aptitude's interactive mode is *very* useful when dealing with sid Hope this explains, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Monday 02 April 2012 10:48:24 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > I'd suggest this instead: > > Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages by default and > is, for its robustness, the preferred program for package management > from console, to perform system installation, and major system > upgrades to releases as of Squeeze. > > What do you think? That isn't how I had understood things - though I feel that you are more likely to be right on this than I am. As I had understood it, we have gone from aptitude being recommended for everything, to apt-get being recommended for major upgrades and the two of them being equal for day to day use at the command line. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204021732.44669.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Pierre Frenkiel wrote: > On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > >> I don't understand what you mean here, could you please elaborate? > > > Yes I can... > > All the discussion started about the following sentence in section 4.4.6 > of the Squeeze Release Notes: > > > The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of > aptitude for the upgrade. The entirety of the text from the cited portion of 4.4.6 of the document you linked: "Note The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude for the upgrade. This tool is not recommended for upgrades from lenny to squeeze." It appears that whatever confusion may have been caused by other portions of the release notes are pretty clearly settled by the above note. "This tool [aptitude] is not recommended for upgrades from lenny to squeeze." -- Chris -- 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/CAOEVnYtKgmVsbtW=sz+tvvvfdtdwxwfx+zj05npibqoqt8f...@mail.gmail.com
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote: I don't understand what you mean here, could you please elaborate? Yes I can... All the discussion started about the following sentence in section 4.4.6 of the Squeeze Release Notes: The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude for the upgrade. Some people said that as the past tense was used, the recommendation to use aptitude for upgrade to older releases was no more valid. The section 4.2 of the same document clearly shows that this is not true: (http://www.debian.org/releases/squeeze/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#system-status) Please follow the instructions in the Release Notes for Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 to upgrade to 5.0 first. And in the Release Notes for Debian 5.0, section 4.5, you find: (http://www.debian.org/releases/lenny/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#upgradingpackages) The recommended way to upgrade from previous Debian GNU/Linux releases is to use the package management tool aptitude. I hope this is clear enough. -- Pierre Frenkiel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1204021306490.25...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote: I don't think this is necessary, the upgrade from a prior release to the next is to be done by following the corresponding release notes anyway. I agree, It's exactly what is written in the Squeeze release notes for the upgrade to Lenny. Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages by default and is, for its robustness, the preferred program for package management from console, to perform system installation, and major system upgrades to releases as of Squeeze. What do you think? IMO, if "as of" is equivalent to "starting from", it's perfect, -- Pierre Frenkiel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1204021151360.25...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Lu, 02 apr 12, 09:10:54, Pierre Frenkiel wrote: > > I would admit I have made a mistake if didn't find that my > interpretation is conform to what is written in the releases notes > > >>Please follow the instructions in the Release Notes for Debian > >>GNU/Linux 5.0 to upgrade to 5.0 first. > >which proves that the recommendation to use aptitude was still >valid at the time when the Squeeze releases notes were written I don't understand what you mean here, could you please elaborate? Thanks, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Du, 01 apr 12, 20:45:02, Pierre Frenkiel wrote: > So, I persist to say that the 2 sentences are contradictory. I'll > propose a slight modification to remove this contradiction: > > 1/ in 4.4.6, replace > > The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of > aptitude for the upgrade. This tool is not recommended for upgrades > from lenny to squeeze. > > by > > The recommended tool for system upgrade from Lenny to Squeeze > is apt-get. For upgrades to previous releases, it is aptitude I don't think this is necessary, the upgrade from a prior release to the next is to be done by following the corresponding release notes anyway. > 2/ in the Debian faq, replace > > Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and is > the preferred program for package management from console to perform > system installation and major system upgrades for its robustness. > > by > > Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and is, > for its robustness, the preferred program for package management from > console to perform system installation and major system upgrades to > releases posterior to Lenny. I'd suggest this instead: Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages by default and is, for its robustness, the preferred program for package management from console, to perform system installation, and major system upgrades to releases as of Squeeze. What do you think? Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Lisi wrote: Why "curiously"? I didn't answer most of your ludicrous assertions. In that case, this "ludicrous assertion" is not from me, but from the releases notes. It's easier to ignore what you can't answer, and replace that with insults, the most ignominious for you being apparently "Frenchman" !! I would recommend some reading of the netetiquette. I'll then also abandon this unproductive flame war, and put you in my black list. -- Pierre Frenkiel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1204021035070.14...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Monday 02 April 2012 08:10:54 Pierre Frenkiel wrote: > On Sun, 1 Apr 2012, Lisi wrote: > > I give you: "Pasteur used to recommend that people should wash their > > hands frequently" is a use of the past tense that clearly says that that > > statement is no longer true. > > I would admit I have made a mistake if didn't find that my > interpretation is conform to what is written in the releases notes > > >> Please follow the instructions in the Release Notes for Debian > >> GNU/Linux 5.0 to upgrade to 5.0 first. > > which proves that the recommendation to use aptitude was still > valid at the time when the Squeeze releases notes were written > > Curiously, you didn't answer to that. Why "curiously"? I didn't answer most of your ludicrous assertions. You are quite simply wrong, but I can't be bothered to argue with a Frenchman who patently doesn't know what he is talking about. I shall simply ignore you from now on. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204020917.08783.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Sun, 1 Apr 2012, Lisi wrote: I give you: "Pasteur used to recommend that people should wash their hands frequently" is a use of the past tense that clearly says that that statement is no longer true. I would admit I have made a mistake if didn't find that my interpretation is conform to what is written in the releases notes Please follow the instructions in the Release Notes for Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 to upgrade to 5.0 first. which proves that the recommendation to use aptitude was still valid at the time when the Squeeze releases notes were written Curiously, you didn't answer to that. -- Pierre Frenkiel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1204020836390.30...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Sun, 1 Apr 2012, Paul E Condon wrote: Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and is, for its robustness, the preferred program for package management from console to perform system installation and major system upgrades to releases posterior to Lenny. ^ The better English word to use here is 'prior', which means earlier in time rather than the backside of, As far as I know, Squeeze is posterior to Lenny, and the recommended tool to upgrade from Lenny to Squeeze is apt-get -- Pierre Frenkiel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1204020832530.30...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On 20120401_204502, Pierre Frenkiel wrote: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Lisi wrote: > > >Tenses are often very difficult for non-native speakers of English to > >understand. > > It's funny. Do you really think that the the meaning of the past > tense is different in other languages!? > IMO, your interpretation of the past tense is wrong: The fact that a > statement was written in the past never implied, in any language, > that > it is no more valid. Example: > > "Pasteur recommended to wash hands frequently" > > If the old statement is no more valid, that needs to be specified > explicitly, preferably in the same sentence or the next one, > as in the following (half-imaginary) example: > > : "Pasteur recommended to boil water before drinking it, but this is no more > needed in most modern countries" > > So, to come back to Debian upgrade, in the following sentence > > The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude > for the upgrade. > > the past tense is obviously used because this recommendation was > written in the past, but it is nowhere writen that it is no more > valid, except for > upgrades from Debian 5.0 to Debian 6.0. For example, reading that, > I would still use aptitude to upgrade from Debian 4.0 to Debian 5.0 > If you want an other proof that I am right, look at section 4.2 > >Please follow the instructions in the Release Notes for Debian GNU/Linux >5.0 to upgrade to 5.0 first. > > Please note that "follow" is not at the past tense! > > On the contrary, reading: > >apt-get is the preferred program for package management from >console to perform system installation and major system upgrades > > I would use apt-get to upgrade to 5.0 Please note the plural, and > that there is not a single restriction > for the concerned realeases > > So, I persist to say that the 2 sentences are contradictory. I'll > propose a slight modification to remove this contradiction: > > 1/ in 4.4.6, replace > > The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of > aptitude for the upgrade. This tool is not recommended for upgrades > from lenny to squeeze. > > by > > The recommended tool for system upgrade from Lenny to Squeeze > is apt-get. For upgrades to previous releases, it is aptitude > > 2/ in the Debian faq, replace > > Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and is > the preferred program for package management from console to perform > system installation and major system upgrades for its robustness. > > by > > Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and is, > for its robustness, the preferred program for package management from > console to perform system installation and major system upgrades to > releases posterior to Lenny. ^ The better English word to use here is 'prior', which means earlier in time rather than the backside of, I think. American English is my first language and the only natural language in which I have any facility, but Debian is international with much of the documentation available only in English. That documentation should be understandable to persons who only understand English with the continual help of an English to language X dictionary or with the help of a friend who speaks English but has no understanding of computers. Please do sweat the details of wording. -- Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net -- 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/20120401234947.gk3...@big.lan.gnu
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Sunday 01 April 2012 19:45:02 Pierre Frenkiel wrote: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Lisi wrote: > > Tenses are often very difficult for non-native speakers of English to > > understand. > > It's funny. Do you really think that the the meaning of the past tense > is different in other languages!? Yes, particularly in French. The passé simple and the English preterite appear the same, but in fact are quite different. The passé composé appears the same as teh English perfect tense, but in fact is quite different.I could give you numerous other examples. > IMO, your interpretation of the past tense is wrong: The fact that > a statement was written in the past never implied, in any language, that > it is no more valid. Example: > > "Pasteur recommended to wash hands frequently" > I give you: "Pasteur used to recommend that people should wash their hands frequently" is a use of the past tense that clearly says that that statement is no longer true. In your words, it clearly implies that it is no longer valid. Etc. You are quite wrong in the case you are arguing. Your English is extremely good for a Frenchman, but one needs the rider. English tenses and French tenses differ both in usage and in meaning, and there are more of them in English. It is clear that you have not fully grasped the correct usage in English. > If the old statement is no more valid, that needs to be specified > explicitly, preferably in the same sentence or the next one, No, it doesn't. There is no point in carrying on with this. You would obviously be prepared to insist that the world is flat rather than admit that you might have made a mistake. Lisi > as in the following (half-imaginary) example: > : "Pasteur recommended to boil water before drinking it, but this is no > : more > >needed in most modern countries" > > So, to come back to Debian upgrade, in the following sentence > > The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude > for the upgrade. > > the past tense is obviously used because this recommendation was written > in the past, but it is nowhere writen that it is no more valid, except for > upgrades from Debian 5.0 to Debian 6.0. For example, reading that, > I would still use aptitude to upgrade from Debian 4.0 to Debian 5.0 > If you want an other proof that I am right, look at section 4.2 > > Please follow the instructions in the Release Notes for Debian > GNU/Linux 5.0 to upgrade to 5.0 first. > > Please note that "follow" is not at the past tense! > > On the contrary, reading: > > apt-get is the preferred program for package management from > console to perform system installation and major system upgrades > > I would use apt-get to upgrade to 5.0 > Please note the plural, and that there is not a single restriction > for the concerned realeases > > So, I persist to say that the 2 sentences are contradictory. I'll > propose a slight modification to remove this contradiction: > > 1/ in 4.4.6, replace > >The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of >aptitude for the upgrade. This tool is not recommended for upgrades >from lenny to squeeze. > > by > >The recommended tool for system upgrade from Lenny to Squeeze >is apt-get. For upgrades to previous releases, it is aptitude > > 2/ in the Debian faq, replace > > Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and is > the preferred program for package management from console to perform > system installation and major system upgrades for its robustness. > > by > > Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and > is, for its robustness, the preferred program for package management from > console to perform system installation and major system upgrades to > releases posterior to Lenny. > > > -- > Pierre Frenkiel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204012316.44915.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Lisi wrote: Tenses are often very difficult for non-native speakers of English to understand. It's funny. Do you really think that the the meaning of the past tense is different in other languages!? IMO, your interpretation of the past tense is wrong: The fact that a statement was written in the past never implied, in any language, that it is no more valid. Example: "Pasteur recommended to wash hands frequently" If the old statement is no more valid, that needs to be specified explicitly, preferably in the same sentence or the next one, as in the following (half-imaginary) example: : "Pasteur recommended to boil water before drinking it, but this is no more needed in most modern countries" So, to come back to Debian upgrade, in the following sentence The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude for the upgrade. the past tense is obviously used because this recommendation was written in the past, but it is nowhere writen that it is no more valid, except for upgrades from Debian 5.0 to Debian 6.0. For example, reading that, I would still use aptitude to upgrade from Debian 4.0 to Debian 5.0 If you want an other proof that I am right, look at section 4.2 Please follow the instructions in the Release Notes for Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 to upgrade to 5.0 first. Please note that "follow" is not at the past tense! On the contrary, reading: apt-get is the preferred program for package management from console to perform system installation and major system upgrades I would use apt-get to upgrade to 5.0 Please note the plural, and that there is not a single restriction for the concerned realeases So, I persist to say that the 2 sentences are contradictory. I'll propose a slight modification to remove this contradiction: 1/ in 4.4.6, replace The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude for the upgrade. This tool is not recommended for upgrades from lenny to squeeze. by The recommended tool for system upgrade from Lenny to Squeeze is apt-get. For upgrades to previous releases, it is aptitude 2/ in the Debian faq, replace Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and is the preferred program for package management from console to perform system installation and major system upgrades for its robustness. by Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and is, for its robustness, the preferred program for package management from console to perform system installation and major system upgrades to releases posterior to Lenny. -- Pierre Frenkiel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1204011920140.20...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Wednesday 28 March 2012 14:55:20 Pierre Frenkiel wrote: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > How exactly does this contradict the Release Notes? > > 1/ The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude > for the upgrade. > > This is in chapter 4: Upgrades from Lenny, so seems to actually apply to > major system upgrades. > > 2/ apt-get ... and is the preferred program for package management from > console to perform system installation and major system upgrades > > Do you mean that 1/ does not contradict 2/ ? That is correct. > If so, I have to go back to school to better understand English... Tenses are often very difficult for non-native speakers of English to understand. The past tense and the present tense are clearly distinguished, so 1) which is in the past tense, does not contradict and is not contradicted by 2) which is in the present tense. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201203281649.19536.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Mi, 28 mar 12, 15:55:20, Pierre Frenkiel wrote: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > >How exactly does this contradict the Release Notes? > > > 1/ The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude > for the upgrade. "recommended" (past tense) > This is in chapter 4: Upgrades from Lenny, so seems to actually apply to > major system upgrades. > > 2/ apt-get ... and is the preferred program for package management from > console to perform > system installation and major system upgrades "is" (present) > Do you mean that 1/ does not contradict 2/ ? > If so, I have to go back to school to better understand English... Or me :) Please feel free to suggest improvements in the wording. A patch would be even better, but I'd be willing to do that on your behalf (with your permission and proper credit, of course). Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote: How exactly does this contradict the Release Notes? 1/ The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude for the upgrade. This is in chapter 4: Upgrades from Lenny, so seems to actually apply to major system upgrades. 2/ apt-get ... and is the preferred program for package management from console to perform system installation and major system upgrades Do you mean that 1/ does not contradict 2/ ? If so, I have to go back to school to better understand English... -- Pierre Frenkiel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1203281543080.22...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Mi, 28 mar 12, 10:56:49, Pierre Frenkiel wrote: > >The release note "4.4.6. Upgrading the system" has: > >http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#upgrading-full > >The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude > >for the upgrade. This tool is not recommended for upgrades from lenny to > >squeeze. > > hi, > In a perfect world, this information would be enough to know what to do. > Alas, it is not, and the documentation found at different (official) places > is > not always consistent. Please feel free to report bugs for such inconsistencies, but the Release Notes are the canonical documentation for upgrading from one Debian stable release to another. > In the debian faq, I read: > > Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and is > the preferred program for package management from console to perform > system installation and major system upgrades for its robustness. > > aptitude is recommended for daily package management from console. How exactly does this contradict the Release Notes? Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, Osamu Aoki wrote: So your experience is that apt-get is better for such case :-) cf below The release note "4.4.6. Upgrading the system" has: http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#upgrading-full The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude for the upgrade. This tool is not recommended for upgrades from lenny to squeeze. hi, In a perfect world, this information would be enough to know what to do. Alas, it is not, and the documentation found at different (official) places is not always consistent. In the debian faq, I read: Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and is the preferred program for package management from console to perform system installation and major system upgrades for its robustness. aptitude is recommended for daily package management from console. -- Pierre -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1203281041550.9...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
Am Mittwoch, 21. März 2012 schrieb Pierre Frenkiel: > hi, > I wanted to upgrade from Squeeze to Wheezy, and as I saw in several > places that aptitude should be preferred to apt-get, I first tried > with it. I started with only 1 line in sources.list: > deb http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free > and tried several times "aptitude safe-upgrade" > Each time, aptitude stayed indefinitely on "resolving dependencies" and > did nothing else. > I then issued: "apt-get dist-upgrade", and all worked perfectly, in > less than 30 minutes. > > My question: is it better to also revert to apt-get for package > management, or is the problem specific to the upgrade to a new > release? Sven Hartge said on debian-user-german that aptitude is currently having issues with multiarch. Maybe that has hit you somehow or maybe not I don´t know. I´d suggest apt-get for the time being. -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- 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/201203262121.31590.mar...@lichtvoll.de
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
Hi, On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:01:38AM +0100, Pierre Frenkiel wrote: > hi, > I wanted to upgrade from Squeeze to Wheezy, and as I saw in several places > that aptitude should be preferred to apt-get, I first tried with it. > I started with only 1 line in sources.list: > deb http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free > and tried several times "aptitude safe-upgrade" > Each time, aptitude stayed indefinitely on "resolving dependencies" and did > nothing else. > I then issued: "apt-get dist-upgrade", and all worked perfectly, in less > than 30 minutes. So your experience is that apt-get is better for such case :-) The release note "4.4.6. Upgrading the system" has: http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#upgrading-full The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude for the upgrade. This tool is not recommended for upgrades from lenny to squeeze. > My question: is it better to also revert to apt-get for package management, > or is the problem specific to the upgrade to a new release? That was the consensus among DDs when releasing squeeze :-) The rational for this is experience such as yours. "Almost same" is not exactly "the same" between apt-get/aptitude. http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html#_literal_apt_get_literal_literal_apt_cache_literal_vs_literal_aptitude_literal Maybe, I should put more warning since aptitude dependency behaviour seems to be changing a bitfor command line. Osamu -- 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/20120325150858.GA701@localhost
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On 21/03/12 22:22, Lisi wrote: On Wednesday 21 March 2012 13:42:24 Pierre Frenkiel wrote: I've managed to mislay your follow up after having read it. It would have helped if you had not copied me in. But no, I do not agree that that is what the manual means. It says - and means - that aptitude dist-upgrade will still work for historical reasons, and is synonymous with aptitude full-upgrade. It neither says nor means that aptitude full-upgrade is synonymous with or identical to *apt-get* dist-upgrade. Lisi I agree with you, but it does not matter. The man page is often outdated and tend to mislead in obscure corners cases of the project Or so I've seen so far... greets! aL -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f6ae896.2040...@qindel.com
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Wednesday 21 March 2012 13:42:24 Pierre Frenkiel wrote: I've managed to mislay your follow up after having read it. It would have helped if you had not copied me in. But no, I do not agree that that is what the manual means. It says - and means - that aptitude dist-upgrade will still work for historical reasons, and is synonymous with aptitude full-upgrade. It neither says nor means that aptitude full-upgrade is synonymous with or identical to *apt-get* dist-upgrade. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201203212122.38883.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Lisi wrote: Eqivalent does not equal identical. "Equivalent" alone woukd be ambiguous. wiktionary.org says: similar or identical in value, meaning or effect; virtually equal but the aptitude man is not ambiguous: This command was originally named dist-upgrade for historical reasons, and aptitude still recognizes dist-upgrade as a synonym for full-upgrade. would you say that "synonym" is not the same as "identical" ? If they were identical there would be no point in having the two of them. it would take a long time to list all programs having identical processing for some features, and different ones for others. I consider that it is often a waste of time for developpers ans users to have so many programs doing almost the same thing. In an other field, there is no point to have 20 brands of yoghurts in the supermarkets, and nonetheless you have them... -- Pierre Frenkiel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1203212018340.4...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:01:38 +0100, Pierre Frenkiel wrote: > I wanted to upgrade from Squeeze to Wheezy, and as I saw in several > places that aptitude should be preferred to apt-get, The advice on what to use seems to change from time to time :-) > I first tried with it. I started with only 1 line in sources.list: > deb http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free > and tried several times "aptitude safe-upgrade" Each time, aptitude > stayed indefinitely on "resolving dependencies" and did nothing else. > I then issued: "apt-get dist-upgrade", and all worked perfectly, in less > than 30 minutes. This is worth reading: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html#_basic_package_management_operations > My question: is it better to also revert to apt-get for package > management, or is the problem specific to the upgrade to a new release? I'd say: use whatever works better every time. I have not faced any problem in stable/oldstable releases when using official repos and "apt-get dist-upgrade". Never. A different thing could be using external and third-party repositories over a testing/sid distribution. In such scenario there can be times in which aptitude can be of help. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jkcuoc$lch$8...@dough.gmane.org
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On 21/03/12 11:01, Pierre Frenkiel wrote: I then issued: "apt-get dist-upgrade", and all worked perfectly, in less than 30 minutes. Awesome! I had a vm machine that i was trying to upgrade and it failed every time. I blamed the vm... then i noticed i was trying to upgrade it with aptitude full-upgrade... I tried apt-get and it did succeed at the first try :D ty! aL -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f69f7dc.30...@qindel.com
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Wednesday 21 March 2012 13:42:24 Pierre Frenkiel wrote: > but anyway then are not equivalent. Eqivalent does not equal identical. If they were identical there would be no point in having the two of them. None the less they are equivalent, in that if you are upgrading to a higher version of Debian, then apt-get dist-upgrade is what you use in apt-get and aptitude full-upgrade is what you use in aptitude. aptitude safe-upgrade has a different purpose. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201203211455.04290.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Lisi wrote: aptitude full-upgrade is the equivalent of apt-get dist-upgrade. aptitude safe-upgrade has different checks. It is what is written in the man, but experience shows this is not true. After installing kernel 3.2 I tried both: apt-get dist-upgrade, which gave 1060 upgraded, 312 newly installed, 18 to remove and 1 not upgraded. aptitude full-upgrade gave 1050 packages upgraded, 313 newly installed, 30 to remove and 0 not upgraded. and then asks for removal of 18 other packages. which means that aptitude wants to remove 52 packages, and apt-get 18 It's difficult to say what is the good choice, but anyway then are not equivalent. (apt-get upgrade gives: 801 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 261 not upgraded.) -- Pierre Frenkiel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1203211431001.17...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
Hello Pierre, Pierre Frenkiel wrote: > I wanted to upgrade from Squeeze to Wheezy, and as I saw in several places > that aptitude should be preferred to apt-get, I first tried with it. > My question: is it better to also revert to apt-get for package management, > or is the problem specific to the upgrade to a new release? The release notes for Squeeze already refer to apt-get rather than aptitude. From my point of view, during a specific timeframe around 2008, aptitude was technically superior, but since apt-get has caught up, it appears to be the preferred choice. Best regards, Claudius -- Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. Please use GPG: ECB0C2C7 4A4C4046 446ADF86 C08112E5 D72CDBA4 http://chubig.net telnet://nightfall.org:4242 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Wednesday 21 March 2012 10:01:38 Pierre Frenkiel wrote: > hi, > I wanted to upgrade from Squeeze to Wheezy, and as I saw in several places > that aptitude should be preferred to apt-get, I first tried with it. > I started with only 1 line in sources.list: > deb http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free > and tried several times "aptitude safe-upgrade" > Each time, aptitude stayed indefinitely on "resolving dependencies" and did > nothing else. > I then issued: "apt-get dist-upgrade", and all worked perfectly, in less > than 30 minutes. > > My question: is it better to also revert to apt-get for package management, > or is the problem specific to the upgrade to a new release? aptitude full-upgrade is the equivalent of apt-get dist-upgrade. aptitude safe-upgrade has different checks. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201203211013.42083.lisi.re...@gmail.com
upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
hi, I wanted to upgrade from Squeeze to Wheezy, and as I saw in several places that aptitude should be preferred to apt-get, I first tried with it. I started with only 1 line in sources.list: deb http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free and tried several times "aptitude safe-upgrade" Each time, aptitude stayed indefinitely on "resolving dependencies" and did nothing else. I then issued: "apt-get dist-upgrade", and all worked perfectly, in less than 30 minutes. My question: is it better to also revert to apt-get for package management, or is the problem specific to the upgrade to a new release? regards, -- Pierre Frenkiel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1203211033150.32...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
