Re: Understanding package dependencies
On 08/10/2023 01:45, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 08:27:11PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: In the current case, "aptitude search '~Plsb-base'" does the trick. Why on EARTH was this not ported to apt-patterns(7)? It is one of two features I miss in "apt list". Another one is --showformat similar to dpkg-query. "apt" is not for scripting, but sometimes I do not mind to add package descriptions.
Re: Understanding package dependencies
On Sun, Oct 08, 2023 at 10:47:58AM +0200, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > Greg Wooledge wrote on 07/10/2023 20:45: > > unicorn:~$ apt list '?provides(~nlsb-base)' > > Listing... Error! > > E: input:0-21: error: Unrecognized pattern '?provides' > > ?provides(~nlsb-base) > > ^ > > > How about > > apt list '?reverse-depends(?name(lsb-base))' Reverse-depends isn't the same as Provides, though. unicorn:~$ aptitude search '~Pmail-transport-agent' p courier-mta - Courier mail server - ESMTP daemon p courier-mta:i386- Courier mail server - ESMTP daemon p dma - lightweight mail transport agent p dma:i386- lightweight mail transport agent [...] unicorn:~$ apt list '?reverse-depends(~nmail-transport-agent)' Listing... Done unicorn:~$ The only way I know of, to get that list from apt, is by parsing it out of the output of "apt-cache showpkg". unicorn:~$ apt-cache showpkg mail-transport-agent | sed -n '/^Reverse Provides/,$p' Reverse Provides: mta-local 1.0 (= ) exim4-daemon-light 4.96-15+deb12u2 (= ) exim4-daemon-heavy 4.96-15+deb12u2 (= ) dma:i386 0.13-1+b1 (= ) ssmtp 2.64-11 (= ) [...] Which is... better than nothing, admittedly, but it still mystifies me why this *one* feature is excluded from apt-patterns, when so many others are included.
Re: Understanding package dependencies
Greg Wooledge wrote on 07/10/2023 20:45: On Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 08:27:11PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: Yes, aptitude can do that. Quoting the manual[1]: , | ?provides(pattern), ~Ppattern | | Matches package versions which provide a package that matches the | pattern. For instance, “?provides(mail-transport-agent)” will match | all the packages that provide “mail-transport-agent”. ` In the current case, "aptitude search '~Plsb-base'" does the trick. Why on EARTH was this not ported to apt-patterns(7)? unicorn:~$ apt list '?conflicts(~nlsb-base)' Listing... Done sysvinit-utils/stable,now 3.06-4 amd64 [installed] sysvinit-utils/stable 3.06-4 i386 unicorn:~$ apt list '?provides(~nlsb-base)' Listing... Error! E: input:0-21: error: Unrecognized pattern '?provides' ?provides(~nlsb-base) ^ How about apt list '?reverse-depends(?name(lsb-base))' or apt list '~RDepends:~nlsb-base' Regards, Jörg.
Re: Understanding package dependencies
On Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 08:27:11PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > Yes, aptitude can do that. Quoting the manual[1]: > > , > | ?provides(pattern), ~Ppattern > | > | Matches package versions which provide a package that matches the > | pattern. For instance, “?provides(mail-transport-agent)” will match > | all the packages that provide “mail-transport-agent”. > ` > > In the current case, "aptitude search '~Plsb-base'" does the trick. Why on EARTH was this not ported to apt-patterns(7)? unicorn:~$ apt list '?conflicts(~nlsb-base)' Listing... Done sysvinit-utils/stable,now 3.06-4 amd64 [installed] sysvinit-utils/stable 3.06-4 i386 unicorn:~$ apt list '?provides(~nlsb-base)' Listing... Error! E: input:0-21: error: Unrecognized pattern '?provides' ?provides(~nlsb-base) ^
Re: Understanding package dependencies
On 2023-10-07 19:24 +0200, Steve Keller wrote: > Greg Wooledge writes: > >> Package: sysvinit-utils >> [...] >> Provides: lsb-base (= 11.1.0) >> >> When you remove the physical lsb-base package, the virtual package >> provided by sysvinit-utils remains, to satisfy the dependencies of >> ntpsec, rsync, etc. > > OK, that explains, why lsb-base can be removed without ntpsec. Is there > a way to search for "Provides" in packages? I.e. show me all packages > (installed or all) that provide some feature "foobar"? Yes, aptitude can do that. Quoting the manual[1]: , | ?provides(pattern), ~Ppattern | | Matches package versions which provide a package that matches the | pattern. For instance, “?provides(mail-transport-agent)” will match | all the packages that provide “mail-transport-agent”. ` In the current case, "aptitude search '~Plsb-base'" does the trick. Cheers, Sven 1. https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/aptitude/ch02s04s05.en.html#searchProvides
Re: Understanding package dependencies
On Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 07:24:24PM +0200, Steve Keller wrote: > Greg Wooledge writes: > > > Package: sysvinit-utils > > [...] > > Provides: lsb-base (= 11.1.0) > > > > When you remove the physical lsb-base package, the virtual package > > provided by sysvinit-utils remains, to satisfy the dependencies of > > ntpsec, rsync, etc. > > OK, that explains, why lsb-base can be removed without ntpsec. Is there > a way to search for "Provides" in packages? I.e. show me all packages > (installed or all) that provide some feature "foobar"? I couldn't find one within a minute or so of looking, so I simply searched for "Provides:.*lsb-base" in /var/lib/dpkg/status. Now that I've had a bit more time to ponder it, I recall that there's "apt-cache showpkg". It's not intuitive or easy to remember, but unicorn:~$ apt-cache showpkg lsb-base Package: lsb-base [... LOTS of useless info ...] Dependencies: 11.6 - sysvinit-utils (2 3.05-4~) Provides: 11.6 - lsb-base:i386 (= 11.6) Reverse Provides: sysvinit-utils:i386 3.06-4 (= 11.1.0) sysvinit-utils 3.06-4 (= 11.1.0)
Re: Understanding package dependencies
Greg Wooledge writes: > Package: sysvinit-utils > [...] > Provides: lsb-base (= 11.1.0) > > When you remove the physical lsb-base package, the virtual package > provided by sysvinit-utils remains, to satisfy the dependencies of > ntpsec, rsync, etc. OK, that explains, why lsb-base can be removed without ntpsec. Is there a way to search for "Provides" in packages? I.e. show me all packages (installed or all) that provide some feature "foobar"? Steve
Re: Understanding package dependencies
On Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 01:04:56PM +, Michael Kjörling wrote:
> On 7 Oct 2023 13:47 +0200, from keller.st...@gmx.de (Steve Keller):
> > # aptitude purge lsb-base
> > The following packages will be REMOVED:
> > lsb-base{p}
> > 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
> > Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 12.3 kB will be freed.
> > Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]
> >
> > Won't continuing here leave ntpsec with an unresolved package dependency?
> I'm not sure if that's it, and I'm pretty sure I've never seen a `{p}`
> (is that aptitude's way of indicating that a package will be purged
> rather than just uninstalled; that which apt-get shows as `*`?), but
> might at least a partial explanation be that lsb-base in Bookworm is
> an empty transitional package?
That's definitely part of the whole picture, yes.
Package: sysvinit-utils
[...]
Provides: lsb-base (= 11.1.0)
When you remove the physical lsb-base package, the virtual package
provided by sysvinit-utils remains, to satisfy the dependencies of
ntpsec, rsync, etc.
Re: Understanding package dependencies
On 7 Oct 2023 13:47 +0200, from keller.st...@gmx.de (Steve Keller):
> But how can this then be explained?
>
> # aptitude why lsb-base
> i ntpsec Depends lsb-base
> # aptitude show ntpsec | grep ^Depends
> Depends: adduser, lsb-base, netbase, python3, python3-ntp (=
> 1.2.2+dfsg1-1+deb12u1), tzdata, libbsd0 (>= 0.0), libc6 (>= 2.34), libcap2
> (>= 1:2.10), libssl3 (>= 3.0.0)
> # aptitude purge lsb-base
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
> lsb-base{p}
> 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
> Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 12.3 kB will be freed.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]
>
> Won't continuing here leave ntpsec with an unresolved package dependency?
I'm not sure if that's it, and I'm pretty sure I've never seen a `{p}`
(is that aptitude's way of indicating that a package will be purged
rather than just uninstalled; that which apt-get shows as `*`?), but
might at least a partial explanation be that lsb-base in Bookworm is
an empty transitional package?
On a freshly installed and up-to-date Bookworm VM, installing ntpsec
doesn't pull in lsb-base (the only additional package pulled in by
`apt-get install ntpsec` is python3-ntp), nor is lsb-base installed
after installation.
--
Michael Kjörling https://michael.kjorling.se
“Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”
