Re: upgrade - packages have been kept back
On Sb, 11 dec 21, 01:54:12, teamas...@mad-hatters-teatime.teanet.org wrote: > On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 23:57:44 +0100 > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > On Vi, 10 dec 21, 23:39:30, teamas...@mad-hatters-teatime.teanet.org > > wrote: > > > > > > in 2 things i am pretty sure, my first mail only john doe read > > > completely, and a dist-upgrade will not work with this > > > non-standard-debian. > > > > Based on the limited information you provided in your mail > > `apt-get dist-upgrade` is a reasonable suggestion (even if my own > > preference would be `apt upgrade`, already mentioned by Greg). > > > > If for some reason `apt-get dist-upgrade` didn't work I'm very much > > interested to learn about it. > > > > > see posting to john doe, problem solved > > > > Good :) > > Sorry. > yes, you are right. > I had misunderstood another post. > i am confused about debian package managment. That's fine, we all had to learn :) Kernel packages change name over time to signal that modules (e.g. out-of-tree) must be recompiled for the newer kernel. As far as APT is concerned they are just different packages with some number in the name. The package linux-image-amd64 doesn't actually contain the kernel, it's purpose is to pull (depend on) the latest kernel. However, this requires installing an additional package. The command `apt-get upgrade` is only allowed to upgrade packages, not install or remove packages. The command `apt-get dist-upgrade` (named as such because it can *also* be used to upgrade to a newer distribution) is allowed to do both. Over time it became clear that allowing installation of new packages is generally safe and also necessary for day-to-day maintenance (like in this case, for kernel upgrades within the same distribution) so when the `apt` command was introduced the semantics of `upgrade` were adjusted[1]. The equivalent of `apt-get dist-upgrade` is `apt full-upgrade`[2] and is rarely (if ever) needed on a stable system. My general preference is to avoid using a bigger than necessary "hammer" (e.g. `apt-get dist-upgrade` instead of `apt upgrade`): it's a waste of energy and it increases the risk to hit your fingers ;) [1] `apt-get` is used in many scripts and higher level tools so it's commands must stay compatible. [2] arguably `full-upgrade` can be confusing as well, because it's used also for partial upgrades on testing or unstable systems. Hope this explains, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: upgrade - packages have been kept back
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 23:57:44 +0100 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Vi, 10 dec 21, 23:39:30, teamas...@mad-hatters-teatime.teanet.org > wrote: > > > > in 2 things i am pretty sure, my first mail only john doe read > > completely, and a dist-upgrade will not work with this > > non-standard-debian. > > Based on the limited information you provided in your mail > `apt-get dist-upgrade` is a reasonable suggestion (even if my own > preference would be `apt upgrade`, already mentioned by Greg). > > If for some reason `apt-get dist-upgrade` didn't work I'm very much > interested to learn about it. > > > see posting to john doe, problem solved > > Good :) > > Kind regards, > Andrei Sorry. yes, you are right. I had misunderstood another post. i am confused about debian package managment.
Re: upgrade - packages have been kept back
On Vi, 10 dec 21, 23:39:30, teamas...@mad-hatters-teatime.teanet.org wrote: > > in 2 things i am pretty sure, my first mail only john doe read > completely, and a dist-upgrade will not work with this > non-standard-debian. Based on the limited information you provided in your mail `apt-get dist-upgrade` is a reasonable suggestion (even if my own preference would be `apt upgrade`, already mentioned by Greg). If for some reason `apt-get dist-upgrade` didn't work I'm very much interested to learn about it. > see posting to john doe, problem solved Good :) Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: upgrade - packages have been kept back
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 17:41:47 + (GMT) Tim Woodall wrote: > On Fri, 10 Dec 2021, teamas...@mad-hatters-teatime.teanet.org wrote: > > > On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 23:09:34 + > > "Andrew M.A. Cater" wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 11:58:33PM +0100, > >> teamas...@mad-hatters-teatime.teanet.org wrote: > >>> hey, > >>> i have not been using debian for long and not sure how to proceed > >>> here. is a: > >>> apt-get upgrade linux-image-amd64 > >>> the right way? > >>> ty, jens. > >> > >> apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade > >> > >> [You need to pull in an up to date list of packages first] > > > > exactly that did not work > > > > apt-get dist-upgrade > in 2 things i am pretty sure, my first mail only john doe read completely, and a dist-upgrade will not work with this non-standard-debian. see posting to john doe, problem solved
Re: upgrade - packages have been kept back
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021, teamas...@mad-hatters-teatime.teanet.org wrote: On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 23:09:34 + "Andrew M.A. Cater" wrote: On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 11:58:33PM +0100, teamas...@mad-hatters-teatime.teanet.org wrote: hey, i have not been using debian for long and not sure how to proceed here. is a: apt-get upgrade linux-image-amd64 the right way? ty, jens. apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade [You need to pull in an up to date list of packages first] exactly that did not work apt-get dist-upgrade
Re: upgrade - packages have been kept back
On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 09:15:40 +0100 john doe wrote: > On 12/10/2021 9:04 AM, teamas...@mad-hatters-teatime.teanet.org wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 23:09:34 + > > "Andrew M.A. Cater" wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 11:58:33PM +0100, > >> teamas...@mad-hatters-teatime.teanet.org wrote: > >>> hey, > >>> i have not been using debian for long and not sure how to proceed > >>> here. is a: > >>> apt-get upgrade linux-image-amd64 > >>> the right way? > >>> ty, jens. > >> > >> apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade > >> > >> [You need to pull in an up to date list of packages first] > > > > exactly that did not work > > > > $ apt-get -V install linux-image-amd64 thx, that helps
Re: upgrade - packages have been kept back
Hi. On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 09:04:25AM +0100, teamas...@mad-hatters-teatime.teanet.org wrote: > On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 23:09:34 + > "Andrew M.A. Cater" wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 11:58:33PM +0100, > > teamas...@mad-hatters-teatime.teanet.org wrote: > > > hey, > > > i have not been using debian for long and not sure how to proceed > > > here. is a: > > > apt-get upgrade linux-image-amd64 > > > the right way? > > > ty, jens. > > > > apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade > > > > [You need to pull in an up to date list of packages first] > > exactly that did not work And it's because it should not work in the first place in the situation like this. "apt-get upgrade" should and will refuse to install any new packages (or uninstall existing ones). What should solve your problem is: apt update; apt upgrade And it's because "apt" (not to be confused with "apt-get") is allowed to install new packages during the update. What also could solve your problem (but it's inherently dangerous, as it will allow to remove installed packages as well) is: apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade In short, when in doubt, use "apt", not "apt-get". Reco
Re: upgrade - packages have been kept back
On 12/10/2021 9:04 AM, teamas...@mad-hatters-teatime.teanet.org wrote: On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 23:09:34 + "Andrew M.A. Cater" wrote: On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 11:58:33PM +0100, teamas...@mad-hatters-teatime.teanet.org wrote: hey, i have not been using debian for long and not sure how to proceed here. is a: apt-get upgrade linux-image-amd64 the right way? ty, jens. apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade [You need to pull in an up to date list of packages first] exactly that did not work $ apt-get -V install linux-image-amd64 HTH. -- John Doe
Re: upgrade - packages have been kept back
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 23:09:34 + "Andrew M.A. Cater" wrote: > On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 11:58:33PM +0100, > teamas...@mad-hatters-teatime.teanet.org wrote: > > hey, > > i have not been using debian for long and not sure how to proceed > > here. is a: > > apt-get upgrade linux-image-amd64 > > the right way? > > ty, jens. > > apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade > > [You need to pull in an up to date list of packages first] exactly that did not work > > --snip-- > > root@saira:~# apt list --upgradable -a > > Listing... Done > > linux-image-amd64/oldstable 4.19+105+deb10u13 amd64 [upgradable > > from: 4.19+105+deb10u8] linux-image-amd64/oldstable > > 4.19+105+deb10u9 amd64 linux-image-amd64/now 4.19+105+deb10u8 amd64 > > [installed,upgradable to: 4.19+105+deb10u13] > > > > root@saira:~# apt-get upgrade > > Reading package lists... Done > > Building dependency tree > > Reading state information... Done > > Calculating upgrade... Done > > The following packages have been kept back: > > linux-image-amd64:amd64 > > 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. > > > > root@saira:~# apt search linux-image-amd64 > > Sorting... Done > > Full Text Search... Done > > linux-image-amd64/oldstable 4.19+105+deb10u13 amd64 [upgradable > > from: 4.19+105+deb10u8] Linux for 64-bit PCs (meta-package) > > > > linux-image-amd64-dbg/oldstable 4.19+105+deb10u13 amd64 > > Debugging symbols for Linux amd64 configuration (meta-package) > > > > linux-image-amd64-signed-template/oldstable 4.19.208-1 amd64 > > Template for signed linux-image packages for amd64 > > >
Re: upgrade - packages have been kept back
On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 11:58:33PM +0100, teamas...@mad-hatters-teatime.teanet.org wrote: > root@saira:~# apt-get upgrade > Reading package lists... Done > Building dependency tree > Reading state information... Done > Calculating upgrade... Done > The following packages have been kept back: > linux-image-amd64:amd64 > 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. Pick any one of these (other commands may also work): apt-get dist-upgrade apt-get --with-new-pkgs upgrade apt upgrade apt-get install linux-image-amd64
Re: upgrade - packages have been kept back
On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 11:58:33PM +0100, teamas...@mad-hatters-teatime.teanet.org wrote: > hey, > i have not been using debian for long and not sure how to proceed here. > is a: > apt-get upgrade linux-image-amd64 > the right way? > ty, jens. apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade [You need to pull in an up to date list of packages first] All best, Andy Cater > > --snip-- > root@saira:~# apt list --upgradable -a > Listing... Done > linux-image-amd64/oldstable 4.19+105+deb10u13 amd64 [upgradable from: > 4.19+105+deb10u8] linux-image-amd64/oldstable 4.19+105+deb10u9 amd64 > linux-image-amd64/now 4.19+105+deb10u8 amd64 [installed,upgradable to: > 4.19+105+deb10u13] > > root@saira:~# apt-get upgrade > Reading package lists... Done > Building dependency tree > Reading state information... Done > Calculating upgrade... Done > The following packages have been kept back: > linux-image-amd64:amd64 > 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. > > root@saira:~# apt search linux-image-amd64 > Sorting... Done > Full Text Search... Done > linux-image-amd64/oldstable 4.19+105+deb10u13 amd64 [upgradable from: > 4.19+105+deb10u8] Linux for 64-bit PCs (meta-package) > > linux-image-amd64-dbg/oldstable 4.19+105+deb10u13 amd64 > Debugging symbols for Linux amd64 configuration (meta-package) > > linux-image-amd64-signed-template/oldstable 4.19.208-1 amd64 > Template for signed linux-image packages for amd64 >
upgrade - packages have been kept back
hey, ich benutze debian noch nicht lange und nicht sicher wie ich hier vorzugehen habe. ist ein: apt-get upgrade linux-image-amd64 der richtige weg? i have not been using debian for long and not sure how to proceed here. is a: apt-get upgrade linux-image-amd64 the right way? ty, jens. --snip-- root@saira:~# apt list --upgradable -a Listing... Done linux-image-amd64/oldstable 4.19+105+deb10u13 amd64 [upgradable from: 4.19+105+deb10u8] linux-image-amd64/oldstable 4.19+105+deb10u9 amd64 linux-image-amd64/now 4.19+105+deb10u8 amd64 [installed,upgradable to: 4.19+105+deb10u13] root@saira:~# apt-get upgrade Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Calculating upgrade... Done The following packages have been kept back: linux-image-amd64:amd64 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. root@saira:~# apt search linux-image-amd64 Sorting... Done Full Text Search... Done linux-image-amd64/oldstable 4.19+105+deb10u13 amd64 [upgradable from: 4.19+105+deb10u8] Linux for 64-bit PCs (meta-package) linux-image-amd64-dbg/oldstable 4.19+105+deb10u13 amd64 Debugging symbols for Linux amd64 configuration (meta-package) linux-image-amd64-signed-template/oldstable 4.19.208-1 amd64 Template for signed linux-image packages for amd64
upgrade - packages have been kept back
hey, i have not been using debian for long and not sure how to proceed here. is a: apt-get upgrade linux-image-amd64 the right way? ty, jens. --snip-- root@saira:~# apt list --upgradable -a Listing... Done linux-image-amd64/oldstable 4.19+105+deb10u13 amd64 [upgradable from: 4.19+105+deb10u8] linux-image-amd64/oldstable 4.19+105+deb10u9 amd64 linux-image-amd64/now 4.19+105+deb10u8 amd64 [installed,upgradable to: 4.19+105+deb10u13] root@saira:~# apt-get upgrade Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Calculating upgrade... Done The following packages have been kept back: linux-image-amd64:amd64 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. root@saira:~# apt search linux-image-amd64 Sorting... Done Full Text Search... Done linux-image-amd64/oldstable 4.19+105+deb10u13 amd64 [upgradable from: 4.19+105+deb10u8] Linux for 64-bit PCs (meta-package) linux-image-amd64-dbg/oldstable 4.19+105+deb10u13 amd64 Debugging symbols for Linux amd64 configuration (meta-package) linux-image-amd64-signed-template/oldstable 4.19.208-1 amd64 Template for signed linux-image packages for amd64
apt-get upgrade: packages have been kept back
Hi, I was wondering why an apt-get upgradeon my Debian wheezy box does not want to update the OpenJDK packages as you can see below: shell$ apt-get upgrade Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following packages have been kept back: icedtea-6-jre-cacao icedtea-6-jre-jamvm openjdk-6-jre openjdk-6-jre-headless openjdk-6-jre-lib 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 5 not upgraded. Anyone has an idea why they are all kept back? Is something broken on my side maybe? Regards ML -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/947300723.1245321.1429608381379.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com
Re: apt-get upgrade: packages have been kept back
Hi, have you tried an apt-get dist-upgrade? Some packages won't be upgraded by the apt-get upgrade operation. Please try the first and tell us the results. Thanks! Cheers, Patrick On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:26 AM, ML mail mlnos...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, I was wondering why an apt-get upgradeon my Debian wheezy box does not want to update the OpenJDK packages as you can see below: shell$ apt-get upgrade Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following packages have been kept back: icedtea-6-jre-cacao icedtea-6-jre-jamvm openjdk-6-jre openjdk-6-jre-headless openjdk-6-jre-lib 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 5 not upgraded. Anyone has an idea why they are all kept back? Is something broken on my side maybe? Regards ML -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/947300723.1245321.1429608381379.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com
Re: apt-get upgrade: packages have been kept back
Hi Patrick dist-upgrade did it. Now as a general rule is it safe to use a dist-upgrade in a production environment? I suppose there is a good reason for having upgrade and dist-upgrade. Regards ML On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:39 AM, Patrick Weiden patr...@dieweidens.de wrote: Hi, have you tried an apt-get dist-upgrade? Some packages won't be upgraded by the apt-get upgrade operation. Please try the first and tell us the results. Thanks! Cheers, Patrick On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:26 AM, ML mail mlnos...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, I was wondering why an apt-get upgradeon my Debian wheezy box does not want to update the OpenJDK packages as you can see below: shell$ apt-get upgrade Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following packages have been kept back: icedtea-6-jre-cacao icedtea-6-jre-jamvm openjdk-6-jre openjdk-6-jre-headless openjdk-6-jre-lib 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 5 not upgraded. Anyone has an idea why they are all kept back? Is something broken on my side maybe? Regards ML -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/947300723.1245321.1429608381379.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1448263282.1248593.1429610360116.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com
Re: apt-get upgrade: packages have been kept back
Yes that totally makes sense, I was actually reading the man page but I did not understand what was the big difference in my case with the OpenJDK packages. I only saw that it had to install an additional and new package, maybe that made it classify more for a dist-upgrade. Because else it was supposed to be a security upgrade so in theory there shouldn't be any wild modifications. On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 12:21 PM, Patrick Weiden patr...@dieweidens.de wrote: Hi, as the manpage of apt-get tells: [...] upgrade upgrade is used to install the newest versions of all packages currently installed on the system from the sources enumerated in /etc/apt/sources.list. Packages currently installed with new versions available are retrieved and upgraded; under no circumstances are currently installed packages removed, or packages not already installed retrieved and installed. **New versions of currently installed packages that cannot be upgraded without changing the install status of another package will be left at their current version.** An update must be performed first so that apt-get knows that new versions of packages are available. dist-upgrade dist-upgrade in addition to performing the function of upgrade, also intelligently handles changing dependencies with new versions of packages; apt-get has a smart conflict resolution system, and it will attempt to upgrade the most important packages at the expense of less important ones if necessary. The dist-upgrade command may therefore remove some packages. The /etc/apt/sources.list file contains a list of locations from which to retrieve desired package files. See also apt_preferences(5) for a mechanism for overriding the general settings for individual packages. [...] I have marked the - in my opinion - important and interesting sentence inside the upgrade part with two stars, which should be applying here. I hope this helps. Best regards, Patrick On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:59 AM, ML mail mlnos...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi Patrick dist-upgrade did it. Now as a general rule is it safe to use a dist-upgrade in a production environment? I suppose there is a good reason for having upgrade and dist-upgrade. Regards ML On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:39 AM, Patrick Weiden patr...@dieweidens.de wrote: Hi, have you tried an apt-get dist-upgrade? Some packages won't be upgraded by the apt-get upgrade operation. Please try the first and tell us the results. Thanks! Cheers, Patrick On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:26 AM, ML mail mlnos...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, I was wondering why an apt-get upgradeon my Debian wheezy box does not want to update the OpenJDK packages as you can see below: shell$ apt-get upgrade Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following packages have been kept back: icedtea-6-jre-cacao icedtea-6-jre-jamvm openjdk-6-jre openjdk-6-jre-headless openjdk-6-jre-lib 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 5 not upgraded. Anyone has an idea why they are all kept back? Is something broken on my side maybe? Regards ML -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/947300723.1245321.1429608381379.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1448263282.1248593.1429610360116.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com
Re: apt-get upgrade: packages have been kept back
Hi, as the manpage of apt-get tells: [...] upgrade upgrade is used to install the newest versions of all packages currently installed on the system from the sources enumerated in /etc/apt/sources.list. Packages currently installed with new versions available are retrieved and upgraded; under no circumstances are currently installed packages removed, or packages not already installed retrieved and installed. **New versions of currently installed packages that cannot be upgraded without changing the install status of another package will be left at their current version.** An update must be performed first so that apt-get knows that new versions of packages are available. dist-upgrade dist-upgrade in addition to performing the function of upgrade, also intelligently handles changing dependencies with new versions of packages; apt-get has a smart conflict resolution system, and it will attempt to upgrade the most important packages at the expense of less important ones if necessary. The dist-upgrade command may therefore remove some packages. The /etc/apt/sources.list file contains a list of locations from which to retrieve desired package files. See also apt_preferences(5) for a mechanism for overriding the general settings for individual packages. [...] I have marked the - in my opinion - important and interesting sentence inside the upgrade part with two stars, which should be applying here. I hope this helps. Best regards, Patrick On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:59 AM, ML mail mlnos...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi Patrick dist-upgrade did it. Now as a general rule is it safe to use a dist-upgrade in a production environment? I suppose there is a good reason for having upgrade and dist-upgrade. Regards ML On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:39 AM, Patrick Weiden patr...@dieweidens.de wrote: Hi, have you tried an apt-get dist-upgrade? Some packages won't be upgraded by the apt-get upgrade operation. Please try the first and tell us the results. Thanks! Cheers, Patrick On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:26 AM, ML mail mlnos...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, I was wondering why an apt-get upgradeon my Debian wheezy box does not want to update the OpenJDK packages as you can see below: shell$ apt-get upgrade Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following packages have been kept back: icedtea-6-jre-cacao icedtea-6-jre-jamvm openjdk-6-jre openjdk-6-jre-headless openjdk-6-jre-lib 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 5 not upgraded. Anyone has an idea why they are all kept back? Is something broken on my side maybe? Regards ML -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/947300723.1245321.1429608381379.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1448263282.1248593.1429610360116.javamail.ya...@mail.yahoo.com
