Re: apt / aptitude, empêcher une version précise d'un paquet

our pour un paquet: >> >>     echo  "toto hold" | dpkg --set-selections >> >>   et pour remettre en service: >> >>     echo  "toto install" | dpkg --set-selections >> > le problème avec cette technique, c'est qu'il faut vérifié manuelleme

Re: apt / aptitude, empêcher une version précise d'un paquet

'lut, Pour bloquer une version spécifique d'un paquet, c'est dans /etc/apt/preferences Package: ton_paquet Pin: version la_version_bolquée Pin-Priority: -1 a+ f.

Re: apt / aptitude, empêcher une version précise d'un paquet

Le 16/11/2018 à 11:55, Pierre Frenkiel a écrit : > On Fri, 16 Nov 2018, Jérémy Prego wrote: > >> bonjour, >> >> Malgré mes recherches j'ai pas trouvé mon cas d'utilisation exact. >> j'aimerai empêcher l'installation précise d'une version d'un paquet, >> mais pas les suivantes, si il y a une mises

Re: apt / aptitude, empêcher une version précise d'un paquet

On Fri, 16 Nov 2018, Jérémy Prego wrote: bonjour, Malgré mes recherches j'ai pas trouvé mon cas d'utilisation exact. j'aimerai empêcher l'installation précise d'une version d'un paquet, mais pas les suivantes, si il y a une mises a jour. je vous donne un exemple: Sur ma machine, j'utilise le

apt / aptitude, empêcher une version précise d'un paquet

bonjour, Malgré mes recherches j'ai pas trouvé mon cas d'utilisation exact. j'aimerai empêcher l'installation précise d'une version d'un paquet, mais pas les suivantes, si il y a une mises a jour. je vous donne un exemple: Sur ma machine, j'utilise le paquet toto en version 1.1. demain, une mise

Re: aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

Le 15/10/18 à 10:53, Wallace a écrit : > Salut, > > Personnellement et professionnellement, je ne jure que par apt-get. > > Aptitude est sympa sur un poste utilisateur mais sur des serveurs c'est > un enfer et j'ai eu beaucoup de déconvenues avec quand il s'agit de > man

Re: aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

esoins. afin d'éviter cela, j'envisage désormais de faire des paquets > > avec equivs et de les installer avec apt. > C'est étonnant. j'ai le souvenir d'avoir installé ces paquets (je sais même encore pourquoi) et aptitude why me confirme que ce sont bien des installations m

Re: aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

p je me demande comment il trouve les libs et les oldlibs ... il > faudrait probablement que je lise plus de docs sur les meta-infos que > contient la DB de apt. j'ai quand même l'impression que je vais finir > par lire les sources et ca serait quand même bien si les queries > étaient exp

Re: aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

contient la DB de apt. j'ai quand même l'impression que je vais finir par lire les sources et ca serait quand même bien si les queries étaient exprimées avec un vrai langage (genre comme dans aptitude ;)). > donc "aptitude purge $(deborphan)" vire toutes les librairies qui ne > sont

Re: aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

ion sections to hunt down unused libraries. donc "aptitude purge $(deborphan)" vire toutes les librairies qui ne sont plus utilisées par aucun des programme installé (plus de dépendance). Après on peut faire un peu plus de choses avec deborphan, consulter les options dans le man. Avec apti

Re: aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

salut, > # Correction des paquetages à problèmes > aptitude install $(aptitude search ~b | awk '{print $2}') une des beautés d'aptitude est de pouvoir travailler avec les filtres, une autre est de pouvoir choisir finement le format de sortie. j'aurais donc tendance à en profiter pour ré

Re: aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

excellent ces commandes, difficile à trouver de nos jours, j'utilise rarement aptitutde mais toujours en cas de paquets cassés ou il excelle. J'ai essayé snap mais ça ne m'a pas convaincu, mon outils c'est synaptic ou apt + aptitude pour la chirurgie ! lol Le 19/10/2018 à 15:51, Gabriel

Re: aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018, Raphaël POITEVIN wrote: Pierre Frenkiel writes: Par contre, aptitude -f install se plante, car il n'arrive pas à se débarraser de systemd, qui s'est introduit à l'insu de mon plein gré. Chaque essai pour le purger se termine par: systemd is the active init

Re: aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

J'aimerais savoir comment "switcher" pour un autre? Impossible ! Systemd remplace init et est indispensable au démarrage du système et à la gestion des services. Enfin en tous cas, si c’est possible, heureusement que ça ne se fait pas comme ça au risque de mettre en rideau tout le

Re: aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

Pierre Frenkiel writes: > Par contre, aptitude -f install se plante, car il n'arrive pas à se > débarraser > de systemd, qui s'est introduit à l'insu de mon plein gré. > Chaque essai pour le purger se termine par: > > systemd is the active init system, please switch

Re: aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018, Gabriel Moreau wrote: aptitude install $(aptitude search ~b | awk '{print $2}') apt-get --purge autoremove $(deborphan) dpkg --purge $(dpkg --get-selections | grep deinstall | cut -f 1) En général, cela remet le système d'aplomb suite au méli-mélo d'apt (très rare et

Re: aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

derrière. Alors on fait # Correction des paquetages à problèmes aptitude install $(aptitude search ~b | awk '{print $2}') Et aussi parfois : # paquetages cassés apt-get --purge autoremove $(deborphan) dpkg --purge $(dpkg --get-selections | grep deinstall | cut -f 1) aptitude -f install En

Re: aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 07:31:30PM +0200, Haricophile wrote: > > Le système de résolution des dépendances est différent. Celui d'aptitude > > peut > > donner de meilleurs résultats (ou pas) en cas d'upgrade massif. > > Je n'ai jamais été ennuyé par Aptitude en cas d'upg

Re: aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

Le Tue, 16 Oct 2018 18:53:04 +0200, Dominique Dumont a écrit : > Le système de résolution des dépendances est différent. Celui d'aptitude peut > donner de meilleurs résultats (ou pas) en cas d'upgrade massif. Je n'ai jamais été ennuyé par Aptitude en cas d'upgrade massif, en to

Re: aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

On Monday, 15 October 2018 08:47:59 CEST Marc Chantreux wrote: > je ne comprend pas pourquoi, apres toutes ces années et des rumeurs > (certes lointaines maintenant) sur le fait que aptitude allait être le > frontend recommandé, non seulement l'outils ne s'est pas imposé mais > il y

Re: aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

oir les différentes version d'un logiciel > 'e' pour examiner les possibilités de réparer un conflit ou un problème > La ligne de statut qui explique les solutions possibles > Sinon, on peut aussi l'utiliser en ligne de commande (exemple du 'man > aptitude'): > $ aptitude versio

Re: aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

'v' pour voir les différentes version d'un logiciel 'e' pour examiner les possibilités de réparer un conflit ou un problème La ligne de statut qui explique les solutions possibles Sinon, on peut aussi l'utiliser en ligne de commande (exemple du 'man aptitude'): $ aptitude versions --group-by=none

Re: aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

salut, > Aptitude est sympa sur un poste utilisateur mais sur des serveurs c'est > un enfer et j'ai eu beaucoup de déconvenues avec quand il s'agit de > manipuler un logiciel et ses dépendances pour le rétrograder ou le faire > arriver à une version précise. ah ben c'est drôle pa

Re : aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

Le 15/10/2018 09:25:54, hamster a écrit : > Quand j'ai besoin de faire un peu plus que apt update && apt upgrade, > je dégaine tout de suite synaptic. Beaucoup plus facile a prendre en main > qu'aptitude. aptitude aussi connaît update, safe-upgrade, full-upgrade et search. ;-)

Re: aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

la situation pourrait évoluer et comment ? aptitude présente aussi le défaut (dans mon cas rédhibitoire) de nécessiter un apprentissage nettement plus important pour arriver a l'utiliser pour un usage basique. Je trouve une bonne chose que les outils par défaut soient des outils simples utilisab

Re: aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

Salut, Personnellement et professionnellement, je ne jure que par apt-get. Aptitude est sympa sur un poste utilisateur mais sur des serveurs c'est un enfer et j'ai eu beaucoup de déconvenues avec quand il s'agit de manipuler un logiciel et ses dépendances pour le rétrograder ou le faire arriver

aptitude (vs Re: apt vs apt-get)

salut à tous, je change volontairement de thread et de titre parceque ca n'est que vaguement lié mais la discution lancée par Pierre m'inspire une autre question. depuis que je suis passé sous aptitude (plus de 10 ans), je ne connais aucun outils qui soit aussi plaisant pour gérer les paquets

/home/rdiez/.aptitude/config owned by root

lar. Such permission side-effects are well documented on the Internet. Unfortunately, I only found out about it recently. When scanning all my files under my home directory, I noticed that /home/rdiez/.aptitude/config was owned by root. I guess that is not desirable. However, Aptitude

Re: How to execute user's scripts when upgrading a certain package via apt/aptitude

On 2018-03-30 04:00, John Crawley (johnraff) wrote: > On 2018-03-29 09:15, Abdullah Ramazanoglu wrote: >> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 20:00:34 +0200 Mikhail Morfikov said: >>> Is there some variable that holds, for instance, a list of the >>> packages that apt wants to upgrade? In such way it would be

Re: How to execute user's scripts when upgrading a certain package via apt/aptitude

On 2018-03-29 09:15, Abdullah Ramazanoglu wrote: On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 20:00:34 +0200 Mikhail Morfikov said: Is there some variable that holds, for instance, a list of the packages that apt wants to upgrade? In such way it would be easy to set this up. apt list --upgradable will print out a

Re: How to execute user's scripts when upgrading a certain package via apt/aptitude

On 2018-03-29 01:03, John Crawley (johnraff) wrote: > On 2018-03-29 03:40, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:18:24PM +0200, Mikhail Morfikov wrote: >>> On 2018-03-28 20:12, Sven Joachim wrote: >>> I really thought there's some easy way to include user's scripts when you >>>

Re: How to execute user's scripts when upgrading a certain package via apt/aptitude

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 20:00:34 +0200 Mikhail Morfikov said: > Is there some variable that holds, for instance, a list of the > packages that apt wants to upgrade? In such way it would be easy to > set this up. On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 20:18:24 +0200 Mikhail Morfikov said: > But I will try to do

Re: How to execute user's scripts when upgrading a certain package via apt/aptitude

On 2018-03-29 03:40, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: I really thought there's some easy way to include user's scripts when you want to make some additional changes to the upgraded packages, but it looks like the apt mechanism is a little bit limited. But I will try to do something with the trigger and

Re: How to execute user's scripts when upgrading a certain package via apt/aptitude

On 2018-03-29 03:40, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:18:24PM +0200, Mikhail Morfikov wrote: On 2018-03-28 20:12, Sven Joachim wrote: I really thought there's some easy way to include user's scripts when you want to make some additional changes to the upgraded packages, but it

Re: How to execute user's scripts when upgrading a certain package via apt/aptitude

On 2018-03-28 21:25, David Wright wrote: > On Wed 28 Mar 2018 at 20:00:34 (+0200), Mikhail Morfikov wrote: >> On 2018-03-28 18:58, Andy Smith wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:29:06PM +0200, Mikhail Morfikov wrote: >>>> Is there a way to pass some extra commands/

Re: How to execute user's scripts when upgrading a certain package via apt/aptitude

On Wed 28 Mar 2018 at 20:00:34 (+0200), Mikhail Morfikov wrote: > On 2018-03-28 18:58, Andy Smith wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:29:06PM +0200, Mikhail Morfikov wrote: > >> Is there a way to pass some extra commands/script to apt/aptitude so when > >&g

Re: How to execute user's scripts when upgrading a certain package via apt/aptitude

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:18:24PM +0200, Mikhail Morfikov wrote: > On 2018-03-28 20:12, Sven Joachim wrote: [...] > > It requires you to create your own package (since there is no other way > > to register triggers in dpkg) [...] > I really

Re: How to execute user's scripts when upgrading a certain package via apt/aptitude

>>>> basically >>>> stop working and they have to be removed and recreated manually after the >>>> upgrade is done. >>>> >>>> Is there a way to pass some extra commands/script to apt/aptitude so when >>>> the >>>> fi

Re: How to execute user's scripts when upgrading a certain package via apt/aptitude

ose hard links >>> are >>> used as additional executable files to be profiled in AppArmor. But when I >>> upgrade my system, and firefox is on the package list, the hard links >>> basically >>> stop working and they have to be removed and recreate

Re: How to execute user's scripts when upgrading a certain package via apt/aptitude

On 2018-03-28 18:58, Andy Smith wrote: > Hi Mikhail, > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:29:06PM +0200, Mikhail Morfikov wrote: >> Is there a way to pass some extra commands/script to apt/aptitude so when the >> firefox package is to be upgraded, it would recreate the links aut

Re: How to execute user's scripts when upgrading a certain package via apt/aptitude

ed in AppArmor. But when I >> upgrade my system, and firefox is on the package list, the hard links >> basically >> stop working and they have to be removed and recreated manually after the >> upgrade is done. >> >> Is there a way to pass some extra commands/script to apt/apti

Re: How to execute user's scripts when upgrading a certain package via apt/aptitude

t; basically > stop working and they have to be removed and recreated manually after the > upgrade is done. > > Is there a way to pass some extra commands/script to apt/aptitude so when the > firefox package is to be upgraded, it would recreate the links automatically? You could use a dpkg

Re: How to execute user's scripts when upgrading a certain package via apt/aptitude

Hi Mikhail, On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:29:06PM +0200, Mikhail Morfikov wrote: > Is there a way to pass some extra commands/script to apt/aptitude so when the > firefox package is to be upgraded, it would recreate the links automatically? I've never tried it but looking at "man apt.con

How to execute user's scripts when upgrading a certain package via apt/aptitude

. Is there a way to pass some extra commands/script to apt/aptitude so when the firefox package is to be upgraded, it would recreate the links automatically? -- Morfik signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Aptitude package manager "package" Solved

Hi all: I appreciate everyone’s answer, now I’m clear that “aptitude” is still one of the main tool for package managing. I installed from a CD Rom created by jigdo and I verified myself the iso image with md5sum and sha1sums. The only different thing I did from previous installations

Re: Packages web page, was Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

On Wed 24 Jan 2018 at 16:38:24 (+), Curt wrote: > On 2018-01-24, <to...@tuxteam.de> <to...@tuxteam.de> wrote: > > > >> > [1] https://packages.debian.org/ > >> > [2] > >> > https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=aptitude=names=a

Re: Packages web page, was Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

consider using a longer keyword >> or more keywords." > > I do use that page as a second source, whenever I don't understand > what apt/aptitude are trying to tell me -- or whenever I'm looking > up something for a distribution I currently don't have access t

Re: Packages web page, was Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

that the >> > >package is not marked with the Debian icon >indicating that the >> > >package is not supported. >> > > >> > On my system (Debian sid) aptitude has the Debian logo in synaptics. >> >> Folks, learn to use the web site. Just surf o

Re: Packages web page, was Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

On 2018-01-24, <to...@tuxteam.de> <to...@tuxteam.de> wrote: > >> > [1] https://packages.debian.org/ >> > [2] >> > https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=aptitude=names=all=all >> >> Hm. I had occasion to go to ¹ yesterday.

Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018, OECT T wrote: Hi all: I just installed Debian Stretch 9.3.0 and noticed that the Aptitude package was not installed by default. I searched into Synaptics package manager and noticed that the package is not marked with the Debian icon indicating that the package

Re: Packages web page, was Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

eef OECT T <oect_1...@hotmail.com>: > > > > [...] > > > > > >I searched into Synaptics package manager and noticed that the > > > >package is not marked with the Debian icon >indicating that the > > > >package is not supported.

Packages web page, was Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

and noticed that the > > >package is not marked with the Debian icon >indicating that the > > >package is not supported. > > > > > On my system (Debian sid) aptitude has the Debian logo in synaptics. > > Folks, learn to use the web site. Just surf over to

Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

On Tue 23 Jan 2018 at 19:44:19 +, OECT T wrote: > I just installed Debian Stretch 9.3.0 and noticed that the Aptitude > package was not installed by default. The correct conclusion to draw from this is that aptitude does not have a Priority: higher than optional in stretch. > I

Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 19:44:19 + OECT T <oect_1...@hotmail.com> wrote: Hello OECT, >I just installed Debian Stretch 9.3.0 and noticed that the Aptitude >package was not installed by default. With a Priority of 'optional', it won't be installed at installation time unless you

Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

lways glad to help. > >For aptitude, it turns out that aptitude is in wheezy (aka 7, aka [...] > Maybe you could point the OP a way how to find out what is wrong? Well, I did the start by pointing out how to double-check whatever Synaptics is displaying. Since I don't have much experience with it (I

Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 07:44:19PM +, OECT T wrote: I just installed Debian Stretch 9.3.0 and noticed that the Aptitude package was not installed by default. I searched into Synaptics package manager and noticed that the package is not marked with the Debian icon indicating that the package

Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

package manager and noticed that the >package is not marked with the Debian icon >indicating that the >package is not supported. > On my system (Debian sid) aptitude has the Debian logo in synaptics. Folks, learn to use the web site. Just surf over to [1] and you can query t

Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

arked with the Debian icon >indicating that the > >package is not supported. > > > On my system (Debian sid) aptitude has the Debian logo in synaptics. Folks, learn to use the web site. Just surf over to [1] and you can query the current package database. For example, entering &qu

Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

Op Tue, 23 Jan 2018 20:44:19 +0100 schreef OECT T <oect_1...@hotmail.com>: Hi all: I just installed Debian Stretch 9.3.0 and noticed that the Aptitude package was not installed by default. I searched into Synaptics package manager and noticed that the package is not

Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

On 1/23/2018 8:44 PM, OECT T wrote: What other command line packages are recommended instead of Aptitude? https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-pkgtools.en.html -- John Doe

Aptitude package manager "package"

Hi all: I just installed Debian Stretch 9.3.0 and noticed that the Aptitude package was not installed by default. I searched into Synaptics package manager and noticed that the package is not marked with the Debian icon indicating that the package is not supported. I would appreciate any

Re: Re: apt or apt-get equivalent of 'aptitude --show-why upgrade'

tall the > package > 'pulsaudio' which I've been avoiding successfully so far. That's a little weird. According to the apt-get man page, 'upgrade' will never install a package which is not already installed. Sorry, I was a bit imprecise. The three tools (apt-get, aptitude & apt)

Re: apt or apt-get equivalent of 'aptitude --show-why upgrade'

On 2017-08-02 at 14:44, Felix Miata wrote: > Christoph Groth composed on 2017-08-02 17:44 (UTC+0200): > >> I'm running Debian testing and would like to upgrade from >> "oldtesting" (jessie) to current testing. I noticed that 'apt >> upgrade' as well as 'apt-get upgrade' want to install the

Re: apt or apt-get equivalent of 'aptitude --show-why upgrade'

Christoph Groth composed on 2017-08-02 17:44 (UTC+0200): > I'm running Debian testing and would like to upgrade from > "oldtesting" (jessie) to current testing. I noticed that 'apt > upgrade' as well as 'apt-get upgrade' want to install the package > 'pulsaudio' which I've been avoiding

Re: apt or apt-get equivalent of 'aptitude --show-why upgrade'

age: pulseaudio Pin: version * Pin-Priority: -1 but I can't swear that that will actually work properly. > Specifically, aptitude has a '--show-why' option. I checked that > neither 'apt' nor 'apt-get' have an equivalent option. Is there some > other way to know why 'pulsaudio' is to be in

apt or apt-get equivalent of 'aptitude --show-why upgrade'

pulseaudio after the upgrade, but I wonder whether a more elegant solution does not exist. Specifically, aptitude has a '--show-why' option. I checked that neither 'apt' nor 'apt-get' have an equivalent option. Is there some other way to know why 'pulsaudio' is to be installed? Of course I co

Re: Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

Mark Fletcher wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 09:51:18AM +0200, Sven Hartge wrote: >> Mark Fletcher wrote: >>> Possibly stupid question -- this is Jessie, does this mechanism of >>> dropping the files in trusted.gpg.d work properly in Jessie or is it

Re: Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

on that file. It responded "OK", and after that aptitude update runs with zero errors. Putting the file in trusted.gpg.d didn't work, importing it using apt-key add did. Given Sven's experience to the contrary, I am at a loss to explain that. But what is important to me for now

Re: Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 09:51:18AM +0200, Sven Hartge wrote: > Mark Fletcher wrote: > > > Possibly stupid question -- this is Jessie, does this mechanism of > > dropping the files in trusted.gpg.d work properly in Jessie or is it > > new? > > It works properly. I have

Re: Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

Op 28-03-17 om 07:48 schreef Frank: Op 28-03-17 om 00:57 schreef Mark Fletcher: Right, for the key issue, that has taken me right back to where I started: W: There is no public key available for the following key IDs: 1397BC53640DB551 Odd. If you do a web search with that number, you'll find

Re: Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

Op 28-03-17 om 09:54 schreef Sven Hartge: in this case we know this is the ID of Googles key, but my argument still holds in general In general, yes.

Re: Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

Frank wrote: > Op 28-03-17 om 00:57 schreef Mark Fletcher: >> Right, for the key issue, that has taken me right back to where I started: >> >> W: There is no public key available for the following key IDs: >> 1397BC53640DB551 > Odd. If you do a web search with that number,

Re: Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

Mark Fletcher wrote: > Possibly stupid question -- this is Jessie, does this mechanism of > dropping the files in trusted.gpg.d work properly in Jessie or is it > new? It works properly. I have several hundred servers as proof. Grüße, Sven. -- Sigmentation fault. Core

Re: Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

Op 28-03-17 om 00:57 schreef Mark Fletcher: Right, for the key issue, that has taken me right back to where I started: W: There is no public key available for the following key IDs: 1397BC53640DB551 Odd. If you do a web search with that number, you'll find a lot of posts mentioning this

Re: Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 06:06:05PM +0200, Frank wrote: > Op 27-03-17 om 17:14 schreef Mark Fletcher: > >Well, switching from http.debian.net to deb.debian.org seems to have > >fixed that one. The error relating to that has gone away. > > Don't be surprised if it comes back. I think it may just

Re: Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

Op 27-03-17 om 17:14 schreef Mark Fletcher: Well, switching from http.debian.net to deb.debian.org seems to have fixed that one. The error relating to that has gone away. Don't be surprised if it comes back. I think it may just have selected a different mirror now, but you can't be certain it

Re: Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

all the other files in that directory were owned by root I made sure this one was too. And I renamed it to add .gpg on the end. It seems to have made the problem noticeably worse. On doing an aptitude update I now get: W: GPG error: http://dl.google.com stable Release: The following signature

Re: Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

Mark Fletcher wrote: > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 08:51:55PM +0200, Sven Hartge wrote: >> Frank wrote: >>> The hash sum mismatch is usually a passing issue: updating while the >>> repository/mirror itself is in the process of updating. If it keeps >>>

Re: Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

Op 27-03-17 om 01:23 schreef Mark Fletcher: On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 08:51:55PM +0200, Sven Hartge wrote: Frank wrote: The hash sum mismatch is usually a passing issue: updating while the repository/mirror itself is in the process of updating. If it keeps showing up, that

Re: Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 08:51:55PM +0200, Sven Hartge wrote: > Frank wrote: > > > The hash sum mismatch is usually a passing issue: updating while the > > repository/mirror itself is in the process of updating. If it keeps > > showing up, that mirror is probably borked. Try

Re: Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

Nicholas Geovanis wrote: > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Sven Hartge wrote: >> Nicholas Geovanis wrote: >> > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Sven Hartge wrote: No, please do NOT use "apt-key add"

Re: Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Sven Hartge wrote: > Nicholas Geovanis wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Sven Hartge wrote: > >> No, please do NOT use "apt-key add" but instead download the key and > >> put it as a file

Re: Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

Nicholas Geovanis wrote: > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Sven Hartge wrote: >> Frank wrote: >> No, please do NOT use "apt-key add" but instead download the key and >> put it as a file with the suffix ".gpg" into the directory

Re: Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

Hi. On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 13:56:54 -0500 Nicholas Geovanis wrote: > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Sven Hartge wrote: > > > Frank wrote: > > > > > wget -qO- https://dl.google.com/linux/linux_signing_key.pub | sudo > > >

Re: Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Sven Hartge wrote: > Frank wrote: > > > wget -qO- https://dl.google.com/linux/linux_signing_key.pub | sudo > > apt-key add - > > No, please do NOT use "apt-key add" but instead download the key and put > it as a file with

Re: Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

Frank wrote: > The hash sum mismatch is usually a passing issue: updating while the > repository/mirror itself is in the process of updating. If it keeps > showing up, that mirror is probably borked. Try deb.debian.org instead > of http.debian.net. deb.debian.org,

Re: Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

Op 26-03-17 om 18:01 schreef Mark Fletcher: Hello When I run aptitude update I get, amongst the successful update reports, the following error messages: W: There is no public key available for the following key IDs: 1397BC53640DB551 W: Failed to fetch http://http.debian.net/debian/dists

Anyone know what this means when running aptitude update?

Hello When I run aptitude update I get, amongst the successful update reports, the following error messages: W: There is no public key available for the following key IDs: 1397BC53640DB551 W: Failed to fetch http://http.debian.net/debian/dists/jessie-backports/main/i18n/Translation-enIndex

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

On 2017-03-22 07:50:09 +0100, Nemeth Gyorgy wrote: > 2017-03-21 23:02 keltezéssel, Vincent Lefevre írta: > > On 2017-03-21 16:21:25 +0100, Nemeth Gyorgy wrote: > >> 2017-03-21 14:38 keltezéssel, Vincent Lefevre írta: > >>> Yes, but one can't exclude a package listed by apt-listbugs. > >> You can.

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

2017-03-21 23:02 keltezéssel, Vincent Lefevre írta: > On 2017-03-21 16:21:25 +0100, Nemeth Gyorgy wrote: >> 2017-03-21 14:38 keltezéssel, Vincent Lefevre írta: >>> Yes, but one can't exclude a package listed by apt-listbugs. >> You can. Just press 'h' (hold), and don't continue apt-get. > I

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

What I do if I want to use experimental (or sid if I am on testing) is to put the deb-src-lines in my sources.list and then build a package when needed. I find wajig convenient to use (another front end to apt) in this case e.g. $ wajig build julia Regards Johann -- Because experiencing your

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=795228 > > > > this is not the case with aptitude's resolver: > > > > | With the SolutionCost of "removals", aptitude doesn't take into account > > | installing by priorities or non-default releases, it just tries to > > | minimise the remo

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.net> writes: > On 2017-03-21 21:39:40 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: >> On 2017-03-21 21:19 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >> > aptitude ignores the apt preferences. >> >> Huh? At least on my systems, it obeys them.

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

On 2017-03-21 16:21:25 +0100, Nemeth Gyorgy wrote: > 2017-03-21 14:38 keltezéssel, Vincent Lefevre írta: > > Yes, but one can't exclude a package listed by apt-listbugs. > > You can. Just press 'h' (hold), and don't continue apt-get. I didn't know that apt-listbugs could do that. This is not

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

On 2017-03-21 21:39:40 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2017-03-21 21:19 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > aptitude ignores the apt preferences. > > Huh? At least on my systems, it obeys them. Perhaps with your configuration. And this is probably also true when the full resolver

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

se a=testing >> Pin-Priority: 700 >> >> Package: * >> Pin: release a=stable >> Pin-Priority: 650 >> >> Package: * >> Pin: release a=unstable >> Pin-Priority: 600 >> >> Package: * >> Pin: release a=experimental >> Pin-Priority: 550 > > aptitude ignores the apt preferences. Huh? At least on my systems, it obeys them. Cheers, Sven

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

=stable > Pin-Priority: 650 > > Package: * > Pin: release a=unstable > Pin-Priority: 600 > > Package: * > Pin: release a=experimental > Pin-Priority: 550 aptitude ignores the apt preferences. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

2017-03-21 14:38 keltezéssel, Vincent Lefevre írta: > Yes, but one can't exclude a package listed by apt-listbugs. You can. Just press 'h' (hold), and don't continue apt-get. On the next apt-get start this package will be in 'hold' state. And later apt-listbugs will unhold the package

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.net> writes: > I've just noticed that aptitude upgraded packages from unstable to > experimental versions (just with 'U' from the UI) without any warning!!! > Again. > > Is there any replacement? Or a way to make aptitude ignore > experiment

[retraction] aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

On 2017-03-21 12:31:29 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > I've just noticed that aptitude upgraded packages from unstable to > experimental versions (just with 'U' from the UI) without any warning!!! After a closer look, I've found that aptitude was not the culprit here. The apt-show-ve

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >