Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #226940 > unrolled thread

How do I blacklist a package?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  How do I blacklist a package? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-09-12 22:30 +0200
    Re: How do I blacklist a package? Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-09-12 22:40 +0200
      Re: How do I blacklist a package? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-09-13 23:50 +0200
      Re: How do I blacklist a package? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-10-13 00:30 +0200
        Re: How do I blacklist a package? Michael Lange <klappnase@freenet.de> - 2020-10-13 01:20 +0200
    Re: How do I blacklist a package? didier gaumet <didier.gaumet@gmail.com> - 2020-10-13 10:50 +0200
      Re: How do I blacklist a package? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-10-13 16:40 +0200
        Re: How do I blacklist a package? didier gaumet <didier.gaumet@gmail.com> - 2020-10-13 21:30 +0200

#226940 — How do I blacklist a package?

APT keeps wanting to install `sse2-support` on my dear Thinkpad X30, but
that machine's CPU does not support SSE2, so the package's installation
always fails.

How can I tell APT that it shouldn't *try* to install `sse2-support`?

I tried to put a "hold" on the package with

    echo "sse2-support" | dpkg --set-selections

but it apparently only works to pin an *installed* package to it current
version, whereas I'd need it to "hold" the "uninstalled" status.

Any hint?


        Stefan

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#226942

Stefan Monnier wrote: 
> APT keeps wanting to install `sse2-support` on my dear Thinkpad X30, but
> that machine's CPU does not support SSE2, so the package's installation
> always fails.
> 
> How can I tell APT that it shouldn't *try* to install `sse2-support`?
> 
> I tried to put a "hold" on the package with
> 
>     echo "sse2-support" | dpkg --set-selections
> 
> but it apparently only works to pin an *installed* package to it current
> version, whereas I'd need it to "hold" the "uninstalled" status.
> 
> Any hint?
> 

In /etc/apt/preferences.d/, create no-sse2-support:

# never install this package, ever
Package: sse2-support
Pin: release *
Pin-Priority: -1



-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#226971

>> APT keeps wanting to install `sse2-support` on my dear Thinkpad X30, but
>> that machine's CPU does not support SSE2, so the package's installation
>> always fails.
>> 
>> How can I tell APT that it shouldn't *try* to install `sse2-support`?
>> 
>> I tried to put a "hold" on the package with
>> 
>>     echo "sse2-support" | dpkg --set-selections
>> 
>> but it apparently only works to pin an *installed* package to it current
>> version, whereas I'd need it to "hold" the "uninstalled" status.
>> 
>> Any hint?
>> 
>
> In /etc/apt/preferences.d/, create no-sse2-support:
>
> # never install this package, ever
> Package: sse2-support
> Pin: release *
> Pin-Priority: -1

That looks promising, thanks.
Will let you know when I get back to my X30 to try it out,


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#227752

> In /etc/apt/preferences.d/, create no-sse2-support:
>
> # never install this package, ever
> Package: sse2-support
> Pin: release *
> Pin-Priority: -1

Thanks, it seems to be working.

It's a bit annoying that the resulting constraints aren't easily visible
(e.g. APT just keep searching or tells you "no solution" but doesn't
tell you that FOO can't be installed because it depends on BAR which
depends on BAZ which depends on `sse2-support`), but it's better
than nothing.


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#227753

Hi,

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 18:29:14 -0400
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

> > In /etc/apt/preferences.d/, create no-sse2-support:
> >
> > # never install this package, ever
> > Package: sse2-support
> > Pin: release *
> > Pin-Priority: -1
> 
> Thanks, it seems to be working.
> 
> It's a bit annoying that the resulting constraints aren't easily visible
> (e.g. APT just keep searching or tells you "no solution" but doesn't
> tell you that FOO can't be installed because it depends on BAR which
> depends on BAZ which depends on `sse2-support`), but it's better
> than nothing.

I am not 100% sure, but I think calling

 apt-mark hold sse2-support

while the package is not installed should prevent the package from being
installed, too, and I think this might be better regarding "visibility".

Regards

Michael


.-.. .. ...- .   .-.. --- -. --.   .- -. -..   .--. .-. --- ... .--. . .-.

Totally illogical, there was no chance.
		-- Spock, "The Galileo Seven", stardate 2822.3

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#227762

Hello Stefan,

I have no knowledge of this matter, but from what I understand from sse2-support package page (1), by forbidding its installation you will get rid of your error message without being rid of the error: that is précisely its purpose to warn you, by failing to install, that a package that has a dependancy on the sse2-support package needs your processor to support SSE2.
I suppose you could then, by forbidding sse2-support package install, authorize the install of a package that depends on it (apt redpends sse2-support should give you a list of candidates) and the executable could crash, run slowly, or worse: fail silently by giving you results that seem right but are wrong.

(1) https://packages.debian.org/buster/sse2-support

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#227767

> I have no knowledge of this matter, but from what I understand from
> sse2-support package page (1), by forbidding its installation you will get
> rid of your error message without being rid of the error: that is précisely
> its purpose to warn you, by failing to install, that a package that has
> a dependancy on the sse2-support package needs your processor to
> support SSE2.

AFAIK, by preventing its installation, I also prevent installation of all
packages which depend on it (barring bugs in `dpkg`, of course).


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#227778

My bad , you 're right :-)
Not only apt and apt-get play safe here but even aptitude does not react as I was thinking it would: the three of them refuse to install a package when they meet a forbidden dependency

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web