Hi there,
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:12:10 +0100, Michael Prokop wrote:
> * David Kalnischkies [Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 10:28:33PM +0100]:
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 09:04:16PM +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
>
> > > ...it will break existing practices, e.g.:
> > > DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive apt-get upg
* David Kalnischkies [Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 10:28:33PM +0100]:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 09:04:16PM +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
> > ...it will break existing practices, e.g.:
> > DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive apt-get upgrade -y
> > FYI, I would call it a regression.
> That specific invocation can
also sprach martin f krafft [2017-02-23 11:22 +1300]:
> I'm now taking this to a bug report:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/855891
Read the gory details there, the gist is that David spotted my used
of
APT::Get::AutomaticRemove "true";
in the apt.conf.d files. The rest is in the bug report, I
also sprach Jonas Smedegaard [2017-02-23 12:06 +1300]:
> Maybe your ifupdown was flagged as auto-installed, a recent prior APT
> process upgraded to netbase 5.4 (no longer recommending ifupdown), and
> your latest APT process just finished an auto-removal of the no longer
> needed ifupdown for
Quoting martin f krafft (2017-02-22 01:06:24)
> Hey,
>
> I just upgraded a system that had ifupdown from backports.org on it.
> Following cleanup and dpkg --audit etc., I ran
>
> root@cymbaline:/etc/apt/sources.list.d# apt-get upgrade
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tr
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:22:17AM +1300, martin f krafft wrote:
> [...] I've been using APT since one of its first
> versions, and I think "upgrade" has existed from the early days with
> precisely the promise that, unlike "dist-upgrade", it would not
> modify the set of installed packages, either
Dear David,
Thank you for your witty response, and your work on APT. I mean it.
I am quite sure you get a lot of diverging requests and then one
like mine, without version numbers, logs, but CAPITAL LETTERS
instead.
While your points are spot-on, and I especially liked "this is
a proposal, not a
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 09:04:16PM +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:16:27 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 01:06:24PM +1300, martin f krafft wrote:
> > > What am I not understanding right here? Shouldn't "apt-get upgrade"
> > > NEVER EVER EVER EVER rem
Hi there,
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:16:27 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 01:06:24PM +1300, martin f krafft wrote:
> > What am I not understanding right here? Shouldn't "apt-get upgrade"
> > NEVER EVER EVER EVER remove something?
[...]
> Fun fact: We have a few reports whic
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 01:06:24PM +1300, martin f krafft wrote:
> root@cymbaline:/etc/apt/sources.list.d# apt-get upgrade
[…]
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
> ifupdown libasprintf0c2 libperl4-corelibs-perl libuuid-perl python-bson
> python-pymongo
>
> and indeed, it then went o
Hey,
I just upgraded a system that had ifupdown from backports.org on it.
Following cleanup and dpkg --audit etc., I ran
root@cymbaline:/etc/apt/sources.list.d# apt-get upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade..
11 matches
Mail list logo
