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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #239988 > unrolled thread

Package priority puzzlement

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

Contents

  Package priority puzzlement craig duncan <gunkilatur@gmail.com> - 2021-09-15 01:20 +0200
    Re: Package priority puzzlement The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-09-15 05:00 +0200
      Re: Package priority puzzlement craig duncan <gunkilatur@gmail.com> - 2021-09-15 08:30 +0200
        Re: Package priority puzzlement Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-09-16 06:20 +0200

#239988 — Package priority puzzlement

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

I just installed Bullseye after -- as a long-time Debian user -- having 
had my hard drive corrupted by USB devices.
I used to run testing, so i thought i would get there, but first i 
wanted to install the apps i wanted, get things working, and then 
migrate to testing.
During the install, i also enabled security-updates.  In fact, i added 
both sid and testing to my sources.list (after booting into new install).

I'm seeing some strange behavior which i cannot figure out when i go to 
upgrade or add packages... best demonstrated by the particular cases i 
am puzzling over.
First:

> cat /etc/apt/apt.conf
> APT::Default-Release "stable";
And there are 9 pre-installed scripts in /etc/apt/apt.conf.d that i 
don't believe are relevant to any of this.

So, when i do: "aptitude safe-upgrade":

> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>   libbotan-2-18{a} libidn12{a}
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
>   libbotan-2-17{u}
> The following packages will be upgraded:
>   libgs9 libgs9-common libperl5.32 libssh-gcrypt-4 openssl perl perl-base
>   perl-modules-5.32 thunderbird
> 9 packages upgraded, 2 newly installed, 1 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
> Need to get 13.0 MB/57.1 MB of archives. After unpacking 252 kB will 
> be used.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]


> # aptitude why libidn12
> i   gimp   Depends libgs9 (>= 8.61.dfsg.1)
> p A libgs9 Depends libidn12 (>= 1.13)


> # apt-cache policy libgs9
> libgs9:
>   Installed: 9.53.3~dfsg-7+deb11u1
>   Candidate: 9.53.3~dfsg-8
>   Version table:
>      9.53.3~dfsg-8 500
>         500 http://deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 Packages
>  *** 9.53.3~dfsg-7+deb11u1 500
>         500 http://security.debian.org/debian-security 
> bullseye-security/main amd64 Packages
>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
>      9.53.3~dfsg-7+b1 500
>         500 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing/main amd64 Packages
>      9.53.3~dfsg-7 990
>         990 http://deb.debian.org/debian bullseye/main amd64 Packages

> # apt-cache policy gimp
> gimp:
>   Installed: 2.10.22-4
>   Candidate: 2.10.22-4
>   Version table:
>      2.10.26-1 500
>         500 http://deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 Packages
>  *** 2.10.22-4 990
>         990 http://deb.debian.org/debian bullseye/main amd64 Packages
>         500 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing/main amd64 Packages
>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

> # apt-cache show libgs9|egrep 'Version|libidn'
> Version: 9.53.3~dfsg-8
> Depends: libgs9-common (= 9.53.3~dfsg-8), poppler-data, libc6 (>= 
> 2.29), libcups2 (>= 2.3~b6), libfontconfig1 (>= 2.12.6), libfreetype6 
> (>= 2.10.1), *libidn12* (>= 1.13), libijs-0.35 (>= 0.35), libjbig2dec0 
> (>= 0.16+20190905), libjpeg62-turbo (>= 1.3.1), liblcms2-2 (>= 2.6), 
> libopenjp2-7 (>= 2.0.0), libpaper1, libpng16-16 (>= 1.6.2-1), libtiff5 
> (>= 4.0.3), zlib1g (>= 1:1.2.0)
> Version: 9.53.3~dfsg-7+deb11u1
> Depends: libgs9-common (= 9.53.3~dfsg-7+deb11u1), poppler-data, libc6 
> (>= 2.29), libcups2 (>= 2.3~b6), libfontconfig1 (>= 2.12.6), 
> libfreetype6 (>= 2.10.1), *libidn11* (>= 1.13), libijs-0.35 (>= 0.35), 
> libjbig2dec0 (>= 0.16+20190905), libjpeg62-turbo (>= 1.3.1), 
> liblcms2-2 (>= 2.6), libopenjp2-7 (>= 2.0.0), libpaper1, libpng16-16 
> (>= 1.6.2-1), libtiff5 (>= 4.0.3), zlib1g (>= 1:1.2.0)
> Version: 9.53.3~dfsg-7+b1
> Depends: libgs9-common (= 9.53.3~dfsg-7), poppler-data, libc6 (>= 
> 2.29), libcups2 (>= 2.3~b6), libfontconfig1 (>= 2.12.6), libfreetype6 
> (>= 2.10.1), *libidn12* (>= 1.13), libijs-0.35 (>= 0.35), libjbig2dec0 
> (>= 0.16+20190905), libjpeg62-turbo (>= 1.3.1), liblcms2-2 (>= 2.6), 
> libopenjp2-7 (>= 2.0.0), libpaper1, libpng16-16 (>= 1.6.2-1), libtiff5 
> (>= 4.0.3), zlib1g (>= 1:1.2.0)
> Version: 9.53.3~dfsg-7
> Depends: libgs9-common (= 9.53.3~dfsg-7), poppler-data, libc6 (>= 
> 2.29), libcups2 (>= 2.3~b6), libfontconfig1 (>= 2.12.6), libfreetype6 
> (>= 2.10.1), *libidn11* (>= 1.13), libijs-0.35 (>= 0.35), libjbig2dec0 
> (>= 0.16+20190905), libjpeg62-turbo (>= 1.3.1), liblcms2-2 (>= 2.6), 
> libopenjp2-7 (>= 2.0.0), libpaper1, libpng16-16 (>= 1.6.2-1), libtiff5 
> (>= 4.0.3), zlib1g (>= 1:1.2.0)

> dpkg -l 'libidn1*'|grep '^i'
> ii  libidn11:amd64 1.33-3       amd64        GNU Libidn library, 
> implementation of IETF IDN specifications


So, libidn11 is currently installed as a dependency of libgs9 from the 
security source.  But it wants to install libidn12, because it's going 
to install libgs9 from sid!

The other package it wanted to "upgrade" shows a similar issue:

> # why libbotan-2-18
> ___________________________
> aptitude why...
> i   lxde        Suggests libreoffice
> p   libreoffice Suggests firefox-esr | thunderbird | firefox
> p   thunderbird Depends  libbotan-2-18 (>= 2.18.1+dfsg)

> # why libbotan-2-17
> ___________________________
> aptitude why...
> iB  thunderbird Depends libbotan-2-17 (>= 2.17.3+dfsg)

Why is this broken?  I installed thunderbird from testing, it was 
broken, reinstalled what had been originally installed, from security... 
all broken.
It *works* perfectly fine.

> # apt-cache policy thunderbird
> thunderbird:
>   Installed: 1:78.14.0-1~deb11u1
>   Candidate: 1:78.14.0-1
>   Version table:
>      1:78.14.0-1 500
>         500 http://deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 Packages
>  *** 1:78.14.0-1~deb11u1 500
>         500 http://security.debian.org/debian-security 
> bullseye-security/main amd64 Packages
>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
>      1:78.13.0-1 500
>         500 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing/main amd64 Packages
>      1:78.12.0-1 990
>         990 http://deb.debian.org/debian bullseye/main amd64 Packages

> # apt-cache policy libbotan-2-17
> libbotan-2-17:
>   Installed: 2.17.3+dfsg-2
>   Candidate: 2.17.3+dfsg-2
>   Version table:
>      2.17.3+dfsg-3 500
>         500 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing/main amd64 Packages
>         500 http://deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 Packages
>  *** 2.17.3+dfsg-2 990
>         990 http://deb.debian.org/debian bullseye/main amd64 Packages
>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

> # apt-cache policy libbotan-2-18
> libbotan-2-18:
>   Installed: (none)
>   Candidate: 2.18.1+dfsg-3
>   Version table:
>      2.18.1+dfsg-3 500
>         500 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing/main amd64 Packages
>         500 http://deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 Packages

> # aptitude install thunderbird
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>   libbotan-2-18{a}
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
>   libbotan-2-17{u}
> The following packages will be upgraded:
>   thunderbird
> 1 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 1 to remove and 9 not upgraded.
> Need to get 0 B/44.1 MB of archives. After unpacking 16.4 kB will be 
> freed.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]

Again, it's trying to install thunderbird from sid!  Which is the only 
one that depends on libbotan-2-18.

It's probably a bad idea to mix security updates and testing (i just 
added sid to the sources because i want to know what's available, but 
not install anything from there... yet).
But i'd like some insight into what it's doing and why.
Thanks for any insight.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#239990

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2021-09-14 at 18:56, craig duncan wrote:

> I just installed Bullseye after -- as a long-time Debian user -- having 
> had my hard drive corrupted by USB devices.
> I used to run testing, so i thought i would get there, but first i 
> wanted to install the apps i wanted, get things working, and then 
> migrate to testing.
> During the install, i also enabled security-updates.  In fact, i added 
> both sid and testing to my sources.list (after booting into new install).
> 
> I'm seeing some strange behavior which i cannot figure out when i go to 
> upgrade or add packages... best demonstrated by the particular cases i 
> am puzzling over.

>> # aptitude why libidn12
>> i   gimp   Depends libgs9 (>= 8.61.dfsg.1)
>> p A libgs9 Depends libidn12 (>= 1.13)
> 
>> # apt-cache policy libgs9
>> libgs9:
>>   Installed: 9.53.3~dfsg-7+deb11u1
>>   Candidate: 9.53.3~dfsg-8
>>   Version table:
>>      9.53.3~dfsg-8 500
>>         500 http://deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 Packages
>>  *** 9.53.3~dfsg-7+deb11u1 500
>>         500 http://security.debian.org/debian-security 
>> bullseye-security/main amd64 Packages
>>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
>>      9.53.3~dfsg-7+b1 500
>>         500 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing/main amd64 Packages
>>      9.53.3~dfsg-7 990
>>         990 http://deb.debian.org/debian bullseye/main amd64 Packages

> So, libidn11 is currently installed as a dependency of libgs9 from the 
> security source.  But it wants to install libidn12, because it's going 
> to install libgs9 from sid!

Notice that the currently-installed version of libgs9 is from
bullseye-security/main, which has a priority of 500.

sid also has a priority of 500, and the libgs9 package available in sid
has a higher version.

Since the priority of the higher-version package is not lower than that
of the currently-installed package, apt decides it's OK to upgrade.

This strikes me as perfectly fine. If you don't want it to happen, just
adjust the relative priorities of those two repositories.

> The other package it wanted to "upgrade" shows a similar issue:
> 
>> # why libbotan-2-18
>> ___________________________
>> aptitude why...

This invocation and output isn't a pattern I'm familiar with; is it a
tool I just don't happen to have installed, or is it a local script or
similar that you have in place?

>> i   lxde        Suggests libreoffice
>> p   libreoffice Suggests firefox-esr | thunderbird | firefox
>> p   thunderbird Depends  libbotan-2-18 (>= 2.18.1+dfsg)
> 
>> # why libbotan-2-17
>> ___________________________
>> aptitude why...
>> iB  thunderbird Depends libbotan-2-17 (>= 2.17.3+dfsg)
> 
> Why is this broken?  I installed thunderbird from testing, it was 
> broken, reinstalled what had been originally installed, from security... 
> all broken.

I'm not sure I see what's broken about the above; what I see there looks
just fine.

> It *works* perfectly fine.
> 
>> # apt-cache policy thunderbird
>> thunderbird:
>>   Installed: 1:78.14.0-1~deb11u1
>>   Candidate: 1:78.14.0-1
>>   Version table:
>>      1:78.14.0-1 500
>>         500 http://deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 Packages
>>  *** 1:78.14.0-1~deb11u1 500
>>         500 http://security.debian.org/debian-security 
>> bullseye-security/main amd64 Packages
>>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
>>      1:78.13.0-1 500
>>         500 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing/main amd64 Packages
>>      1:78.12.0-1 990
>>         990 http://deb.debian.org/debian bullseye/main amd64 Packages

Again, you'll notice that the installed package version is from
bullseye-security/main and has priority 500, which is the same priority
as the newer-version package available from sid.

>> # apt-cache policy libbotan-2-17
>> libbotan-2-17:
>>   Installed: 2.17.3+dfsg-2
>>   Candidate: 2.17.3+dfsg-2
>>   Version table:
>>      2.17.3+dfsg-3 500
>>         500 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing/main amd64 Packages
>>         500 http://deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 Packages
>>  *** 2.17.3+dfsg-2 990
>>         990 http://deb.debian.org/debian bullseye/main amd64 Packages
>>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> 
>> # apt-cache policy libbotan-2-18
>> libbotan-2-18:
>>   Installed: (none)
>>   Candidate: 2.18.1+dfsg-3
>>   Version table:
>>      2.18.1+dfsg-3 500
>>         500 http://deb.debian.org/debian testing/main amd64 Packages
>>         500 http://deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 Packages

In order to satisfy the dependencies of the newer same-priority package
(thunderbird), apt is willing to install another package of that same
priority (libbotan-2-18) at the expense of a higher-priority package
(libbotan-2-17) which is no longer needed by the newer thunderbird
version.

(Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the priorities didn't have
anything to do with it by the time we get down to this package, and the
satisfying of dependencies for the other packages which are already
going to be upgraded were the only factor.)

> Again, it's trying to install thunderbird from sid!  Which is the only 
> one that depends on libbotan-2-18.
> 
> It's probably a bad idea to mix security updates and testing (i just 
> added sid to the sources because i want to know what's available, but 
> not install anything from there... yet).
> But i'd like some insight into what it's doing and why.
> Thanks for any insight.

I hope the pointer to the matching priorities on the two different
repositories was a helpful hint.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

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

#239993

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

> I hope the pointer to the matching priorities on the two different
> repositories was a helpful hint.
>
> -- 
>     The Wanderer

Yes... i suppose that explains the behavior.  Except this seems to mean 
that setting APT::Default-Release "stable" in apt.conf has no effect.
Before my previous installation got corrupted, i had an 
/etc/apt/preferences file where i'd set the priorities for testing above 
sid above stable.
Without that file, though, i don't see what effect the Default-Release 
is having.

So i stuck some appropriate priorities in /etc/apt/preferences (stable 
above testing above sid) and it now behaves as i expect.
*Except*... not when i use aptitude... only apt-get.  Using aptitude 
(which i try to do exclusively) it behaves exactly the same way with or 
without:

> Explanation: This is a comment line
> Package: *
> Pin: release a=unstable
> Pin-Priority: 750
>
> Package: *
> Pin: release a=testing
> Pin-Priority: 850
>
> Package: *
> Pin: release a=stable
> Pin-Priority: 900

Thanks for getting me past being fixed on thinking that specifying 
"stable" as the default release should do something.
Now to figure out why aptitude seems to ignore this file.

Also, yes, i usually use "shortcuts" for all those aptitude commands.
And the package has a broken dependency (wrongly, it seems to me), 
because that's what the 'B' means in the flags output.

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

#240034

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Ma, 14 sep 21, 23:06:54, craig duncan wrote:
> > I hope the pointer to the matching priorities on the two different
> > repositories was a helpful hint.
> 
> Yes... i suppose that explains the behavior.  Except this seems to mean that
> setting APT::Default-Release "stable" in apt.conf has no effect.

It does (barring typos, etc.) and 'apt policy' without any package will 
confirm this[1].

What you're missing is that "stable-security" is not "stable" ;)

[1] please post its full output if something is still unclear

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web