I was also confused by this change in behaviour, even though I knew
about Phased Updates. I don't often update with apt now and had just
forgotten about them.
I support the solution of listing phased updates separately.
I do not think the translation issue should hold this back. If apt has
not in
I totally agree with the previous writer.
Until reading this article, I manually upgraded Kept-back packages.
I support the idea of phased upgrades, but please create a separate
notification stating something like:
The following packages have been kept back as a part of phased upgrade policy
of
My current user experience is like following:
I just updated kept-back packages by mistake today by using apt install
command.
I thought it was due to a wrong mark of Manuel tag in apt and marked them with
apt-mark auto again.
Then after a bit search in internet I realized that it is due to a ph
Haha, yea, long time debian/ubuntu user here too. The only way I found
out and know was because my script that parses apt-policy failed [1].
Pure luck [2].
Also seconding the do-translations-later. I don't know if there are
statistics available for this, but based on anecdotal evidence alone, I
sa
I for one don't like the idea of hiding the phased update info unless
there is also a flag to show it. Not showing the info at all just
obscures the issue even more and would lead to a lot of unnecessary
confusion when odd situations might occur.
I also think it would be far better to have a sepa
Yes, please fix.
From a security standpoint, we can't tell the "good" held backs (Phased
Updates) from the "bad" held backs (problem with package). So we assume
its a package problem, go in with a hammer, and use Aptitude's safe-
upgrade to force the updates. Now we've subverted/undermined the Pha
The issue with being less verbose is that users will end up with the
same issue when two neighbor machines have different updates. This also
applies to machines belonging to different people as soon as these
people discuss about a but that could be caused or solved by these
updates.
I'd prefer to
So far I've been arguing that apt should be more verbose about phasing,
and why these packages are held back. A friend has suggested that
instead apt should say *nothing*. I can see the appeal.
Thanks
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kubuntu
Bugs, which is subscr
I've been using Ubuntu since Warty or Breezy, and I have had very few
incidents of an update breaking the system. I think an update in Hardy
broke the X server once. Getting to the point - this phased update
system had me thinking something had gone horribly wrong with apt and
the package database.
Even as a decade-old Ubuntu user this "The following packages have been
kept back:" was a UX nightmare for me. It took me several runs of
article reading, many unsuccessful "apt-mark showhold", breaking "apt
install X" runs and still no clue at all about the background on these
errors suddenly reap
10 matches
Mail list logo
