despite being marked as "important", there is not real bug
report in aptitude and the messages are largely about theoretical cases,
no report came in the last few years related with it.
So with the removal of dpkg-configure, marking this bug as +pending.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
to remove both
reportbug and dpkg-reconfigure -- perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think
that they are very used/important features.
... so this bug can be closed.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
nding.
... and thanks for the detailed reports and persistence, in any case!
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
2016-03-09 22:45 GMT+00:00 Shai Berger <s...@platonix.com>:
> Hi Manuel,
>
> On Tuesday 08 March 2016 00:52:36 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
>>
>> Did you keep observing this problem in recent years/releases?
>>
>
> I'm not sure when was the las
a dumped core is attached.
I hope it helps you.
I see, our friend boost::flyweight again... thanks!
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
requested reinstallation does not
happen.
Fixed for the next release, marking as +pending.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
Control: tags -1 - confirmed + wontfix
Control: forcemerge 250120 -1
Merging this one again, they are basically the same, #255587 was the one
which is quite different.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
to be marked again).
This will be present in the next release, marking as +pending.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
ls when updated the
planned action of the package are not emitted as they should, or at
least as I expected.
Needs more investigation...
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
(it was the initial intention).
I also added a few more checks now also to forbid launching solution
screens and previews from the command-line in dumb terms.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
er reports at
some point, although it's always daunting.
One of the things that might have made it worse is enabling
multi-arch, which I did a few years ago.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
extremely
important, short term for "source" could be added and it's better that
the letter of the scape should be exchanged for a small gain in
consistency.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
1:46 Vincent Lefevre:
Control: reopen -1
Control: found -1 0.7.8-1
On 2016-03-01 18:32:44 +, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
2016-03-01 17:43 Vincent Lefevre:
> On 2016-03-01 15:02:59 +0000, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> > 2013-08-31 12:41 Vincent Lefevre:
> > > When I
, #430392, #445034, #498239, #576212, #639789, #798320)
The Closes of #121313 overlap with other fixes, there are reports of each
case merged.
If you find the problem again, please reopen.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
ve removed the Tcl/Tk ones and would have
upgraded xserver-xorg-core.
So, in summary, I am still more happy to report that we can close this
bug now as another duplicate of the ones above.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
being localized and not and that everybody has a different
opinion about it.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
2006-03-19 18:48 Robert Bihlmeyer:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.4.1-1
Severity: minor
It seems that at least the second line of each stanza (cont
it detects when the file is corrupt/malformed and
suggests the user to try to recover from pkgstates.old.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
ave a clear example of packages where this happens, and
then have somebody brave enough to dive into the abyss.
That's why I think that the bug as it is is not very actionable.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
, currently in Unstable.
Commited, thanks!
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
while not really
> duplicating data (like the list of available sorting criteria, which
> probably changes more often than the negation character).
>
> I can take care of that.
Nice!
Please do, and add the sort criteria as well.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
uld try to reproduce myself, but I'm quite constrained by
bandwidth at the moment, and if you can reproduce it reliably it can
give a good hint about where to start to look).
> Again, many thanks for your effort.
You're welcome :)
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
b) which versions?
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
please open a new bug report.
It doesn't depend at all on the number of cores of the machine, so
this shouldn't be the cause for it.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
tomatic downloading i would conclude this was
> the culprit
Good :-)
I will close the bug report now.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
already documented and I am satisfied with it as it is, although
I don't know if you would prefer to make it more prominent.
Ping?
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
ge perhaps it should be
removed from apt, and the reason why apt has "flag Essential" in both
apt (internally) and aptitude is up to apt. I don't know if apt or
other front-ends (cupt, synaptic, python-apt...) use these flags for
something else.
aptitude does now what Julian recom
threat, but still.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
2016-03-05 14:10 GMT+00:00 张 敬强 <zh...@outlook.com>:
> 在 2016年3月5日星期六 CST 下午1:00:25，Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo 写道：
>> The behaviour has been changed recently, so that when one goes ahead
>> with the installation, the state is saved to more places than aptitude's
>>
l packages in its current state" or "Reset state
of all packages".
If you want to go back to the state before confirming the upgrade
intentions, you have to mark the packages to be upgraded as "keep".
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
y has some problem that it's fixable, it would be quite
difficult to see which one is actually the problem and try to address
it.
So I don't think that it would be useful to change this. Marking it as
+wontfix (and probably closing at some point in the future).
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez
Control: reassign -1 apt
2016-03-01 18:01 To Zack Weinberg:
Hi Zack,
2016-03-01 17:27 Zack Weinberg:
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
DPkg::NoTriggers "true";
DPkg::ConfigurePending "true";
DPkg::TriggersPending "true";
Control: tags -1 + pending
2016-03-03 23:08 GMT+00:00 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
<manuel.montez...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> And I think the difference is that on my system the package gnupg2 has the
>> additional new attribute "Auto-New-Install" set to &quo
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo + pending
(re-sending, didn't seem to work the first time)
2016-03-03 23:08 GMT+00:00 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
<manuel.montez...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> And I think the difference is that on my system the package gnupg2 has the
>> additional
Control: reopen -1
Control: fixed -1 aptitude/0.7.7-1
2016-03-01 19:01 Christian Pernegger:
2016-03-01 18:53 GMT+01:00 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
<manuel.montez...@gmail.com>:
Perhaps. But in any case, even if the underlying problem was actually a
different one, if several people
, snprintf (with the size
of the buffer) should be used -- if not a better method to translate those sizes
into string.
Converted to use snprintf now, so marking as +pending.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
2016-03-03 09:18 Jörg-Volker Peetz:
Hi Manual,
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote on 03/03/16 02:57:
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Hi Jörg,
Seems to work fine around here:
# aptitude -F '%M %p' search '~n^gnupg2$~ramd64'
A gnupg2
# aptitude markauto '~n^gnupg2$~ramd64'
No packages
s libsox-fmt-ogg v1
libsox-fmt-base v2 replaces libsox-fmt-ogg v1
which I think that it's already more or less what is requested here
(although I don't know if it was implemented in 0.4 / 2008).
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
implementation (both of which can lead to new problems and are of some
maintenance burden) because of this specific problem, which seems quite
a corner case.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
this dependency at some point before
the freeze.
If this becomes more high priority for some reason, e.g. because of a
pending RM of libdirectfb, please let us know.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
r/lib/aptitude/pkgstates also the "State" of gnupg2 does not
change.
This is out-sourced to apt, in the file:
/var/lib/apt/extended_states
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo unreproducible + pending
Hi Katsuhiko,
2016-03-01 19:05 Katsuhiko Nishimra:
Hi, thank you for the reply.
On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 12:30:51PM +, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
I could not reproduce it in my systems with the same versions, with
either mini
ow, marking as +pending.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
again now.
It happened a few versions ago because of adapting aptitude for changes
in apt 1.1 (deprecated function), and using only one type of progress
which the old function uses internally.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
report.
It was a problem due to divide by zero, presumably when the number of
packages matching is very low (< 10). Marking as +pending.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
Hi,
2016-03-02 3:51 GMT+00:00 Fulano Diego Perez <fulanope...@cryptolab.net>:
> hi
>
> Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo:
>> Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2016-03-01 02:21 Fulano Diego Perez:
>>>
>>> there is no
aded aptitude to 0.7.7-1. Both aptitude and wajig work fine, so
> solved. :-)
>
> Thank you!
That's good, thanks for the confirmation!
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
e to not mess with people's already
established setups. It's merely something which we should think about
for wheezy-lts to make it better there.
Due to the reasons above and the lack of replies to this report, I guess
that the answer is to not call LTS stuff "Security Updates".
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
Hi Zack,
2016-03-01 17:27 Zack Weinberg:
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
DPkg::NoTriggers "true";
DPkg::ConfigurePending "true";
DPkg::TriggersPending "true";
After talking about this bug a few days ago with A
o backport versions to Jessie,
if that's what you expect.
Due to various circumstances that it's not worth diving into right now,
it's probably also /technically/ difficult to backport it to Jessie, for
one boost1.58 would be needed. But I will not stop anybody from trying.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A.
ym (remove, 0.7.7-1) depends on aptitude (= 0.7.7-1)
"aptitude" marked with red background, as it's the case when packages
are broken.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
eady taken for revdepcount).
Perhaps this still can be changed to be the other way around, source
(%e) and architecture (%E) and we can have ~e for source's search term,
and so be more consistent.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
ng to know which packages,
possibly log entries or the actions that were taken before with those
packages, etc.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
;-u" in the command
line.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
it involves becoming root in between the package action.
Thanks for the confirmation/analysis.
Yes, as I said in a previous message, I also think that it's the same
problem fixed in the 0.7 series.
So closing the bug now.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
oday?
Weird boost problems have happened in the past in aptitude, especially
with flyweight, but I haven't seen them recently myself or in other bug
reports.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
or aptitude, that might be causing this:
aptitude search '~i~D(^aptitude$|^apt$)'
If you find the reason, please write again to this bug report.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
2016-02-29 22:28 GMT+00:00 Christoph Anton Mitterer <cales...@scientia.net>:
> On Mon, 2016-02-29 at 18:52 +0000, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
>> Because marking a package auto means to tell aptitude "remove it from
>> my system as soon as it's
Control: tags -1 + pending
Hi Sven,
2016-02-28 02:21 To Sven Joachim:
2016-02-28 1:47 GMT+00:00 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
<manuel.montez...@gmail.com>:
2016-02-27 20:46 GMT+00:00 Sven Joachim <svenj...@gmx.de>:
That package has a reverse dependency which is also held back, a
e case.
So closing this report now.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
tomorrow or so.
So I'm going to assume that this is the case and will merge the reports
now.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
Control: tags -1 + wontfix
Control: close -1
2016-02-29 05:15 Christoph Anton Mitterer:
On Sun, 2016-02-28 at 17:29 +, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
On the other hand, if I understood correctly, if nothing depends on
krb5-k5tls on your system, you shouldn't have it marked
Hi again,
2016-02-29 13:17 Zack Weinberg:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
<manuel.montez...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the report. Do you have the logs around for those
installations attempts, of aptitude (the relevant section in
/var/log/aptitude*
(Copying to the bug address now, but no reply in this message. Will
reply shortly).
2016-02-29 13:17 Zack Weinberg:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
<manuel.montez...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the report. Do you have the logs around for those
install
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo
Control: close -1
2016-02-29 16:09 Dr. Axel Stammler:
On Sat 2015-12-12 15.35.43, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
Does it still continue to happen in your system?
If yes, can you test if it still happens with apt 1.1 recently uploaded
to unstable?
Hi
grams, but extremely important for
interactive ones.
So in the end this needed to change quite a few things, working around
the problem by checking only when needed and caching the results,
changes in the interface of the field and a few other changes.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Mont
themselves cause problems elsewhere,
as in this case.
I have got some idea about what's going wrong, so hopefully I will fix
this soonish.
Got it fixed, marking as +pending.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
, and there are still many open bugs about the
auto-flags with procedures that are actually reproducible, so it's
better to focus on those.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
17+dfsg-1
The only one causing losing 'A' now is "php5", obviously, since this is
the one marked to install/keep with '+'.
If I understand correctly, the behaviour that you were/are getting is
packages such as php5-cli and -common to be "i " instead of "i A"?
Cheers.
--
it is to implement that, but
from a user's point of view, this is what should happen.
Any comments are welcome.
Could be a good idea.
I think that this belongs better in a new bug report, would you mind to
submit a new bug to discuss this separately?
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
alling krb5-k5tls in my system and marking it as
automatically installed, aptitude attempts to remove it immediately --
which is the right thing to do.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
is needed, please provide commands run.
Does the crash happen only for the "not installed" packages and it's
fine for the "installed" ones? If so, it's #815581, fix to be released
tomorrow or so.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
2016-02-28 1:47 GMT+00:00 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
<manuel.montez...@gmail.com>:
> 2016-02-27 20:46 GMT+00:00 Sven Joachim <svenj...@gmx.de>:
>> That package has a reverse dependency which is also held back, and I can
>> see that it has been marked as au
marking the packages to "keep", for
example when one selects "Keep packages at current version" in the
interactive resolver.
It doesn't mark them unconditionally as automatic either, it tries to
force the Automatic parameter that was decided elsewhere (presumably,
determined to be the previous state before the current set of
decisions / pending actions was taken).
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
/quite/, because aptitude would have to do *all* what apt does,
plus read its specific config (disk access is slow) and
initialisation of derived classes using libapt, linking with more
libraries, etc, but let's pretend...
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
is needed for many
command-line commands such as "show".
So marking this bug as pending.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
was
implemented in 0.7.6, I am afraid that you cannot use it in 0.6.x.
So I will close the report now.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
Fixed now, marking as +pending.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
your patch to address #270057.
PkgIterator::ProvidesList() doesn't include virtual packages provided by
the visible version (should use VerIterator::ProvidesList()).
Fixed now, marking as +pending.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
Control: retitle -1 apt-listchanges: Ignoring confirmation when killed
(aptitude proceeds with installation without confirmation)
Control: submitter -1 !
Control: severity -1 important
Setting bug properties properly :-)
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
o implement it, or even seconding, and I don't
consider that has a high priority either, so marking it as +wontfix.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
es to each situation as it comes
up. :P
Overall, and again as with #320092, the request was sitting for more
than a decade with no follow-up or intention to implement it, or even
seconding, and I don't consider that has a high priority either.
Much less to implement hooks to other programming la
ink that this should be changed to act as described above: when
confirmation is required, only let to proceed when there was a reply and
the reply is affirmative.
Cloning the bug and reassigning so you can see the whole history of this
bug.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
e "acquire" methods (like cdrom, FTP, http, etc)
that might be better suited for those use-cases where the data is to be
obtained from RO media. This is specifically about local cache (which
can be disabled anyway).
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
2016-02-26 11:10 anabioz34:
Can you please confirm that for example unattended-upgrades was not
installed in your system?
Yes, it's not installed in my system.
OK, thanks!
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
the
report with them.
Can you please confirm that for example unattended-upgrades was not
installed in your system?
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
2016-02-26 3:14 GMT+00:00 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson <jida...@jidanni.org>:
>>>>>> "MAFM" == Manuel A Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> writes:
>
>>> E: Archives directory /mnt/usb/extra1/partial is missing. - A
to have more descriptive titles, e.g. including
words such as "download" or [parts of] the error message, so it's easier
to find related bugs when people are looking into a particular area).
Anyway, got a way around this, so marking as +pending.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez
2016-02-23 23:52 To Sven Joachim:
2016-02-23 17:20 Sven Joachim:
On 2016-02-22 23:27 +, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
Have you used 0.7.5 until now and this only happens after upgrading
aptitude to .6?
Yes.
Did something else happen since the last time that you
ran safe-upgrade
nused "false";
Aptitude::UI::Default-Grouping "filter(missing),status,priority,section";
Aptitude::UI::Advance-On-Action "true";
//Aptitude::Theme "Dselect";
Probably not related, but if we need to dig into the code, maybe some of
this becomes relevant.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
iaging it soon, when looking at another set of
auto-install related problems.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
context.
It's probably more useful for a range of use-cases, yes.
Anyway, changed now in the case that you or anybody else still want to
use the functionality.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
ot;.
I'm hence raising the severity to "minor" (only, since there is a
workaround).
Fixed now, marking as + pending.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
that this
bug report has been closed. Why this sudden change of heart?
This will be removed in the next version, marking as +pending.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
base.
Unlocking before invoking these scripts can lead to problems if other
programs, e.g. unattended-upgrades, get the lock in between and change
the state of the system.
So I think that in principle this problem cannot be fix due to the
interactive nature of aptitude.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fer
2016-02-23 17:20 Sven Joachim:
On 2016-02-22 23:27 +, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
Have you used 0.7.5 until now and this only happens after upgrading
aptitude to .6?
Yes.
Did something else happen since the last time that you
ran safe-upgrade, e.g. upgrade of apt
801 - 900 of 2047 matches
Mail list logo
