On Friday 15 January 2016 13:26:09 Charlie Kravetz wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 22:44:07 -0600 > > David Wright <deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote: > >On Thu 14 Jan 2016 at 20:33:45 (-0700), Charlie Kravetz wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 21:37:49 -0500 Gene Heskett <ghesk...@shentel.net> wrote: > >> >On Thursday 14 January 2016 21:04:32 Charlie Kravetz wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 00:27:19 +0000 Lisi Reisz <lisi.re...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >On Thursday 14 January 2016 23:49:03 Gene Heskett wrote: > >> >> >> On Thursday 14 January 2016 17:39:59 Johann Klammer wrote: > >> >> >> > On 01/14/2016 10:50 PM, Gene Heskett wrote: > >> >> >> > > On Thursday 14 January 2016 16:18:08 Johann Klammer wrote: > >> >> >> > >> Synaptic runs on your box? > >> >> >> > >> Years ago, when I tried it, it would always crash right on > >> >> >> > >> startup.... use aptitude. It seems a lot more stable... > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > Back on list where it belongs. > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > I just ran it, and its obvious it doesn't reference the same > >> >> >> > > database of installed files that apt and synaptic use. It > >> >> >> > > just now wanted > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > AFAIK, It does use the same database. Your system seems hosed... > >> >> >> > Are you running it on the box that the OS is installed on, or on > >> >> >> > some (boot... ,whatever) client? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Directly on the os and box connected to this keyboard, no vpn's or > >> >> >> anything else involved. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > to "upgrade" or sidegrade, 292 packages. Refreshing the list > >> >> >> > > didn't help but it reminded me of the 4 color screens we had > >> >> >> > > on the amiga's back in the amigados-1.3 days. Positively an > >> >> >> > > assault on the eyeballs. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > press u to update. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I did, didn't affect its faulty judgement a bit. It still wanted > >> >> >> to update nearly 300 packages. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > But when an uptodate system is said to have 292 old or > >> >> >> > > defective packages on it, I'm not sure I want it mucking > >> >> >> > > around in MY used car lot. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > what kind of defective? broken? that means the dependencies are > >> >> >> > not met... Press e to start the interactive resolver. > >> >> >> > a and r to accept or reject. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I'd have no clue what its doing in the background when I do that. > >> >> >> FWIW, I had it hose the system on my laptop about 4 years ago with > >> >> >> exactly this sort of a starting point. I'll pass as its 99.99% > >> >> >> working right now. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > For what its worth, as root, an apt-get update, followed by an > >> >> >> > > apt-get upgrade reports 0 package to upgrade. > >> >> > >> >> The answer may be in the above sentence. What does apt-get update, > >> >> followed by apt-get dist-upgrade show? upgrade on its own does not > >> >> upgrade all packages. It skips kernel and some other stuff. Perhaps > >> >> that accounts for the differences? > >> > > >> >Will that not update me to Jessie? I'd rather not take that step until > >> > a fresh spin is available from linuxcnc.org, not too long after 16.04 > >> > LTS is out. > >> > >> It will only upgrade if you add or change the /etc/apt/sources.list to > >> include jessie or stable. As long as the sources.list is referring to > >> wheezy only, it will simply upgrade all the packages to the highest > >> level in wheezy. Without it, a bunch of packages will not upgrade, ever. > >> > >> Let's see if anyone else can shed more light on this. I have always > >> used dist-upgrade, because I always wanted all the packages up-to-date. > >> If it is never used, running debian, the kernel has never upgraded and > >> could cause another batch of monkeys running really bad. > > > >Is it worth quoting what Gene has already written in > >https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/01/msg00625.html > > > >"... all 4 machines were installed from > >the same hybride-iso image you can get from linuxcnc.org. Its based on > >debian wheezy, but with a pinned kernel on the other 3 machines, the > >kernels haveing been patched with the RTAI kit for realtime usage. All > >4 machines are running a 3.4-9-rtai-686-pae kernel, which unfortunately > >for this machine, pae doesn't work after the rtai patch, but this is the > >only machine with sufficient (8Gb) memory to make use of the pae. > > > >There is a 3.16-something or other kernel that it wants me to update to, > >and which is installed, but its a 64 bit kernel and linuxcnc will not run > >on a 64 bit kernel for realtime stuff. So I always reboot to the one I > >know works..." > > > >> >> >> > > From that it would appear aptitude is confused at best, broken > >> >> >> > > at worst. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> No comment? Seems like the above report does warrant some sort of > >> >> >> a reply. > >> >> > > >> >> >Gene, it isn't worthy of a response, so Johann wisely ignored it. > >> >> > Johann - Gene has wheezy-backports fully enabled in his > >> >> > sources.list, with, so far as I can tell, the same pinning as the > >> >> > other sources. Synaptic used it to upgrade over 300 packages. It > >> >> > is probably some kind of kludge, resulting from this,that Aptitude > >> >> > is trying to sort out. > >> >> > > >> >> >Gene enjoys breaking his system and then seeing if he can make it > >> >> > run again. > > > >Bear in mind the system was broken from day one---by the "broken > > installer" ;) > > > >> >> > Genuinely. I believe. If it actually ran smoothly he would > >> >> > probably be bored, and immediately deliberately break it again. He > >> >> > wants to write all his own scripts, and is frustrated that he is > >> >> > not as good at it as when he was younger (I can empathise there!!), > >> >> > but uses a GUI package manager which isn't as good at sorting out > >> >> > problems, and shies away from the CLI. :-/ > >> >> > > >> >> >But, as I say, Aptitude is probably unhappy with a system fully > >> >> > upgraded to Backports. > >> >> > > >> >> >> > > All of these tools are, AFAIK, supposed to be using the same > >> >> >> > > sources.list, and the same installed list. update-manager does > >> >> >> > > but Obviously aptitude is not. > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > I believe I'll stick to using synaptic. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> +10 > >> >> > > >> >> >Glad you still wholeheartedly agree with yourself, Gene. ;-) > >> >> > > >> >> >Lisi > >> > > >> >Cheers, Gene Heskett > >> > >> Charlie Kravetz > > > >Cheers, > >David. > > So, Gene's machines are always going to behind? He should never run > apt-get dist-upgrade because it will upgrade that kernel, and he > doesn't want that? It's a situation where running dist-upgrade or > aptitude will screw him, right?
No - surprisingly, as of right now, his kernel is not behind, in fact at this moment he has the same one as I do on my almost stock Wheezy, probably as a result of blanket installing every available backport a couple of days ago. (I knowingly and advisedly run a backported kernel). But his machines are always going to be broken because he makes a point of messing up his system if at all possible. Why do something the Debian recommended way if there is a remotely possible other way of doing it? But Gene said that he has: ATM, gene@coyote:~/gaf/charge-pump-bucket$ uname -a Linux coyote 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 3.16.7-ckt20-1+deb8u2~bpo70+1 (2016-01-03) x86_64 GNU/Linux I have: lisi@Tux-II:~$ uname -a Linux Tux-II 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 3.16.7-ckt20-1+deb8u2~bpo70+1 (2016-01-03) x86_64 GNU/Linux lisi@Tux-II:~$ So exactly the same kernel. Lisi