Bug#988963: upgrade-reports: upgrade process requires a second "apt full-upgrade"
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 09:48:29AM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: > Control: retitle -1 libgc1 and libgc1c2 have circular Conflict/Replaces > > Hi Bill, > > On 26-05-2021 23:21, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 07:50:53PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > >> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 12:00:46PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > >>> One way to fix that is to update libgc1c2 in stable to not > >>> Conflict/Replaces with libgc1. > >> > >> while this is true, this is also not the most desireable fix, because > >> it should be possible to update from *any* stable installation > >> to the next stable, not just from the latest stable point release. > > > > I agree with you, but this is a general issue with circular dependencies > > (and circular conflicts) that they can only be fixed cleanly by > > updating stable and not testing. > > That is why I have always strongly recommended to avoid them. > > > > (We could of course fix it in testing by renaming libgc1 to libgc1c4 or > whatever > > but that would create a much larger disruption than removing a useless > > Conflict > > from stable). > > Do I understand you correctly that we're ready to reassign this bug to > libgc1c2 and ask for the fix in buster? To me there are two options: - do nothing and document this in the release note - fix it in stable. but this is to the release team to decide. We can reassign this bug to libgc1 but it is likely to be ignored because it cannot be fixed in testing. Cheers, -- Bill. Imagine a large red swirl here.
Bug#988963: upgrade-reports: upgrade process requires a second "apt full-upgrade"
Control: retitle -1 libgc1 and libgc1c2 have circular Conflict/Replaces Hi Bill, On 26-05-2021 23:21, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 07:50:53PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: >> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 12:00:46PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: >>> One way to fix that is to update libgc1c2 in stable to not >>> Conflict/Replaces with libgc1. >> >> while this is true, this is also not the most desireable fix, because >> it should be possible to update from *any* stable installation >> to the next stable, not just from the latest stable point release. > > I agree with you, but this is a general issue with circular dependencies > (and circular conflicts) that they can only be fixed cleanly by > updating stable and not testing. > That is why I have always strongly recommended to avoid them. > > (We could of course fix it in testing by renaming libgc1 to libgc1c4 or whatever > but that would create a much larger disruption than removing a useless > Conflict > from stable). Do I understand you correctly that we're ready to reassign this bug to libgc1c2 and ask for the fix in buster? Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#988963: upgrade-reports: upgrade process requires a second "apt full-upgrade"
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 07:50:53PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 12:00:46PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > One way to fix that is to update libgc1c2 in stable to not > > Conflict/Replaces with libgc1. > > while this is true, this is also not the most desireable fix, because > it should be possible to update from *any* stable installation > to the next stable, not just from the latest stable point release. I agree with you, but this is a general issue with circular dependencies (and circular conflicts) that they can only be fixed cleanly by updating stable and not testing. That is why I have always strongly recommended to avoid them. (We could of course fix it in testing by renaming libgc1 to libgc1c4 or whatever but that would create a much larger disruption than removing a useless Conflict from stable). Cheers, -- Bill. Imagine a large red swirl here.
Bug#988963: upgrade-reports: upgrade process requires a second "apt full-upgrade"
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 10:09:30PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: > I may be missing something, but *to me* the issue doesn't seem too bad. > I mean, so far it seems nothing really breaks, just that after the > upgrade not all packages are upgraded. Which that can be fixed with > *another* upgrade. I may be missing something. right. *I* missed this and thought this was a case of the upgrade itself breaking. apologies for the noise. I should have gone afk some time ago. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#988963: upgrade-reports: upgrade process requires a second "apt full-upgrade"
Hi Holger, On 26-05-2021 22:04, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 09:55:36PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: >> I agree with "it should be possible" but I'd like to note that the >> release notes already explicitly recommend to update before upgrade. > [...] >> Ack. We could add a note to the release notes for those people that >> don't update first. > > yes. but then, it's been a *long* standing practice that this is generally > supported and possible *and* then there are those people who don't read the > release notes, or not completely, or miss that part or. I may be missing something, but *to me* the issue doesn't seem too bad. I mean, so far it seems nothing really breaks, just that after the upgrade not all packages are upgraded. Which that can be fixed with *another* upgrade. I may be missing something. > IOW: if we can make a better fix, we should. Agree, but I'm not sure we should jump through hoops. Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#988963: upgrade-reports: upgrade process requires a second "apt full-upgrade"
Hi Paul, On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 09:55:36PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: > I agree with "it should be possible" but I'd like to note that the > release notes already explicitly recommend to update before upgrade. [...] > Ack. We could add a note to the release notes for those people that > don't update first. yes. but then, it's been a *long* standing practice that this is generally supported and possible *and* then there are those people who don't read the release notes, or not completely, or miss that part or. IOW: if we can make a better fix, we should. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#988963: upgrade-reports: upgrade process requires a second "apt full-upgrade"
Hi Holger, On 26-05-2021 21:50, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 12:00:46PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: >> One way to fix that is to update libgc1c2 in stable to not >> Conflict/Replaces with libgc1. > > while this is true, this is also not the most desireable fix, because > it should be possible to update from *any* stable installation > to the next stable, not just from the latest stable point release. I agree with "it should be possible" but I'd like to note that the release notes already explicitly recommend to update before upgrade. > that said, it's definitly much better than not fixing this issue at all. > after all, most people will upgrade to the latest point release before > switching the release :) Ack. We could add a note to the release notes for those people that don't update first. Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#988963: upgrade-reports: upgrade process requires a second "apt full-upgrade"
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 12:00:46PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > One way to fix that is to update libgc1c2 in stable to not > Conflict/Replaces with libgc1. while this is true, this is also not the most desireable fix, because it should be possible to update from *any* stable installation to the next stable, not just from the latest stable point release. that said, it's definitly much better than not fixing this issue at all. after all, most people will upgrade to the latest point release before switching the release :) -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are. (Bertolt Brecht) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#988963: upgrade-reports: upgrade process requires a second "apt full-upgrade"
Hi Bill, Thank you for figuring this out... On 26-05-2021 12:00, Bill Allombert wrote: > At this point could you send the message of > apt-get install libobjc4 > just to be sure. See below. Paul root@stable:/# apt install libobjc4 Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Reading state information... Done The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required: libcodec2-0.8.1 libcroco3 libcrystalhd3 libelf-dev libigdgmm5 libmysofa0 libnftables0 libnvpair1linux libpgm-5.2-0 libuutil1linux libvpx5 libx264-155 libx265-165 libzfs2linux libzpool2linux linux-headers-4.19.0-16-common python3.7-minimal qdbus Use 'sudo apt autoremove' to remove them. The following additional packages will be installed: guile-2.2-libs libgc1 The following packages will be REMOVED: libgc1c2 The following NEW packages will be installed: libgc1 The following packages will be upgraded: guile-2.2-libs libobjc4 2 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 1 to remove and 5 not upgraded. Need to get 0 B/5261 kB of archives. After this operation, 53.2 kB disk space will be freed. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#988963: upgrade-reports: upgrade process requires a second "apt full-upgrade"
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 10:00:48PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: > See below. > The following additional packages will be installed: > libgc1 libobjc4 > The following packages will be REMOVED: > libgc1c2 > The following NEW packages will be installed: > libgc1 > The following packages will be upgraded: > guile-2.2-libs libobjc4 > 2 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 1 to remove and 5 not upgraded. Thanks a lot! This seems the crux of the problem: In buster: libgc1c2: Conflicts/Replace libgc1 while in bulleyes libgc1: Conflicts/Replace libgc1c2 This is unusual. Independently they are correct and quite usual, but not both at the same time. They means that libgc1c2 supersed libgc1, while at the same time libgc1 supersed libgc1c2. This is probably confusing apt. This comes from old package name reuse. There was an older libgc1 in 2005 which was superseded by libgc2 which is now superseded by a new libgc1. The package name libgc1 should not have been reused before all reference to it have been removed from stable. This is why removing outdated Conflicts is important. One way to fix that is to update libgc1c2 in stable to not Conflict/Replaces with libgc1. At this point could you send the message of apt-get install libobjc4 just to be sure. Cheers, -- Bill. Imagine a large red swirl here.
Bug#988963: upgrade-reports: upgrade process requires a second "apt full-upgrade"
Hi, On 25-05-2021 00:00, Bill Allombert wrote: > Thanks, this useful. > > Could you also do it after the first 'apt-get full-upgrade' to compare ? > We should get a much smaller set of packages. See below. Paul root@stable:/# apt-get install guile-2.2-libs Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Reading state information... Done The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required: libcodec2-0.8.1 libcroco3 libcrystalhd3 libelf-dev libigdgmm5 libmysofa0 libnftables0 libnvpair1linux libpgm-5.2-0 libuutil1linux libvpx5 libx264-155 libx265-165 libzfs2linux libzpool2linux linux-headers-4.19.0-16-common python3.7-minimal qdbus Use 'sudo apt autoremove' to remove them. The following additional packages will be installed: libgc1 libobjc4 The following packages will be REMOVED: libgc1c2 The following NEW packages will be installed: libgc1 The following packages will be upgraded: guile-2.2-libs libobjc4 2 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 1 to remove and 5 not upgraded. Need to get 0 B/5261 kB of archives. After this operation, 53.2 kB disk space will be freed. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#988963: upgrade-reports: upgrade process requires a second "apt full-upgrade"
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 08:44:55PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi, > > On 23-05-2021 08:55, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 11:01:54PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: > >> Hi Bill, > >> > >> On 22-05-2021 21:42, Bill Allombert wrote: > >>> Do you have a list of packages whose upgrade triggers this issue ? > >> > >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?att=2;bug=988003;filename=Samantha_upgrade_logs.tar.gz;msg=5 > >> has a dpkg-get-selection file with the list of installed packages. > > > > Unfortunately, I do not have enough diskspace try to reproduce it > > right now. > > > > Generally to find out why a package foo is not upgraded, one do > > apt-get install guile-2.2-libs > > and see what apt reports. > > I have used the dpkg-get-selections as input in a stable lxc, changed > the distribution to bullseye, done an $(apt upgrade --without-new-pkgs) > and then tried to run $(apt-get install guile-2.2-libs). Please find the > output below. I *guess* the suspecting things are the pieces which "will > be removed". Do we see anything suspicious? > > I'll keep the container for some days (if I don't need the disk space). Thanks, this useful. Could you also do it after the first 'apt-get full-upgrade' to compare ? We should get a much smaller set of packages. Cheers, Bill
Bug#988963: upgrade-reports: upgrade process requires a second "apt full-upgrade"
Hi, On 23-05-2021 08:55, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 11:01:54PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: >> Hi Bill, >> >> On 22-05-2021 21:42, Bill Allombert wrote: >>> Do you have a list of packages whose upgrade triggers this issue ? >> >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?att=2;bug=988003;filename=Samantha_upgrade_logs.tar.gz;msg=5 >> has a dpkg-get-selection file with the list of installed packages. > > Unfortunately, I do not have enough diskspace try to reproduce it > right now. > > Generally to find out why a package foo is not upgraded, one do > apt-get install guile-2.2-libs > and see what apt reports. I have used the dpkg-get-selections as input in a stable lxc, changed the distribution to bullseye, done an $(apt upgrade --without-new-pkgs) and then tried to run $(apt-get install guile-2.2-libs). Please find the output below. I *guess* the suspecting things are the pieces which "will be removed". Do we see anything suspicious? I'll keep the container for some days (if I don't need the disk space). Paul root@stable:/# apt-get install guile-2.2-libs Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required: libcodec2-0.8.1 libnvpair1linux libuutil1linux libzfs2linux libzpool2linux linux-headers-4.19.0-16-common python3.7-minimal Use 'sudo apt autoremove' to remove them. The following additional packages will be installed: binutils binutils-common binutils-x86-64-linux-gnu coinor-libcbc3 coinor-libcoinmp1v5 cpp cpp-10 cups cups-client cups-core-drivers cups-daemon cups-ipp-utils fcitx-frontend-qt5 firebird3.0-common firebird3.0-common-doc firebird3.0-server-core firebird3.0-utils fonts-urw-base35 g++ g++-10 gcc gcc-10 gcc-10-base gdc gdc-10 gfortran gfortran-10 gir1.2-gst-plugins-base-1.0 gir1.2-gstreamer-1.0 gnat gnat-10 gstreamer1.0-plugins-bad hplip hplip-data libalgorithm-diff-xs-perl libapt-pkg6.0 libasan6 libatomic1 libavcodec58 libavfilter7 libavformat58 libavresample4 libavutil56 libbabl-0.1-0 libbinutils libbrlapi0.8 libc-bin libc-dev-bin libc6 libc6-dbg libc6-dev libc6-i386 libcairo-perl libcbor0 libcc1-0 libcodec2-0.9 libcrypt-dev libcrypt1 libcryptsetup12 libctf-nobfd0 libctf0 libcups2 libcupsimage2 libdav1d4 libdc1394-25 libdouble-conversion3 libdvdread8 libextutils-depends-perl libextutils-pkgconfig-perl libfbclient2 libffi7 libfido2-1 libfile-fcntllock-perl libfluidsynth2 libgc1 libgcc-10-dev libgcc-s1 libgdk-pixbuf-2.0-0 libgdk-pixbuf-xlib-2.0-0 libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0 libgdk-pixbuf2.0-common libgegl-0.4-0 libgfortran-10-dev libgfortran5 libgirepository-1.0-1 libglib-perl libglib2.0-0 libglib2.0-bin libgnat-10 libgnat-util10 libgnutls30 libgomp1 libgpgmepp6 libgphobos-10-dev libgphobos-dev libgphobos1 libgstreamer-gl1.0-0 libgstreamer-plugins-bad1.0-0 libgstreamer-plugins-base1.0-0 libgstreamer1.0-0 libhogweed6 libhpmud0 libhtml-parser-perl libib-util libicu67 libilmbase25 libinstpatch-1.0-2 libip4tc2 libisl23 libitm1 libjson-c5 libkf5archive5 libkf5attica5 libkf5auth-data libkf5codecs-data libkf5codecs5 libkf5completion-data libkf5completion5 libkf5config-data libkf5configcore5 libkf5configgui5 libkf5configwidgets-data libkf5coreaddons-data libkf5coreaddons5 libkf5crash5 libkf5dbusaddons-data libkf5dbusaddons5 libkf5guiaddons5 libkf5i18n-data libkf5i18n5 libkf5iconthemes-data libkf5itemviews-data libkf5itemviews5 libkf5jobwidgets-data libkf5jobwidgets5 libkf5notifications-data libkf5notifications5 libkf5parts-data libkf5service-data libkf5service5 libkf5textwidgets-data libkf5wallet-data libkf5wallet5 libkf5widgetsaddons-data libkf5widgetsaddons5 libkf5windowsystem-data libkf5windowsystem5 libkf5xmlgui-data libkwalletbackend5-5 liblocale-gettext-perl liblsan0 libltc11 libmailutils7 libmd4c0 libmfx1 libmpdec3 libmysofa1 libnet-dbus-perl libnet-ssleay-perl libnettle8 libnm0 libnma-common libnma0 libnsl-dev libnsl2 libnss-mymachines libnss-nis libnss-nisplus libobjc4 libopenexr25 libopenni2-0 libp11-kit0 libpango-perl libperl5.32 libpocketsphinx3 libpostproc55 libpython3-stdlib libpython3.9 libpython3.9-minimal libpython3.9-stdlib libqt5core5a libqt5dbus5 libqt5designer5 libqt5gui5 libqt5help5 libqt5multimedia5 libqt5multimedia5-plugins libqt5multimediagsttools5 libqt5multimediawidgets5 libqt5network5 libqt5opengl5 libqt5positioning5 libqt5printsupport5 libqt5qml5 libqt5qmlmodels5 libqt5quick5 libqt5script5 libqt5sensors5 libqt5sql5 libqt5sql5-sqlite libqt5svg5 libqt5test5 libqt5texttospeech5 libqt5waylandclient5 libqt5waylandcompositor5 libqt5webchannel5 libqt5webkit5 libqt5widgets5 libqt5x11extras5 libqt5xml5 libquadmath0 librabbitmq4 libraw20 libreadline8 librubberband2 libsane-hpaio libsdl2-2.0-0 libsnmp40 libsphinxbase3 libsrt1.4-gnutls libstdc++-10-dev libstdc++6 libsvn-perl libswresample3 libswscale5 libsystemd0 libtdb1 libtext-charwidth-perl libtext-iconv-perl
Bug#988963: upgrade-reports: upgrade process requires a second "apt full-upgrade"
On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 11:01:54PM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi Bill, > > On 22-05-2021 21:42, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Do you have a list of packages whose upgrade triggers this issue ? > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?att=2;bug=988003;filename=Samantha_upgrade_logs.tar.gz;msg=5 > has a dpkg-get-selection file with the list of installed packages. Unfortunately, I do not have enough diskspace try to reproduce it right now. Generally to find out why a package foo is not upgraded, one do apt-get install guile-2.2-libs and see what apt reports. Cheers, -- Bill. Imagine a large red swirl here.
Bug#988963: upgrade-reports: upgrade process requires a second "apt full-upgrade"
On 2021-05-22, Paul Gevers wrote: > On 22-05-2021 21:42, Bill Allombert wrote: >> Do you have a list of packages whose upgrade triggers this issue ? > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?att=2;bug=988003;filename=Samantha_upgrade_logs.tar.gz;msg=5 > has a dpkg-get-selection file with the list of installed packages. > > And the reporter of that bug was very responsive, so we can ask further. > Also Vagrant should be able to give feedback (in CC). So far I've seen guile-2.2-libs on almost all of of the ~25 systems I've upgraded. I noticed zile also on one of the recent ones. I have vague memories of a small number of other packages, but unfortunately neglected to record them. live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#988963: upgrade-reports: upgrade process requires a second "apt full-upgrade"
Hi Bill, On 22-05-2021 21:42, Bill Allombert wrote: > Do you have a list of packages whose upgrade triggers this issue ? https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?att=2;bug=988003;filename=Samantha_upgrade_logs.tar.gz;msg=5 has a dpkg-get-selection file with the list of installed packages. And the reporter of that bug was very responsive, so we can ask further. Also Vagrant should be able to give feedback (in CC). Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#988963: upgrade-reports: upgrade process requires a second "apt full-upgrade"
On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 09:52:11AM +0200, Paul Gevers wrote: > Control: severity 988003 normal > Control: merge -1 988003 > Control: affects -1 release-notes guile-2.2 > > Hi Apt maintainers, Rob, > > On 21-05-2021 23:47, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > > Package: upgrade-reports > > Severity: normal > > X-Debbugs-Cc: vagr...@debian.org > > > > On numerous systems I have upgraded recently, the process of: > > > > apt upgrade --without-new-pkgs > > apt full-upgrade > > > > Results in at least one package (guile-2.2-libs, zile, sometimes others) > > in an un-upgraded state. > > > > Running a second "apt full-upgrade" seems to take care of the issue. > > > > Maybe upgrading apt in-between "apt upgrade --without-new-pkgs" and "apt > > full-upgrade" would resolve the issue? > > This is the second report we receive about buster to bullseye upgrades > leaving some packages in a non-upgraded state with the recommended > upgrade procedure. Both reports involve guile-2.2-libs. Does any of you > see why that could happen? Is this something we should worry about? Do > we need to update the release notes update procedure (is apt upgrade and > apt full-upgrade not enough) or is this the fault of guile-2.2-libs or > apt? I tend to think there is probably a complex relation preventing apt > to do the rigth thing in one go, but as the upgrade happens after a > second run, apparently it's not really blocking Do you have a list of packages whose upgrade triggers this issue ? Cheers, -- Bill. Imagine a large red swirl here.
Bug#988963: upgrade-reports: upgrade process requires a second "apt full-upgrade"
Oops, one wrong address, re-sending. On 22-05-2021 09:52, Paul Gevers wrote: > Control: severity 988003 normal > Control: merge -1 988003 > Control: affects -1 release-notes guile-2.2 > > Hi Apt maintainers, Rob, > > On 21-05-2021 23:47, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >> Package: upgrade-reports >> Severity: normal >> X-Debbugs-Cc: vagr...@debian.org >> >> On numerous systems I have upgraded recently, the process of: >> >> apt upgrade --without-new-pkgs >> apt full-upgrade >> >> Results in at least one package (guile-2.2-libs, zile, sometimes others) >> in an un-upgraded state. >> >> Running a second "apt full-upgrade" seems to take care of the issue. >> >> Maybe upgrading apt in-between "apt upgrade --without-new-pkgs" and "apt >> full-upgrade" would resolve the issue? > > This is the second report we receive about buster to bullseye upgrades > leaving some packages in a non-upgraded state with the recommended > upgrade procedure. Both reports involve guile-2.2-libs. Does any of you > see why that could happen? Is this something we should worry about? Do > we need to update the release notes update procedure (is apt upgrade and > apt full-upgrade not enough) or is this the fault of guile-2.2-libs or > apt? I tend to think there is probably a complex relation preventing apt > to do the rigth thing in one go, but as the upgrade happens after a > second run, apparently it's not really blocking > > Paul > OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#988963: upgrade-reports: upgrade process requires a second "apt full-upgrade"
Control: severity 988003 normal Control: merge -1 988003 Control: affects -1 release-notes guile-2.2 Hi Apt maintainers, Rob, On 21-05-2021 23:47, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > Package: upgrade-reports > Severity: normal > X-Debbugs-Cc: vagr...@debian.org > > On numerous systems I have upgraded recently, the process of: > > apt upgrade --without-new-pkgs > apt full-upgrade > > Results in at least one package (guile-2.2-libs, zile, sometimes others) > in an un-upgraded state. > > Running a second "apt full-upgrade" seems to take care of the issue. > > Maybe upgrading apt in-between "apt upgrade --without-new-pkgs" and "apt > full-upgrade" would resolve the issue? This is the second report we receive about buster to bullseye upgrades leaving some packages in a non-upgraded state with the recommended upgrade procedure. Both reports involve guile-2.2-libs. Does any of you see why that could happen? Is this something we should worry about? Do we need to update the release notes update procedure (is apt upgrade and apt full-upgrade not enough) or is this the fault of guile-2.2-libs or apt? I tend to think there is probably a complex relation preventing apt to do the rigth thing in one go, but as the upgrade happens after a second run, apparently it's not really blocking Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#988963: upgrade-reports: upgrade process requires a second "apt full-upgrade"
Package: upgrade-reports Severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: vagr...@debian.org On numerous systems I have upgraded recently, the process of: apt upgrade --without-new-pkgs apt full-upgrade Results in at least one package (guile-2.2-libs, zile, sometimes others) in an un-upgraded state. Running a second "apt full-upgrade" seems to take care of the issue. Maybe upgrading apt in-between "apt upgrade --without-new-pkgs" and "apt full-upgrade" would resolve the issue? live well, vagrant signature.asc Description: PGP signature
