> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Julian Andres Klode [mailto:julian.kl...@gmail.com] Im Auftrag von > Julian Andres Klode > Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. März 2021 19:09 > An: Schulz, Reiner <r.sch...@dvz-mv.de>; 985...@bugs.debian.org > Betreff: Re: Bug#985771: AW: Bug#985771: apt-auto-removal isn't run by > kernel update > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 03:10:31PM +0000, Schulz, Reiner wrote: > > > This file includes: > > > […] > > > | /* Debug information: > > > | # dpkg list: > > > | rc linux-image-4.19.0-10-amd64 4.19.132-1 > > > amd64 Linux > > > 4.19 for 64-bit PCs (signed) > > > | rc linux-image-4.19.0-11-amd64 4.19.146-1 > > > amd64 Linux > > > 4.19 for 64-bit PCs (signed) > > > | rc linux-image-4.19.0-12-amd64 4.19.152-1 > > > amd64 Linux > > > 4.19 for 64-bit PCs (signed) > > > | ii linux-image-4.19.0-13-amd64 4.19.160-2 > > > amd64 Linux > > > 4.19 for 64-bit PCs (signed) > > > | ii linux-image-4.19.0-14-amd64 4.19.171-2 > > > amd64 Linux > > > 4.19 for 64-bit PCs (signed) > > > | rc linux-image-4.19.0-8-amd64 4.19.98-1+deb10u1 > > > amd64 > > > Linux 4.19 for 64-bit PCs (signed) > > > | rc linux-image-4.19.0-9-amd64 4.19.118-2+deb10u1 > > > amd64 > > > Linux 4.19 for 64-bit PCs (signed) > > > | rc linux-image-4.9.0-12-amd64 4.9.210-1 > > > amd64 Linux > > > 4.9 for 64-bit PCs > > > | rc linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64 4.9.144-3.1 > > > amd64 Linux > > > 4.9 for 64-bit PCs > > > | ii linux-image-amd64 4.19+105+deb10u9 > > > amd64 Linux > > > for 64-bit PCs (meta-package) > > > > > > so only the last two kernel 4.19.0-13 & -14 are installed, as it should > > > be. The rest are removed and only config files remain (= "rc"). These > > > remaining bits shouldn't take up too much space & you can remove them > > > by calling "apt purge linux-image-…" on those rc packages. > > > > > > > > > > It looks for me more like something depends/recommends those kernel > > > > > packages though. Out of tree modules perhaps? Try "apt remove -s > > > > > linux-image-4.19.0-13-amd64" perhaps that already shows something > > > > > although a bit unlikely (as that would only react on hard > > > > > dependencies, > > > > > while recommends, or-groups and virtual packages are more likely). > > > > > > > > [RS] 18 of the 23 Servers are virtual machines > > > > And all have the some problem > > > > > > Are the kernel packages on those servers in 'rc' state, too? Or are they > > > shown as ii (fully installed), hi (installed, but on hold) or i and some > > > uppercase letter (various forms of partly installed) ? > > > > On one oft hem it looks like this: > > ra1183:~# dpkg -l 'linux-image-*' > > Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold > > | Status=Not/Inst/Conf-files/Unpacked/halF-conf/Half-inst/trig-aWait/Trig- > pend > > |/ Err?=(none)/Reinst-required (Status,Err: uppercase=bad) > > ||/ Name Version Architecture > > Description > > +++-====================================-==================- > ============-=================================== > > rc linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64 3.16.51-3 amd64 > > Linux 3.16 for > 64-bit PCs > > ii linux-image-4.19.0-10-amd64 4.19.132-1 amd64 > > Linux 4.19 for > 64-bit PCs (signed) > > un linux-image-4.19.0-10-amd64-unsigned <none> <none> (no > description available) > > ii linux-image-4.19.0-11-amd64 4.19.146-1 amd64 > > Linux 4.19 for > 64-bit PCs (signed) > > un linux-image-4.19.0-11-amd64-unsigned <none> <none> (no > description available) > > ii linux-image-4.19.0-12-amd64 4.19.152-1 amd64 > > Linux 4.19 for > 64-bit PCs (signed) > > un linux-image-4.19.0-12-amd64-unsigned <none> <none> (no > description available) > > ii linux-image-4.19.0-13-amd64 4.19.160-2 amd64 > > Linux 4.19 for > 64-bit PCs (signed) > > un linux-image-4.19.0-13-amd64-unsigned <none> <none> (no > description available) > > ii linux-image-4.19.0-14-amd64 4.19.171-2 amd64 > > Linux 4.19 for > 64-bit PCs (signed) > > un linux-image-4.19.0-14-amd64-unsigned <none> <none> (no > description available) > > ii linux-image-4.19.0-6-amd64 4.19.67-2+deb10u2 amd64 > > Linux > 4.19 for 64-bit PCs (signed) > > un linux-image-4.19.0-6-amd64-unsigned <none> <none> (no > description available) > > ii linux-image-4.19.0-8-amd64 4.19.98-1+deb10u1 amd64 > > Linux > 4.19 for 64-bit PCs (signed) > > un linux-image-4.19.0-8-amd64-unsigned <none> <none> (no > description available) > > ii linux-image-4.19.0-9-amd64 4.19.118-2+deb10u1 amd64 > > Linux > 4.19 for 64-bit PCs (signed) > > un linux-image-4.19.0-9-amd64-unsigned <none> <none> (no > description available) > > ii linux-image-4.9.0-7-amd64 4.9.110-3+deb9u2 amd64 > > Linux 4.9 > for 64-bit PCs > > ii linux-image-amd64 4.19+105+deb10u9 amd64 > > Linux for 64- > bit PCs (meta-package) > > > > I attached the removal scripts from this server > > > > ra1183:~# apt-get -s autoremove > > Reading package lists... Done > > Building dependency tree > > Reading state information... Done > > The following packages will be REMOVED: > > linux-image-4.19.0-6-amd64 linux-image-4.19.0-8-amd64 linux-image-4.9.0- > 7-amd64 > > 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 3 to remove and 0 not upgraded. > > Remv linux-image-4.19.0-6-amd64 [4.19.67-2+deb10u2] > > Remv linux-image-4.19.0-8-amd64 [4.19.98-1+deb10u1] > > Remv linux-image-4.9.0-7-amd64 [4.9.110-3+deb9u2] > > > > ra1183:~# apt-mark showmanual linux-image-\* > > linux-image-4.19.0-10-amd64 > > linux-image-4.19.0-11-amd64 > > linux-image-4.19.0-12-amd64 > > linux-image-4.19.0-13-amd64 > > linux-image-4.19.0-14-amd64 > > linux-image-4.19.0-9-amd64 > > linux-image-amd64 > > ra1183:~# apt-mark showauto linux-image-\* > > linux-image-4.19.0-6-amd64 > > linux-image-4.19.0-8-amd64 > > linux-image-4.9.0-7-amd64 > > > > We do our updates via "apt-get -y --with-new-pkgs upgrade <packagelist>" > but i cant find a hint if/how this would "mark" the packages > > > > This means: upgrade the entire system, and also install those packages. > > Passing package names to install/upgrade/etc will mark them as manually > installed if no other change was made (e.g. if the package is > upgradable, it will upgrade them instead; so apt install foo && apt > install foo for a package foo might first upgrade foo and the second > command will mark it as manual).
OK, many thank for this explanation. you could close this ticket now. Should i open a new Bug to the manpage of apt-get for include this explaintion of "marking" ?
