Your message dated Tue, 14 Feb 2012 02:10:22 +0800
with message-id
<can3vereltx6p6xifw+mj-bw+ccojn12bor6fnw7mosmvwbu...@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: full-upgrade should give error when arguments are present
has caused the Debian Bug report #432712,
regarding full-upgrade should give error when arguments are present
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
432712: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=432712
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.4.5.4-1
Severity: minor
Hi,
[root@noname:~#] aptitude safe-upgrade foo
E: The safe-upgrade command takes no arguments
255 [root@noname:~#] aptitude dist-upgrade foo
Reading package lists... 6%
This looks like dist-upgrade should also give the error message since
it doesn't work with individual packages:
An aptitude dist-upgrade (or full-upgrade) <package> will result in the same as
full-upgrade without <package>.
The attached patch fixes this and results in the same error as safe-upgrade.
I am not sure if this behaviour is intended since I know the
patch would also break + - = for <package> on a dist-upgrade because of
the argc check. Is this a bug in safe-upgrade then?
Do I miss something? :)
Cheers
Nico
--- System information. ---
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux 2.6.20-1-686
Debian Release: lenny/sid
500 unstable debian.netcologne.de
--- Package information. ---
Depends (Version) | Installed
================================================-+-====================
libapt-pkg-libc6.5-6-4.4 |
libc6 (>= 2.5-5) | 2.6-2
libgcc1 (>= 1:4.2-20070516) | 1:4.2-20070627-1
libncursesw5 (>= 5.4-5) | 5.6-3
libsigc++-2.0-0c2a (>= 2.0.2) | 2.0.17-2
libstdc++6 (>= 4.2-20070516) | 4.2-20070627-1
--
Nico Golde - http://ngolde.de - [email protected] - GPG: 0x73647CFF
For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted.
--- cmdline_do_action.cc 2007-07-03 16:08:21.000000000 +0200
+++ cmdline_do_action_tmp.cc 2007-07-11 16:12:24.000000000 +0200
@@ -49,6 +49,10 @@
else if(!strcasecmp(argv[0], "full-upgrade") ||
!strcasecmp(argv[0], "dist-upgrade"))
{
+ if(argc != 1){
+ fprintf(stderr, _("E: The %s command takes no arguments\n"), argv[0]);
+ return -1;
+ }
default_action=cmdline_install;
dist_upgrade=true;
}
pgpANVsf3lu1q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 0.5.9rc1-1
Since this version the documented behaviour of both full- and
safe-upgrade is to optionally accept a list of packages and, if
given, limit the upgrade to just those packages. From the man
page:
> aptitude [<options>...] {full-upgrade | safe-upgrade} [<packages>...]
…
> If no <package>s are listed on the command line, aptitude will
> attempt to upgrade every package that can be upgraded. Otherwise,
> aptitude will attempt to upgrade only the packages which it is
> instructed to upgrade. The <package>s can be extended with suffixes
>From NEWS:
Version 0.5.9rc1 "The only way to win
is not to play."
…
+ [cmdline] "aptitude safe-upgrade" now supports listing extra
actions on the command-line, just like "install",
"remove", etc. If any actions are listed, then only the
given actions are performed (the blanket upgrade is
skipped). Packages with no qualifications give a list
of the packages that should be upgraded; if they aren't
installed or aren't upgradable, they're ignored.
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Aptitude-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel
