Bug#390962: aptitude: Packages which are upgradable are classified in New Packages section
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 01:08:58PM -0600, doug jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say: Version: Aptitude 0.4.3 compiled at Sep 3 2006 17:35:53 Matto Marjanovic wrote: When one hits 'g', these errant packages appear listed under Packages being held back --- which is typically when I notice them and think hmm... did I overlook these packages earlier?. I have noticed this type of behavior as well, but I haven't check the relationship to new packages or clearing new packages. Below is an explanation of what I am seeing. It isn't intended to introduce any new issues, but just to give a different data point. After opening aptitude I like to see if there are any packages that need to be upgraded (well, sometimes I run update first): --\Upgradable Packages --\admin - Administrative ... --\main - The main ... ilinux-image-2.6-486 ... (not currently used, but I let it be just to have something there.) -- New Packages (note: I've never cleared this, want to find time to look through them first. Yes, it is a silly reason.) -- Installed Packages -- ... and so on ... then I select a package to install (doesn't seem to matter which one): piA libxml-parser-perlnone2.34-4.2 then I select g: --\ Packages being automatically installed... piA libcompress-zlib-perl piA ... and several more ... --\ Packages being held back i A iso-codes 0.53-010.55-1 i A libhal-storage1 0.5.7.1-2 0.5.8.1-1 i A libhal1 0.5.7.1-2 0.5.8.1-1 i linux-image ... i linux-kernel ... ihA xserver-xorg-input-evdev1:1.0.0.5- 1:1.1.2-3 ihA xserver-xorg-input-evdev0.7.4.1-4 0.7.4.1-5 (The last two (xserver) packages have previously been held (manually), in a prior aptitude session.) --\ Packages to be installed pi libxml-parser-perl +721kB none2.34-4.2 --- Packages which are suggested by other packages (none, but not verified one way or the other.) It looks to me like this is just expected behavior -- you haven't upgraded the kernel, so it shows up in the list of stuff not being upgraded. Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#390962: aptitude: Packages which are upgradable are classified in New Packages section
Version: Aptitude 0.4.3 compiled at Sep 3 2006 17:35:53 Matto Marjanovic wrote: When one hits 'g', these errant packages appear listed under Packages being held back --- which is typically when I notice them and think hmm... did I overlook these packages earlier?. I have noticed this type of behavior as well, but I haven't check the relationship to new packages or clearing new packages. Below is an explanation of what I am seeing. It isn't intended to introduce any new issues, but just to give a different data point. After opening aptitude I like to see if there are any packages that need to be upgraded (well, sometimes I run update first): --\Upgradable Packages --\admin - Administrative ... --\main - The main ... ilinux-image-2.6-486 ... (not currently used, but I let it be just to have something there.) -- New Packages (note: I've never cleared this, want to find time to look through them first. Yes, it is a silly reason.) -- Installed Packages -- ... and so on ... then I select a package to install (doesn't seem to matter which one): piA libxml-parser-perlnone2.34-4.2 then I select g: --\ Packages being automatically installed... piA libcompress-zlib-perl piA ... and several more ... --\ Packages being held back i A iso-codes 0.53-010.55-1 i A libhal-storage1 0.5.7.1-2 0.5.8.1-1 i A libhal1 0.5.7.1-2 0.5.8.1-1 i linux-image ... i linux-kernel ... ihA xserver-xorg-input-evdev1:1.0.0.5- 1:1.1.2-3 ihA xserver-xorg-input-evdev0.7.4.1-4 0.7.4.1-5 (The last two (xserver) packages have previously been held (manually), in a prior aptitude session.) --\ Packages to be installed pi libxml-parser-perl +721kB none2.34-4.2 --- Packages which are suggested by other packages (none, but not verified one way or the other.) The above was typed as opposed to copied so there could be typos. -- Doug Jensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#390962: aptitude: Packages which are upgradable are classified in New Packages section
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 12:40:40AM -0400, Matto Marjanovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say: From: Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... I think new packages that are upgradable have always gone into the new packages section. It might make sense to pull them out of there automatically, though. Hmm --- maybe I misunderstand what a new package is... A new package is one that you haven't yet marked as not new by running Forget new packages (with the exception that everything is marked as not new when you run aptitude for the first time). If this is actually happening with packages that really aren't new, then that's a bug, but I've never seen anything like that happen myself. Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#390962: aptitude: Packages which are upgradable are classified in New Packages section
From: Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... I think new packages that are upgradable have always gone into the new packages section. It might make sense to pull them out of there automatically, though. Hmm --- maybe I misunderstand what a new package is... In the particular instance I noticed/reported last night: o libmyth-0.20 was already installed, at version 0.20-0.0. o A younger version, 0.20-0.2, became available. o After updating the package cache, aptitude displayed libmyth-0.20 in the new packages section. Since libmyth-0.20 had already been installed, and it wasn't listed as a new package before the latest update, why did it become new again after the update? (libmyth-0.20 is from a foreign repository, so maybe it is a poor sample point, but I'm positive that I've seen this occur now and again with mainline Debian packages.) -matt m. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#390962: aptitude: Packages which are upgradable are classified in New Packages section
Package: aptitude Version: 0.4.3-1 Severity: normal This is something I've noticed from time to time but I've never quite had the presence of mind to catch until now. Occasionally, a few upgradable packages (i.e., already installed but with a new version available) are filed into the New Packages category of the display. When one hits 'g', these errant packages appear listed under Packages being held back --- which is typically when I notice them and think hmm... did I overlook these packages earlier?. Hitting 'f' to Forget new packages causes such packages to find their proper places in the Upgradable Packages listing. (I've captured a bunch of state files from /var which I figure might be useful to someone trying to debug this. Quite a bit of bytes, so if someone wants them, they can ask me.) -matt m. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers oldstable APT policy: (500, 'oldstable'), (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.15 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) Versions of packages aptitude depends on: ii apt [libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6-3. 0.6.46 Advanced front-end for dpkg ii libc62.3.6.ds1-4 GNU C Library: Shared libraries ii libgcc1 1:4.1.1-15 GCC support library ii libncursesw5 5.5-2 Shared libraries for terminal hand ii libsigc++-2.0-0c2a 2.0.16-3type-safe Signal Framework for C++ ii libstdc++6 4.1.1-15The GNU Standard C++ Library v3 Versions of packages aptitude recommends: ii aptitude-doc-en [aptitude-doc 0.4.3-1English manual for aptitude, a ter -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#390962: aptitude: Packages which are upgradable are classified in New Packages section
I think new packages that are upgradable have always gone into the new packages section. It might make sense to pull them out of there automatically, though. Daniel signature.asc Description: Digital signature
