Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On Vi, 23 mar 12, 01:27:38, Chris Bannister wrote: Admittedly, you probably still need libdvdcss2 etc. I'd miss xbmc. Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
Chris Bannister: On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 04:24:18PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote: Chris Bannister: I didn't know about handbrake-cli and looks like it might replace videotrans and lxdvdrip From what I can tell from their package descriptions: not quite. I usually dump DVD contents using 'mplayer -dumpstream' and then encode frown You have to watch the whole thing each time? /frown No, -dumpstream can use full drive speed without showing the movie. the resulting directory structure using HandBrakeCLI (yes, the binary name has capitals in it!). HandBrake's strength lies more in the encoding part, not in DVD ripping/backup. I suppose that ultimately all you'd need is libav (ffmpeg is now/will be deprecated) Oh, didn't know that. dvdauthor, and genisoimage/growisofs or would that be libav, vim ? Usually, I don't author DVDs. I just want them in H.264 on my disk. J. -- I hate myself but have no clear idea why. [Agree] [Disagree] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Jochen Spieker m...@well-adjusted.de wrote: Chris Bannister: I suppose that ultimately all you'd need is libav (ffmpeg is now/will be deprecated) Oh, didn't know that. From a recent -devel post [1]: begin Actually, ffmpeg changed names to libav recently. The latter is in Debian (unstable), not yet in debian-multimedia.org's unstable repository. Not exactly: Libav is a _fork_ of FFmpeg. /end More at [2] and [3] (and probably many other places...). [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/03/msg00361.html [2] http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2011-March/109225.html [3] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=OTIwNw -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=szksjk-zaw+xdguok5a0z-luhfrmzv_wecrfqcrtpb...@mail.gmail.com
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
look at this, is interesting http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=401835 On 22/03/12 17:49, Jochen Spieker wrote: Pierre Frenkiel: On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote: I didn't have that problem. Is it reproducible? yes. I tried apt-get several times before shifting to aptitude. Is the difference coming from the fact that you are on amd64 and I am on i386? I'll try later on my laptop which has a amd64 processor. You could also try removing ffmpeg on your i386 machine again (or upgrading to Marillat's version) and install the specific version again. I assume apt-get developers might be interested in that. Sure, if you only use packages from there that are available from Debian, too. But I use other packages as well. Whether Marillat's use of the epoch qualifies as cheating is a question I cannot answer. This results in completely by-passing the pinning settings. No it doesn't, my pinning works fine. Christian Marillat at least uses documented behaviour in order to make sure that every user uses only his versions, even if Debian currently ships newer upstream versions. The policy says, the epoch is provided to allow mistakes in the version numbers of older versions of a package, and also a package's previous version numbering schemes, to be left behind. I don't know much about these things, but that doesn't sound like Christian Marillat uses the epoch in a way that was intended by the policy's authors. But then again, he is maintaining his own repository and nobody can force him to adhere to the policy. Of course, the excuse is to avoid dependencies problems, but I imagine that the maintainers of the official repos are also able to manage dependencies for the packages they provide Debian maintainers are not interested in making sure their libavcodec works with Marillat's ffmpeg and vice versa. J. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f6c3a0d.4020...@qindel.com
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Alberto Fuentes wrote: look at this, is interesting http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=401835 this is more than 5 years old. It would be interesting to check wether this bug has been fixed, but the answer of march 2007 is not encouraging. -- Pierre Frenkiel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1203231317430.10...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 05:01:57PM +0100, Alberto Fuentes wrote: On 21/03/12 07:08, Chris Bannister wrote: Remember, Aptitude's resolver system is different to apt-get's I think the problem is not the the resolver (apt-get and aptitude should get dependences about the same if not problem found, and therefore aptitude full-upgrade should do the same as apt-get dist-upgrade thats it, bring all packages up to date following the pinning system and install and remove packaged when needed. It seems so simple doesn't it. Im not sure (nor im sure how to check it if thats the case) but I think it may have to do with the database of how packages where installed. If you install some packages with aptitude and others with apt-get and then remove a third one with aptitude again, MAYBE the auto and manual installation flag in some packages goes crazy as they are handled in separate db (AAFAIK) That used to be the case. If you do some research (duckduckgo.com¹ can help here) you will find that a) package dependency resolution is not an easy task and b) apt-get and aptitude no longer use different databases. ¹ http://donttrack.us/ -- Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. -- Napoleon Bonaparte -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120323130942.GA13546@tal
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 02:10:13PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote: I reaklly like handbrake-cli, that's why I had to keep d-m.org in the end. I've only removed d-m.org from my laptop. The desktop running Lenny still and where I burn DVD/CD will still have to have d-m.org. I didn't know about handbrake-cli and looks like it might replace videotrans and lxdvdrip -- Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. -- Napoleon Bonaparte -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120323142005.GB13546@tal
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
Chris Bannister: I didn't know about handbrake-cli and looks like it might replace videotrans and lxdvdrip From what I can tell from their package descriptions: not quite. I usually dump DVD contents using 'mplayer -dumpstream' and then encode the resulting directory structure using HandBrakeCLI (yes, the binary name has capitals in it!). HandBrake's strength lies more in the encoding part, not in DVD ripping/backup. J. -- I am worried that my dreams pale in comparison beside TV docu-soaps. [Agree] [Disagree] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On 2012-03-22, Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote: root@tal:~# apt-cache policy libavformat-extra-53 You don't have to be root to do that, did you know? Just an observation because I use apt-cache frequently and it's convenient (and potentially less dangerous for slippery fingers) not to be obliged to su to root every time I do. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrnjmp8g6.2or.cu...@einstein.electron.org
to be root or not to be root (was ... Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not)
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 04:16:32PM +, Curt wrote:
On 2012-03-22, Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote:
root@tal:~# apt-cache policy libavformat-extra-53
You don't have to be root to do that, did you know?
True, I normally have a tty open for root anyway and the tty where I
have logged into as my normal user may be in use i.e. reading mail.
And because it is a deliberate action typing alt x then I tend to be
subconsiously aware that I am now in root mode, and tend to be extra
careful. :)
And yes, I know screen. :)
Also, putting:
PS1='${debian_chroot:+($debian_chroot)}\[\033[01;31m\]\u@\h\[\033[00m\]:\[\033[01;34m\]\w\[\033[00m\]\$'
inside root's .bashrc displays the prompt in RED for even more warning
stimuli.
Plus, I get annoyed with those permission denied errors.
Although being in the admin group helps avoid most of them.
Just an observation because I use apt-cache frequently and it's
convenient (and potentially less dangerous for slippery fingers) not to
be obliged to su to root every time I do.
Not sure what damage typing apt-cache can do. :)
--
Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.
-- Napoleon Bonaparte
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120324013315.GA1818@tal
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 04:24:18PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote: Chris Bannister: I didn't know about handbrake-cli and looks like it might replace videotrans and lxdvdrip From what I can tell from their package descriptions: not quite. I usually dump DVD contents using 'mplayer -dumpstream' and then encode frown You have to watch the whole thing each time? /frown the resulting directory structure using HandBrakeCLI (yes, the binary name has capitals in it!). HandBrake's strength lies more in the encoding part, not in DVD ripping/backup. I suppose that ultimately all you'd need is libav (ffmpeg is now/will be deprecated) dvdauthor, and genisoimage/growisofs or would that be libav, vim ? -- Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. -- Napoleon Bonaparte -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120324021142.GB1818@tal
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 04:54:39PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote: Sometimes aptitude's TUI is really useful. Like yesterday, when I down-pinned debian-multimedia.org and wanted to replace all packages from there with their official Debian counterparts (if possible). Mmmm, interesting. I've just removed debian-multimedia.org from my sources list completely. I'm now running completely packages from the main Debian repository. Admittedly that is just mplayer2 and ffmpeg. root@tal:~# apt-cache policy libavformat-extra-53 libavformat-extra-53: Installed: 4:0.8.0.1+b1 Candidate: 4:0.8.0.1+b1 Version table: *** 4:0.8.0.1+b1 0 500 http://ftp.nz.debian.org/debian/ wheezy/main i386 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status root@tal:~# apt-cache policy libavformat53 libavformat53: Installed: (none) Candidate: 4:0.8-2 Version table: 4:0.8-2 0 500 http://ftp.nz.debian.org/debian/ wheezy/main i386 Packages Admittedly, you probably still need libdvdcss2 etc. See: http://wiki.debian.org/MultimediaCodecs -- Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. -- Napoleon Bonaparte -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120322122737.GB2006@tal
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
Chris Bannister: On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 04:54:39PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote: Sometimes aptitude's TUI is really useful. Like yesterday, when I down-pinned debian-multimedia.org and wanted to replace all packages from there with their official Debian counterparts (if possible). Mmmm, interesting. I've just removed debian-multimedia.org from my sources list completely. That was an intermediate step I took. That way, I could just look at aptitude's list of Obsolete and Locally Created Packages in order to identify d-m.org packages. And during that process I got rid of several hundred MB of other obsolete packages as well. I'm now running completely packages from the main Debian repository. Admittedly that is just mplayer2 and ffmpeg. I reaklly like handbrake-cli, that's why I had to keep d-m.org in the end. BTW, if anyone is interested in an appropriate pinning section (took me a few tries): /etc/apt/preferences.d/00multimedia: Package: * Pin: release o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages Pin-Priority: 1 And BTW2: For stable, ffmpeg from backports is currently *newer* than ffmpeg from d-m.org: # apt-cache policy ffmpeg ffmpeg: Installed: 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 Candidate: 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 Version table: 5:0.7.11-0.1 0 1 http://ftp.uni-kl.de/debian-multimedia/ squeeze/main amd64 Packages *** 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 0 100 http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-backports/ squeeze-backports/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 4:0.7.2-1~bpo60+1 0 100 http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-backports/ squeeze-backports/main amd64 Packages 4:0.5.6-3 0 500 http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/ squeeze/main amd64 Packages 500 http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates/main amd64 Packages It's just the epoch that makes Marillat's version look more current. J. -- I am on the payroll of a company to whom I owe my undying gratitude. [Agree] [Disagree] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote: /etc/apt/preferences.d/00multimedia: Package: * Pin: release o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages Pin-Priority: 1 I tried that, but then, apt-get dist-upgrade proposed to upgrade 8 packages, but not ffmpeg, although I have: == apt-cache policy ffmpeg ffmpeg: Installed: 5:0.7.11-0.1 Candidate: 5:0.7.11-0.1 Version table: *** 5:0.7.11-0.1 0 1 http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ squeeze/main i386 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 0 100 http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports/ squeeze-backports/main i386 Packages 4:0.7.2-1~bpo60+1 0 100 http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports/ squeeze-backports/main i386 Packages 4:0.5.6-3 0 500 http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ squeeze/main i386 Packages 500 http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates/main i386 Packages So, it seems that apt-get is not aware that 4:0.8 is newer than 5:0.7 idem with aptitude full-upgrade -- Pierre Frenkiel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1203221511130.15...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
Pierre Frenkiel: ffmpeg: Installed: 5:0.7.11-0.1 Candidate: 5:0.7.11-0.1 Version table: *** 5:0.7.11-0.1 0 1 http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ squeeze/main i386 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 0 100 http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports/ squeeze-backports/main i386 Packages 4:0.7.2-1~bpo60+1 0 100 http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports/ squeeze-backports/main i386 Packages 4:0.5.6-3 0 500 http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ squeeze/main i386 Packages 500 http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates/main i386 Packages So, it seems that apt-get is not aware that 4:0.8 is newer than 5:0.7 idem with aptitude full-upgrade The epoch (the version number prefix, before the ':') is used to explicitly enforce this. 4:x is always older than 5:y. Christian Marillat does this on purpose. I don't know his reasons. In order to downgrade from 5:0.7.11-0.1 to 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 you need to tun 'apt-get install ffmpeg=4:0.8-2~bpo60+1'. J. -- I wish I could achieve a 'just stepped out of the salon' look more often. Or at least once. [Agree] [Disagree] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote: idem with aptitude full-upgrade The epoch (the version number prefix, before the ':') is used to explicitly enforce this. 4:x is always older than 5:y. Christian Marillat does this on purpose. I don't know his reasons. In order to downgrade from 5:0.7.11-0.1 to 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 you need to tun 'apt-get install ffmpeg=4:0.8-2~bpo60+1'. this is an example where aptitude is superior to apt-get: with apt-get install (or dist-install), I went into some kind of infinite loop of dependencies, while aptitude install ffmpeg=4:0.8-2~bpo60+1' worked. But then, what is the use of pinning to 1 the Unofficial Multimedia Packages ? It seems that if Marillat cheats about the version number, the solution is to get rid of the debian-multimedia.org repo. -- Pierre Frenkiel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1203221607520.21...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:49:42 +0100 Jochen Spieker m...@well-adjusted.de wrote: Hello Jochen, The epoch (the version number prefix, before the ':') is used to explicitly enforce this. 4:x is always older than 5:y. Christian Marillat does this on purpose. I don't know his reasons. Some of the software in his repos is also available from the normal Debian streams. There can be differences between them. DMO uses the epoch number to ensure preference is given to the DMO repos to avoid potential problems. At least, that's my understanding of it. -- Regards _ / ) The blindingly obvious is / _)radnever immediately apparent It's becoming an obsession Teenage Depression - Eddie The Hot Rods signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
Pierre Frenkiel: On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote: In order to downgrade from 5:0.7.11-0.1 to 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 you need to tun 'apt-get install ffmpeg=4:0.8-2~bpo60+1'. this is an example where aptitude is superior to apt-get: with apt-get install (or dist-install), I went into some kind of infinite loop of dependencies, while aptitude install ffmpeg=4:0.8-2~bpo60+1' worked. I didn't have that problem. Is it reproducible? But then, what is the use of pinning to 1 the Unofficial Multimedia Packages ? It seems that if Marillat cheats about the version number, the solution is to get rid of the debian-multimedia.org repo. Sure, if you only use packages from there that are available from Debian, too. But I use other packages as well. Whether Marillat's use of the epoch qualifies as cheating is a question I cannot answer. J. -- I worry about people thinking I have lost direction. [Agree] [Disagree] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote: I didn't have that problem. Is it reproducible? yes. I tried apt-get several times before shifting to aptitude. Is the difference coming from the fact that you are on amd64 and I am on i386? I'll try later on my laptop which has a amd64 processor. Sure, if you only use packages from there that are available from Debian, too. But I use other packages as well. Whether Marillat's use of the epoch qualifies as cheating is a question I cannot answer. This results in completely by-passing the pinning settings. Of course, the excuse is to avoid dependencies problems, but I imagine that the maintainers of the official repos are also able to manage dependencies for the packages they provide -- Pierre Frenkiel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.00.1203221705540.18...@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
Pierre Frenkiel: On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote: I didn't have that problem. Is it reproducible? yes. I tried apt-get several times before shifting to aptitude. Is the difference coming from the fact that you are on amd64 and I am on i386? I'll try later on my laptop which has a amd64 processor. You could also try removing ffmpeg on your i386 machine again (or upgrading to Marillat's version) and install the specific version again. I assume apt-get developers might be interested in that. Sure, if you only use packages from there that are available from Debian, too. But I use other packages as well. Whether Marillat's use of the epoch qualifies as cheating is a question I cannot answer. This results in completely by-passing the pinning settings. No it doesn't, my pinning works fine. Christian Marillat at least uses documented behaviour in order to make sure that every user uses only his versions, even if Debian currently ships newer upstream versions. The policy says, the epoch is provided to allow mistakes in the version numbers of older versions of a package, and also a package's previous version numbering schemes, to be left behind. I don't know much about these things, but that doesn't sound like Christian Marillat uses the epoch in a way that was intended by the policy's authors. But then again, he is maintaining his own repository and nobody can force him to adhere to the policy. Of course, the excuse is to avoid dependencies problems, but I imagine that the maintainers of the official repos are also able to manage dependencies for the packages they provide Debian maintainers are not interested in making sure their libavcodec works with Marillat's ffmpeg and vice versa. J. -- In this bunker there are women and children. There are no weapons. [Agree] [Disagree] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:45:51PM +, Camaleón wrote: On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:10:07 +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote: Camaleón: (...) Did you first update the packages database? apt-get update aptitude update apt-get and aptitude both use the same package database. Running the 'udpate' for both of them is not required. I just run apt-get upgrade and said there was nothing to do while running aptitude upgrade wanted to do very (I mean *very*) weird things, such as removing a bunch of packages. After updating aptitude database all went smooth... And you had already done an apt-get update before this happened? Remember, Aptitude's resolver system is different to apt-get's P.S. I don't use aptitude but use apt-get whereas Jochen AFAIR use aptitude. -- Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. -- Napoleon Bonaparte -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120321060828.GC28749@tal
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:08:29 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:45:51PM +, Camaleón wrote: On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:10:07 +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote: Camaleón: (...) Did you first update the packages database? apt-get update aptitude update apt-get and aptitude both use the same package database. Running the 'udpate' for both of them is not required. I just run apt-get upgrade and said there was nothing to do while running aptitude upgrade wanted to do very (I mean *very*) weird things, such as removing a bunch of packages. After updating aptitude database all went smooth... And you had already done an apt-get update before this happened? Nope. Neither did it for aptitude. Remember, Aptitude's resolver system is different to apt-get's That's why I prefer to refresh both separately. apt-get was happy with the current db state while aptitude wasn't. P.S. I don't use aptitude but use apt-get whereas Jochen AFAIR use aptitude. I neither use aptitude unless something goes wrong. Aptitude seems very powerful an capable but for me, it provides too many options that I barely use or pay attention to. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jkcs6v$lch$6...@dough.gmane.org
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
Camaleón: On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:08:29 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: Remember, Aptitude's resolver system is different to apt-get's That's why I prefer to refresh both separately. apt-get was happy with the current db state while aptitude wasn't. From what I know, I have trouble understanding why 'aptitude update' fixed anything for you. But we probably need a developer to clear things up. P.S. I don't use aptitude but use apt-get whereas Jochen AFAIR use aptitude. I neither use aptitude unless something goes wrong. Aptitude seems very powerful an capable but for me, it provides too many options that I barely use or pay attention to. JFTR, I use apt-get nowadays as well. At least most of the time. The simple reason is that it performs a few things faster than aptitude (update, upgrade without upgradeable packages). Sometimes aptitude's TUI is really useful. Like yesterday, when I down-pinned debian-multimedia.org and wanted to replace all packages from there with their official Debian counterparts (if possible). Probably the most useful command for aptitude is 'keep-all'. It clears any additional status concerning installations and removals that aptitude keeps (and apt-get doesn't know about). J. -- In idle moments I remember former lovers with sentimental tenderness. [Agree] [Disagree] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On 21/03/12 07:08, Chris Bannister wrote: Remember, Aptitude's resolver system is different to apt-get's I think the problem is not the the resolver (apt-get and aptitude should get dependences about the same if not problem found, and therefore aptitude full-upgrade should do the same as apt-get dist-upgrade thats it, bring all packages up to date following the pinning system and install and remove packaged when needed. Im not sure (nor im sure how to check it if thats the case) but I think it may have to do with the database of how packages where installed. If you install some packages with aptitude and others with apt-get and then remove a third one with aptitude again, MAYBE the auto and manual installation flag in some packages goes crazy as they are handled in separate db (AAFAIK) my 2 cents... greets aL -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f69fb75.8050...@qindel.com
apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
Hi, On 2 of my machines I have mysql-common installed # aptitude show mysql-common Package: mysql-common State: installed Automatically installed: no Version: 5.1.49-3 Priority: optional Section: database [] However, now apt-get wants to install an update but aptitude will not. # apt-get upgrade Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following packages will be upgraded: mysql-common 1 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 69.6 kB of archives. After this operation, 57.3 kB disk space will be freed. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? n Abort. # aptitude upgrade No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed. 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 0 B will be used. What gives? The same is happening when I use aptitude safe-upgrade, as it should I suppose. ;-) Of course I can simply use apt-get but I also want to understand what is going on. Bonno Bloksma -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/89d1798a7351d040b4e74e0a043c69d701073...@hglexch-01.tio.nl
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On 03/19/2012 11:58 AM, Bonno Bloksma wrote: Hi, On 2 of my machines I have mysql-common installed [...] As we don't know what kind of setup you're having (stable, bpo, testing, unstable...), it's hard to tell what's up. How about aptitude dist-upgrade? -- Rares Aioanei -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f67144b.6020...@gmail.com
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:58:12 +, Bonno Bloksma wrote: On 2 of my machines I have mysql-common installed # aptitude show mysql-common Package: mysql-common State: installed Automatically installed: no Version: 5.1.49-3 Priority: optional Section: database [] However, now apt-get wants to install an update but aptitude will not. (...) Did you first update the packages database? apt-get update aptitude update Then, I would try to make them more verbose: apt-get -V upgrade aptitude -vvv upgrade Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jk74gd$6c2$5...@dough.gmane.org
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
Camaleón: On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:58:12 +, Bonno Bloksma wrote: Version: 5.1.49-3 Priority: optional Section: database [] Is this a squeeze system? -Then you should make sure you have security.debian.org in your sources.list. The current version from s.d.o is 5.1.61-0+squeeze1. You may want to post the output of 'apt-cache policy'. However, now apt-get wants to install an update but aptitude will not. aptitude why-not mysql-common Did you first update the packages database? apt-get update aptitude update apt-get and aptitude both use the same package database. Running the 'udpate' for both of them is not required. What's still separated, AFAIK, is the 'hold' mechanism. Bonno, you could try 'aptitude unhold mysql-common' and see whether aptitude wants to upgrade now. J. -- I wish I could achieve a 'just stepped out of the salon' look more often. Or at least once. [Agree] [Disagree] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On Monday 19 March 2012 12:10:07 Jochen Spieker wrote: Camaleón: On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:58:12 +, Bonno Bloksma wrote: Version: 5.1.49-3 Priority: optional Section: database [] Is this a squeeze system? -Then you should make sure you have security.debian.org in your sources.list. The current version from s.d.o is 5.1.61-0+squeeze1. You may want to post the output of 'apt-cache policy'. However, now apt-get wants to install an update but aptitude will not. aptitude why-not mysql-common Did you first update the packages database? apt-get update aptitude update apt-get and aptitude both use the same package database. Running the 'udpate' for both of them is not required. What's still separated, AFAIK, is the 'hold' mechanism. Bonno, you could try 'aptitude unhold mysql-common' and see whether aptitude wants to upgrade now. Surely it is worth following the earlier suggestion and doing an aptitude full-upgrade before trying more complicated things? Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201203191220.19465.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
Lisi: Surely it is worth following the earlier suggestion and doing an aptitude full-upgrade before trying more complicated things? The OP has explicitly has explicitly stated that he/she is interested in the reason for the behaviour. Work-arounds are too easy. :) J. -- Ultimately, the Millenium Dome is a spectacular monument of the doublethink of our times. [Agree] [Disagree] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:10:07 +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote: Camaleón: (...) Did you first update the packages database? apt-get update aptitude update apt-get and aptitude both use the same package database. Running the 'udpate' for both of them is not required. I just run apt-get upgrade and said there was nothing to do while running aptitude upgrade wanted to do very (I mean *very*) weird things, such as removing a bunch of packages. After updating aptitude database all went smooth... Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jk79pv$6c2$1...@dough.gmane.org
RE: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
To answer most questions asked: Did you first update the packages database? apt-get update aptitude update apt-get and aptitude both use the same package database. Running the 'udpate' for both of them is not required. I just run apt-get upgrade and said there was nothing to do while running aptitude upgrade wanted to do very (I mean *very*) weird things, such as removing a bunch of packages. After updating aptitude database all went smooth... 1) My systems are all Squeeze. 2) ~# cat /etc/apt/sources.list deb http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/ squeeze main contrib non-free deb-src http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/ squeeze main contrib non-free deb http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates main contrib non-free deb-src http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates main contrib non-free # Squeeze-updates, previously known as 'volatile' deb http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/ squeeze-updates main contrib non-free deb-src http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/ squeeze-updates main contrib non-free 3) The last time I ran a full-upgrade was when I upgraded from Lenny. I think this system started out as an Etch system years ago. I'd like to think the aptitude full-upgrade (or apt-get dist-upgrade) is only to be used when doing major upgrades. But ~# aptitude full-upgrade The following packages will be upgraded: mysql-common 1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 69.6 kB of archives. After unpacking 57.3 kB will be freed. Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]n 4) The command ~# aptitude search ~ahold gave no output so there are no held packages in aptitude. I tested that the last time just before doing the dist-upgrade and I never hold packages unless there is a VERY good reason. But remember the aptitude upgrade gave No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed. 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. So there is that ... and 1 not upgraded. In that line. For some reason aptitude will not upgrade that 1 component. 5) Aptitude upgrade with the -v (or -vv or -vvv) switch gives not much more info, just: Current status: 0 broken [+0], 1 update [+0], 16431 new [+0]. 6) ~# apt-cache showpkg mysql-common Package: mysql-common Versions: 5.1.61-0+squeeze1 (/var/lib/apt/lists/security.debian.org_dists_squeeze_updates_main_binary-i386_Packages) Description Language: File: /var/lib/apt/lists/security.debian.org_dists_squeeze_updates_main_binary-i386_Packages MD5: 562d254c602f89e4390e28f6362283c8 5.1.49-3 (/var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.nl.debian.org_debian_dists_squeeze_main_binary-i386_Packages) (/var/lib/dpkg/status) Description Language: File: /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.nl.debian.org_debian_dists_squeeze_main_binary-i386_Packages MD5: 562d254c602f89e4390e28f6362283c8 Reverse Depends: libmysqlclient15off,mysql-common 5.0.51a-24+lenny5 mysql-server-5.1,mysql-common 5.1.61-0+squeeze1 mysql-client-5.1,mysql-common 5.1.61-0+squeeze1 libmysqlclient16,mysql-common 5.1.61-0+squeeze1 mysql-server-5.1,mysql-common 5.1.49-3 mysql-client-5.1,mysql-common 5.1.49-3 libmysqlclient16,mysql-common 5.1.49-3 Dependencies: 5.1.61-0+squeeze1 - mysql-common-4.1 (0 (null)) mysql-common-4.1 (0 (null)) 5.1.49-3 - mysql-common-4.1 (0 (null)) mysql-common-4.1 (0 (null)) Provides: 5.1.61-0+squeeze1 - mysql-common-4.1 5.1.49-3 - mysql-common-4.1 Reverse Provides: So it seems the update is present on my system and ready to be installed, just not by a normal aptitude upgrade. It is either a normal apt-get upgrade or an aptitude full-upgrade. But why.? I will just do an apt-get upgrade now. Bonno Bloksma
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On Monday 19 March 2012 12:32:19 Jochen Spieker wrote: Lisi: Surely it is worth following the earlier suggestion and doing an aptitude full-upgrade before trying more complicated things? The OP has explicitly has explicitly stated that he/she is interested in the reason for the behaviour. Work-arounds are too easy. :) J. It's NOT a workaround. It is correct usage. In aptitude if you want _everything_ upgraded, you have to say so, otherwise it will safe-upgrade and nothing will be removed, and some things will not be updated. I am suggesting using correct aptitude procedure before trying workarounds. The reason for the behavior is apt-get != aptitude. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201203191513.31560.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On Monday 19 March 2012 14:17:44 Bonno Bloksma wrote: It is either a normal apt-get upgrade or an aptitude full-upgrade. But why.? Because they are not the same? If they were identical there would be no point in having the two of them. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201203191518.48615.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:17:44 +, Bonno Bloksma wrote: To answer most questions asked: (...) Would have been better to reply to every message separately... 3) The last time I ran a full-upgrade was when I upgraded from Lenny. I think this system started out as an Etch system years ago. I'd like to think the aptitude full-upgrade (or apt-get dist-upgrade) is only to be used when doing major upgrades. But ~# aptitude full-upgrade The following packages will be upgraded: mysql-common 1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 69.6 kB of archives. After unpacking 57.3 kB will be freed. Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]n So full-upgrade worked. Curious. 5) Aptitude upgrade with the -v (or -vv or -vvv) switch gives not much more info, just: Current status: 0 broken [+0], 1 update [+0], 16431 new ^ [+0]. There is one update available. Next time you can open aptitude and manually browse the available package to gather more information on why is not going to be updated. So it seems the update is present on my system and ready to be installed, just not by a normal aptitude upgrade. It is either a normal apt-get upgrade or an aptitude full-upgrade. But why.? I will just do an apt-get upgrade now. There must be a good reason (and I bet this deserves a full reading¹), but I never use aptitude unless apt-get goes crazy and wants to do weird things :-) ¹http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jk7k83$6c2$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
Lisi: On Monday 19 March 2012 12:32:19 Jochen Spieker wrote: The OP has explicitly has explicitly stated that he/she is interested in the reason for the behaviour. Work-arounds are too easy. :) It's NOT a workaround. It is correct usage. Sure it is correct usage, but it hides the reason of aptitude's behaviour from our understanding. In aptitude if you want _everything_ upgraded, you have to say so, otherwise it will safe-upgrade and nothing will be removed, and some things will not be updated. And we are interested to know what these some things are in this case. The reason for the behavior is apt-get != aptitude. That explanation is not very exhaustive. J. -- If I was a supermodel I would give all my cocaine to the socially excluded. [Agree] [Disagree] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On Monday 19 March 2012 16:39:13 Jochen Spieker wrote: Lisi: On Monday 19 March 2012 12:32:19 Jochen Spieker wrote: The OP has explicitly has explicitly stated that he/she is interested in the reason for the behaviour. Work-arounds are too easy. :) It's NOT a workaround. It is correct usage. Sure it is correct usage, but it hides the reason of aptitude's behaviour from our understanding. In aptitude if you want _everything_ upgraded, you have to say so, otherwise it will safe-upgrade and nothing will be removed, and some things will not be updated. And we are interested to know what these some things are in this case. The reason for the behavior is apt-get != aptitude. That explanation is not very exhaustive. J. I don't understandwhy you expect them to be identical. Different aplications are usually dissimilar. But you could always write to the aptitude maintainers and the apt maintainers and ask them why tney differ on that particular point. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201203191838.08566.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Lisi lisi.re...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday 19 March 2012 14:17:44 Bonno Bloksma wrote: It is either a normal apt-get upgrade or an aptitude full-upgrade. But why.? Because they are not the same? If they were identical there would be no point in having the two of them. No matter how different apt-get and aptitude are, it's reasonable to expect that, if there's a candidate for upgrading mysql-common, that both apt-get upgrade and aptitude safe-upgrade will install it; and if one of them wouldn't install them, it would be apt-get because, unlike apt-get upgrade, aptitude safe-upgrade is liberal and will install new packages to satisfy dependencies. It would've been interesting to see the output of apt-cache policy mysql-common and aptitude search -F '%c%a%M %p %v %V' mysql-common to see whether the aptitude search would have shown a different value for %v and %V. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=syxdm0bn4qt7pomkvowtycigreg8e92a_zaz2a8z9w...@mail.gmail.com
