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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #269577 > unrolled thread

moving some packages back to bookworm stable

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

Contents

  moving some packages back to bookworm stable Michael Grant <mgrant@grant.org> - 2024-05-27 16:10 +0200
    Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Michael Grant <mgrant@grant.org> - 2024-05-27 16:30 +0200
      Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-27 16:40 +0200
      Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 17:20 +0200
    Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-27 16:30 +0200
    Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2024-05-27 17:00 +0200
    Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-05-27 17:10 +0200
      Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2024-05-27 19:10 +0200
        Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-05-27 20:10 +0200
          Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2024-05-27 20:50 +0200
          Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Detlef Vollmann <dv@vollmann.ch> - 2024-05-27 22:00 +0200
            Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2024-05-28 01:30 +0200
          Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 05:10 +0200
          Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-05-28 06:30 +0200
            Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2024-05-28 14:40 +0200
    Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> - 2024-05-27 17:40 +0200
      Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Michael Grant <mgrant@grant.org> - 2024-05-27 18:30 +0200
        Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2024-05-27 20:10 +0200
          Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Michael Grant <mgrant@grant.org> - 2024-05-28 12:20 +0200
            Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-28 13:10 +0200
              Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Michael Grant <mgrant@grant.org> - 2024-05-28 13:10 +0200
                Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-28 14:10 +0200
                  Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Michael Grant <mgrant@grant.org> - 2024-05-28 15:20 +0200
                    Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-28 16:30 +0200
                      Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Michael Grant <mgrant@grant.org> - 2024-05-28 19:10 +0200
                        Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-05-28 19:20 +0200
                        Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 19:30 +0200
                          Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Michael Grant <mgrant@grant.org> - 2024-05-28 20:00 +0200
                            Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 06:10 +0200
            Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable fxkl47BF@protonmail.com - 2024-05-28 15:00 +0200
        Re: moving some packages back to bookworm stable Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d63c@ewoof.net> - 2024-05-27 22:30 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#269577 — moving some packages back to bookworm stable

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

I needed to install a version of sendmail from testing a while back to
test it.  On friday, I ran 'apt upgrade' which looked like it was
going to uninstall and then reinstall the sendmail packages.  I let it
run, when it was done, only some of the sendmail packages had
re-installed.  Basically, I shot myself in the foot with the
dependencies.  In the end, this was not a good idea.

I really do not want to reinstall the entire box, there's a lot of
config that has gone into this over the years.  What I'd like to do is
just get back to stable bookworm packages.

Before the update, these are the packages that were installed from
testing:

$ apt-show-versions | grep testing
libmilter1.0.1:amd64/testing 8.18.1-3 uptodate
libsasl2-2:amd64/testing 2.1.28+dfsg1-4+b1 upgradeable to 2.1.28+dfsg1-6
libsasl2-modules:amd64/testing 2.1.28+dfsg1-4+b1 upgradeable to 2.1.28+dfsg1-6
libsasl2-modules-db:amd64/testing 2.1.28+dfsg1-4+b1 upgradeable to 2.1.28+dfsg1-6
sasl2-bin:amd64/testing 2.1.28+dfsg1-4+b1 upgradeable to 2.1.28+dfsg1-6
sendmail:all/testing 8.18.1-3 uptodate
sendmail-base:all/testing 8.18.1-1 upgradeable to 8.18.1-3
sendmail-bin:amd64/testing 8.18.1-1 upgradeable to 8.18.1-3
sendmail-cf:all/testing 8.18.1-1 upgradeable to 8.18.1-3
sensible-mda:amd64/testing 8.18.1-3 uptodate

After a day of frantically trying to get things working again, I found
I had some package that depended on some t64 version of some library.
In the end, I think it was sasl2-bin.  I ended up installing sasl2-bin
from testing, then sendmail started working again.  This is what I
ended up with installed from testing:

$ apt-show-versions | grep testing
db-util:all/testing 5.3.3 uptodate
db5.3-util:amd64/testing 5.3.28+dfsg2-7 uptodate
libc-bin:amd64/testing 2.38-11 uptodate
libc-dev-bin:amd64/testing 2.38-11 uptodate
libc-devtools:amd64/testing 2.38-11 uptodate
libc-l10n:all/testing 2.38-11 uptodate
libc6:amd64/testing 2.38-11 uptodate
libc6-dev:amd64/testing 2.38-11 uptodate
libdb5.3t64:amd64/testing 5.3.28+dfsg2-7 uptodate
libmilter1.0.1:amd64/testing 8.18.1-3 uptodate
libsasl2-2:amd64/testing 2.1.28+dfsg1-6 uptodate
libsasl2-modules:amd64/testing 2.1.28+dfsg1-6 uptodate
libsasl2-modules-db:amd64/testing 2.1.28+dfsg1-6 uptodate
libssl3t64:amd64/testing 3.2.1-3 uptodate
libzstd1:amd64/testing 1.5.5+dfsg2-2 uptodate
locales:all/testing 2.38-11 uptodate
openssh-client:amd64/testing 1:9.7p1-5 uptodate
openssh-server:amd64/testing 1:9.7p1-5 uptodate
openssh-sftp-server:amd64/testing 1:9.7p1-5 uptodate
openssl:amd64/testing 3.2.1-3 uptodate
sasl2-bin:amd64/testing 2.1.28+dfsg1-6 uptodate
sendmail:all/testing 8.18.1-3 uptodate
sendmail-base:all/testing 8.18.1-3 uptodate
sendmail-bin:amd64/testing 8.18.1-3 uptodate
sendmail-cf:all/testing 8.18.1-3 uptodate
sensible-mda:amd64/testing 8.18.1-3 uptodate
zstd:amd64/testing 1.5.5+dfsg2-2 uptodate

I did not manually install most of that.  Only sasl2-bin and sendmail
from testing.

What's the best way to get back to running just the bookworm stable
packages?  I tried what I thought was the obvious way to fix this by
running:

# apt install -t=bookworm db-util db5.3-util libc-bin libc-dev-bin libc-devtools libc-l10n libc6 libc6-dev libdb5.3t64 libmilter1.0.1 libsasl2-2 libsasl2-modules libsasl2-modules-db libssl3t64 libzstd1 locales openssh-client openssh-server openssh-sftp-server openssl sasl2-bin sendmail sendmail-base sendmail-bin sendmail-cf sensible-mda zstd
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading state information... Done
db-util is already the newest version (5.3.3).
db5.3-util is already the newest version (5.3.28+dfsg2-7).
libc-bin is already the newest version (2.38-11).
libc-dev-bin is already the newest version (2.38-11).
libc-devtools is already the newest version (2.38-11).
libc-l10n is already the newest version (2.38-11).
libc6 is already the newest version (2.38-11).
libc6-dev is already the newest version (2.38-11).
libdb5.3t64 is already the newest version (5.3.28+dfsg2-7).
libmilter1.0.1 is already the newest version (8.18.1-3).
libsasl2-2 is already the newest version (2.1.28+dfsg1-6).
libsasl2-modules is already the newest version (2.1.28+dfsg1-6).
libsasl2-modules-db is already the newest version (2.1.28+dfsg1-6).
libssl3t64 is already the newest version (3.2.1-3).
libzstd1 is already the newest version (1.5.5+dfsg2-2).
locales is already the newest version (2.38-11).
openssh-client is already the newest version (1:9.7p1-5).
openssh-server is already the newest version (1:9.7p1-5).
openssh-sftp-server is already the newest version (1:9.7p1-5).
openssl is already the newest version (3.2.1-3).
sasl2-bin is already the newest version (2.1.28+dfsg1-6).
sendmail is already the newest version (8.18.1-3).
sendmail-base is already the newest version (8.18.1-3).
sendmail-bin is already the newest version (8.18.1-3).
sendmail-cf is already the newest version (8.18.1-3).
sensible-mda is already the newest version (8.18.1-3).
zstd is already the newest version (1.5.5+dfsg2-2).
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.


Yes, I am guilty of creating this mess, let's not dwell on that.

Michael Grant

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#269579

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

On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 10:19:48AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 09:56:54AM -0400, Michael Grant wrote:
> > I needed to install a version of sendmail from testing a while back to
> > test it.
> 
> Your subject header says "bookworm stable".  You don't install binary
> packages from testing on a stable system.  You use backports instead.

ugh no, wait, I may be using the wrong terminology.  I'm not wanting
to install special packages and definitely don't need to build my own.

What I want to do is get the system back to just using the packages
from stable rather than testing.  Only those few packages before
things get worse in the next update.  There's not many.

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

#269581

On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 10:28:37AM -0400, Michael Grant wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 10:19:48AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 09:56:54AM -0400, Michael Grant wrote:
> > > I needed to install a version of sendmail from testing a while back to
> > > test it.
> > 
> > Your subject header says "bookworm stable".  You don't install binary
> > packages from testing on a stable system.  You use backports instead.
> 
> ugh no, wait, I may be using the wrong terminology.  I'm not wanting
> to install special packages and definitely don't need to build my own.
> 
> What I want to do is get the system back to just using the packages
> from stable rather than testing.  Only those few packages before
> things get worse in the next update.  There's not many.

Downgrading essential libraries (libc6 and friends) that were brought
in when you tainted your stable system with testing packages is going
to be risky.

Definitely make a backup before you do ANYTHING.

Once that's done, you can try purging the non-essential testing packages,
and then downgrading the essential ones.  If at any point the system
becomes utterly broken, reinstall stable, and then restore your backup.

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

#269586

On 27/05/2024 21:28, Michael Grant wrote:
> What I want to do is get the system back to just using the packages
> from stable rather than testing.

I have never tried the following, so it is better to test it in a 
virtual machine or inside a container. I would try to set priority of 
bookworm release high enough to allow downgrade. See apt_preferences(5) 
for details concerning pinning. However downgrade of libc makes "apt 
upgrade" really risky.

Do not forget to remove configuration with excessive priority afterwards.

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

#269580

On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 09:56:54AM -0400, Michael Grant wrote:
> I needed to install a version of sendmail from testing a while back to
> test it.

Your subject header says "bookworm stable".  You don't install binary
packages from testing on a stable system.  You use backports instead.

https://backports.debian.org/Instructions/

There is already a bookworm backported version of sendmail available:

https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=sendmail&searchon=names&section=all&suite=bookworm-backports

If that one isn't new enough, then you may need to build your own backport
package.  This is usually either trivially easy ("type these commands")
or utterly impossible, depending on which dependencies have changed
since bookworm.  There's no in-between.

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

#269582

On Mon 27 May 2024 at 09:56:54 (-0400), Michael Grant wrote:
> What's the best way to get back to running just the bookworm stable
> packages?  I tried what I thought was the obvious way to fix this by
> running:
> 
> # apt install -t=bookworm db-util db5.3-util libc-bin libc-dev-bin libc-devtools libc-l10n libc6 libc6-dev libdb5.3t64 libmilter1.0.1 libsasl2-2 libsasl2-modules libsasl2-modules-db libssl3t64 libzstd1 locales openssh-client openssh-server openssh-sftp-server openssl sasl2-bin sendmail sendmail-base sendmail-bin sendmail-cf sensible-mda zstd

As Greg wrote: backups come first.

But in the above, you need reinstall, either as a command, or
as an option --reinstall.

Cheers,
David.

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

#269585

> I needed to install a version of sendmail from testing a while back to
> test it.

Downgrading Debian packages is not well supported, by and large.
So installing `testing` packages into a `stable` install is manageable
(tho it itself can bring trouble) but going back to `stable` afterwards
tends to be a lot more complicated.

Transitions like the t64 transition going on right now in `testing` make
it yet more troublesome.

I recommend the use of snapshots when you want to try such a thing with
the intention of "going back" later.

> # apt install -t=bookworm db-util db5.3-util libc-bin libc-dev-bin

I can never remember exactly what `-t` really does, but I suspect you'll
need things like

    apt install libc-bin/bookworm

to state more explicitly what you want.
Maybe you can do something like

    apt install $(apt-show-versions | sed -n 's|/testing.*|/stable|p')


- Stefan

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

#269594

Stefan Monnier wrote: 
> > # apt install -t=bookworm db-util db5.3-util libc-bin libc-dev-bin
> 
> I can never remember exactly what `-t` really does, but I suspect you'll
> need things like
> 
>     apt install libc-bin/bookworm

To install a single backported (or other release) package, 
apt-get install packagename/releasename

and to install a backported package plus dependencies which
are also from that specific release, use 
apt-get -t releasename packagename

-dsr-

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

#269596

>> > # apt install -t=bookworm db-util db5.3-util libc-bin libc-dev-bin
>> 
>> I can never remember exactly what `-t` really does, but I suspect you'll
>> need things like
>> 
>>     apt install libc-bin/bookworm
>
> To install a single backported (or other release) package, 
> apt-get install packagename/releasename
>
> and to install a backported package plus dependencies which
> are also from that specific release, use 
> apt-get -t releasename packagename

But that's not the whole story of what `-t` does since the above does
not explain why his attempt to use `-t` to downgrade some packages
resulted in `apt` saying "<blabla> is already the newest version".


        Stefan

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

#269598

On Mon 27 May 2024 at 14:02:47 (-0400), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> > # apt install -t=bookworm db-util db5.3-util libc-bin libc-dev-bin
> >> 
> >> I can never remember exactly what `-t` really does, but I suspect you'll
> >> need things like
> >> 
> >>     apt install libc-bin/bookworm
> >
> > To install a single backported (or other release) package, 
> > apt-get install packagename/releasename
> >
> > and to install a backported package plus dependencies which
> > are also from that specific release, use 
> > apt-get -t releasename packagename
> 
> But that's not the whole story of what `-t` does since the above does
> not explain why his attempt to use `-t` to downgrade some packages
> resulted in `apt` saying "<blabla> is already the newest version".

Neither syntax will specify a newer version for plain "install"
to install or upgrade.

Cheers,
David.

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

#269599

On 5/27/24 20:02, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>>> # apt install -t=bookworm db-util db5.3-util libc-bin libc-dev-bin
>>>
>>> I can never remember exactly what `-t` really does, but I suspect you'll
>>> need things like
>>>
>>>      apt install libc-bin/bookworm
>>
>> To install a single backported (or other release) package,
>> apt-get install packagename/releasename
>>
>> and to install a backported package plus dependencies which
>> are also from that specific release, use
>> apt-get -t releasename packagename
> 
> But that's not the whole story of what `-t` does since the above does
> not explain why his attempt to use `-t` to downgrade some packages
> resulted in `apt` saying "<blabla> is already the newest version".

Sometimes '-t' works for me, and does what I expect, and sometimes
it doesn't.  So I generelly use now the explicit version:

apt install libc-bin=2.36-9+deb12u7

   Detlef

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

#269610

On Mon 27 May 2024 at 21:46:24 (+0200), Detlef Vollmann wrote:
> On 5/27/24 20:02, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > > > > # apt install -t=bookworm db-util db5.3-util libc-bin libc-dev-bin
> > > > 
> > > > I can never remember exactly what `-t` really does, but I suspect you'll
> > > > need things like
> > > > 
> > > >      apt install libc-bin/bookworm
> > > 
> > > To install a single backported (or other release) package,
> > > apt-get install packagename/releasename
> > > 
> > > and to install a backported package plus dependencies which
> > > are also from that specific release, use
> > > apt-get -t releasename packagename
> > 
> > But that's not the whole story of what `-t` does since the above does
> > not explain why his attempt to use `-t` to downgrade some packages
> > resulted in `apt` saying "<blabla> is already the newest version".
> 
> Sometimes '-t' works for me, and does what I expect, and sometimes
> it doesn't.

And, of course, what would interest the list is what it says
when it doesn't work.

> So I generelly use now the explicit version:
> 
> apt install libc-bin=2.36-9+deb12u7

Cheers,
David.

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

#269616

On 28/05/2024 01:02, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> But that's not the whole story of what `-t` does since the above does
> not explain why his attempt to use `-t` to downgrade some packages
> resulted in `apt` saying "<blabla> is already the newest version".

My guess is that -t increases priority of the specified release. However 
the value is not enough to allow downgrades.

Another issue is the libdb5.3t64 explicit argument. This package does 
not exist in bookworm.

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

#269620

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

On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 02:02:47PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> > # apt install -t=bookworm db-util db5.3-util libc-bin libc-dev-bin
> >> 
> >> I can never remember exactly what `-t` really does, but I suspect you'll
> >> need things like
> >> 
> >>     apt install libc-bin/bookworm
> >
> > To install a single backported (or other release) package, 
> > apt-get install packagename/releasename
> >
> > and to install a backported package plus dependencies which
> > are also from that specific release, use 
> > apt-get -t releasename packagename
> 
> But that's not the whole story of what `-t` does since the above does
> not explain why his attempt to use `-t` to downgrade some packages
> resulted in `apt` saying "<blabla> is already the newest version".

ISTR that "apt-get install <package>=<version>" will unconditionally
install <version> of <package>, if necessary pulling in dependencies.

But I've never tried it :-)

Cheers
-- 
t

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

#269639

tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: 
> On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 02:02:47PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> 
> ISTR that "apt-get install <package>=<version>" will unconditionally
> install <version> of <package>, if necessary pulling in dependencies.
> 
> But I've never tried it :-)

That pulls in dependencies but does not install packages that
would otherwise be forbidden by the priority system.

E.g.: if you have foobar 1.5 in stable and foobar 2.1 in
backports, and they each depend on libfoobar of the same version
number, then

apt-get install foobar=2.1

will fail saying that it requires libfoobar 2.1 but version 1.5
is to be installed.

You can then solve that by saying

apt-get install foobar=2.1 libfoobar=2.1

but many interesting packages will have a web of dependencies,
and sometimes following them will get you to a place it is hard
to escape.

The backports repository is generally safe (or safe-ish) because
the packages in it are meant to work in a mostly-stable system.

Other repos are less accomodating.

-dsr-

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

#269587

Doing "apt-get upgrade" will only upgrade all installed packages, but no new 
ones (even, if they are needed).

Better is to do an "apt-get full-upgrade", which will install the whole system 
from stable to testing. However, this might also uninstall some wanted 
packages, thus often it is calles the "intelligent" upgrade. Intelligent does 
not mean, the upgrade is intelligent, but the one doing this upgrade (mostly 
the person, who is root) should be intelligent.

Downgrading is not an easy way, but managable. But it is a lot of intelligent 
work.

How can you do this? This is, how I am figured out (best way for me!)

First, remove the entry from stable off your sources.list.

Then start aptitude and update the list. 

Next manually search all packages you want to downgrade to the needed 
versions. The last apt-get or aptitude log should help.


Mark all installed versions to "remove" (magenta coluur) and needed versions 
to "install" (green colour).

Now, dive manually into all dependencies (these are marked with the red 
coulour)  and do the same as above (mark the installed version first "remove" 
then the correct as "install").

Important: Check that ALL dependencies are correct and no libs or anything 
else is set with red colour.

This process must be done very, very correct! 

After this press "g" (which is for "install now") and if everything was set 
correct, all packages are now downgraded.

Note: If you have missed something, you have to restart again!

>From my experiences this doing so is still faster, than to setup a new system.

Hope this helps.

Good luck!

Best

Hans 


 

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

#269591

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

Hans, thanks for that but I am a bit confused following your
instructions.  Did you mean to I should remove the lines for 'stable'
from sources.list?  Or remove the lines for 'testing'?  I am trying to
get the packages to go back to stable.

I am more familiar with apt than aptitude.

I managed to do part of what Greg recommended.  I removed sendmail and
sasl2-bin and reinstalled them from stable.  That seemed to work fine,
I have fewer testing pkgs installed now:

$ apt-show-versions | g testing
db-util:all/testing 5.3.3 uptodate
db5.3-util:amd64/testing 5.3.28+dfsg2-7 uptodate
libc-bin:amd64/testing 2.38-11 uptodate
libc-dev-bin:amd64/testing 2.38-11 uptodate
libc-devtools:amd64/testing 2.38-11 uptodate
libc-l10n:all/testing 2.38-11 uptodate
libc6:amd64/testing 2.38-11 uptodate
libc6-dev:amd64/testing 2.38-11 uptodate
libdb5.3t64:amd64/testing 5.3.28+dfsg2-7 uptodate
libmilter1.0.1:amd64/testing 8.18.1-3 uptodate
libsasl2-2:amd64/testing 2.1.28+dfsg1-6 uptodate
libsasl2-modules:amd64/testing 2.1.28+dfsg1-6 uptodate
libsasl2-modules-db:amd64/testing 2.1.28+dfsg1-6 uptodate
libssl3t64:amd64/testing 3.2.1-3 uptodate
libzstd1:amd64/testing 1.5.5+dfsg2-2 uptodate
locales:all/testing 2.38-11 uptodate
openssh-client:amd64/testing 1:9.7p1-5 uptodate
openssh-server:amd64/testing 1:9.7p1-5 uptodate
openssh-sftp-server:amd64/testing 1:9.7p1-5 uptodate
openssl:amd64/testing 3.2.1-3 uptodate
zstd:amd64/testing 1.5.5+dfsg2-2 uptodate

so I thought I'd try the same process with db5.3, but removing db5.3
wants to remove a slew of packages:

# apt reinstall -s libdb5.3/bookworm
...
Selected version '5.3.28+dfsg2-1' (Debian:12.5/stable [amd64]) for 'libdb5.3'
The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required:
  acl apache2-data apache2-utils augeas-lenses avahi-daemon clamav-base colord-data git-man gnupg-l10n gnupg-utils gpg-wks-server guile-3.0-libs ipp-usb libapr1 libaprutil1
  libaprutil1-dbd-sqlite3 libaugeas0 libavahi-core7 libcolorhug2 libdaemon0 libexif12 libgphoto2-l10n libgphoto2-port12 libgudev-1.0-0 libgusb2 libhashkit2 libieee1284-3 libldap-common
  liblua5.3-0 libnspr4 libnss-mdns libnss3 libopendbx1 libopendbx1-sqlite3 libopendkim11 libpoppler-glib8 libpoppler126 libpython2-stdlib libpython3.11 librbl1 librtmp1 libsane-common
  libsnmp-base libsnmp40 libssh2-1 libvbr2 mailutils-common python2 python2-minimal python3-augeas sane-airscan update-inetd usb.ids
Use 'apt autoremove' to remove them

Is there some way to get apt to reinstall a package such that it does
not think it has to uninstall things which depend on it because it's
being immediatly reinstalled?

And for those of you telling me to have a backup, I do.  I have booted
a snapshot from about a week ago.  However, to make that the live one
and dump this one, it's not so easy but possible.  That snapshot has
only sendmail from testing. Hard to know what is more work, going down
this route or making the other instance live.  I'm starting to think
about abandoning this and reconfiguring the backup instance.

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

#269597

On Mon 27 May 2024 at 12:23:41 (-0400), Michael Grant wrote:
> [ … ]
> so I thought I'd try the same process with db5.3, but removing db5.3
> wants to remove a slew of packages:
> 
> # apt reinstall -s libdb5.3/bookworm
> ...
> Selected version '5.3.28+dfsg2-1' (Debian:12.5/stable [amd64]) for 'libdb5.3'
> The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required:
>   acl apache2-data apache2-utils augeas-lenses avahi-daemon clamav-base colord-data git-man gnupg-l10n gnupg-utils gpg-wks-server guile-3.0-libs ipp-usb libapr1 libaprutil1
>   libaprutil1-dbd-sqlite3 libaugeas0 libavahi-core7 libcolorhug2 libdaemon0 libexif12 libgphoto2-l10n libgphoto2-port12 libgudev-1.0-0 libgusb2 libhashkit2 libieee1284-3 libldap-common
>   liblua5.3-0 libnspr4 libnss-mdns libnss3 libopendbx1 libopendbx1-sqlite3 libopendkim11 libpoppler-glib8 libpoppler126 libpython2-stdlib libpython3.11 librbl1 librtmp1 libsane-common
>   libsnmp-base libsnmp40 libssh2-1 libvbr2 mailutils-common python2 python2-minimal python3-augeas sane-airscan update-inetd usb.ids
> Use 'apt autoremove' to remove them

So what did it say after that?

> Is there some way to get apt to reinstall a package such that it does
> not think it has to uninstall things which depend on it because it's
> being immediatly reinstalled?

That is the idea behind reinstall, though downgrading is always
a test of its ability to succeed.

Cheers,
David.

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

#269629

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

On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 12:59:34PM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> So what did it say after that?

Sorry, here's the entire output of one of the tries:

[bottom /etc/mail #1168] apt install libdb5.3/bookworm db5.3-util/bookworm db-util/bookworm
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading state information... Done
Selected version '5.3.28+dfsg2-1' (Debian:12.5/stable [amd64]) for 'libdb5.3'
Selected version '5.3.28+dfsg2-1' (Debian:12.5/stable [amd64]) for 'db5.3-util'
Selected version '5.3.2' (Debian:12.5/stable [all]) for 'db-util'
The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required:
  acl apache2-data apache2-utils augeas-lenses avahi-daemon clamav-base colord-data git-man gnupg-l10n gnupg-utils gpg-wks-server guile-3.0-libs ipp-usb libapr1 libaprutil1
  libaprutil1-dbd-sqlite3 libaugeas0 libavahi-core7 libcolorhug2 libdaemon0 libexif12 libgphoto2-l10n libgphoto2-port12 libgudev-1.0-0 libgusb2 libhashkit2 libieee1284-3 libldap-common
  liblua5.3-0 libnspr4 libnss-mdns libnss3 libopendbx1 libopendbx1-sqlite3 libopendkim11 libpoppler-glib8 libpoppler126 libpython2-stdlib libpython3.11 librbl1 librtmp1 libsane-common
  libsnmp-base libsnmp40 libssh2-1 libvbr2 mailutils-common python2 python2-minimal python3-augeas sane-airscan update-inetd usb.ids
Use 'apt autoremove' to remove them.
The following additional packages will be installed:
  php8.2-fpm
Suggested packages:
  php-pear
The following packages will be REMOVED:
  apache2 apache2-bin clamav clamav-daemon clamav-freshclam clamav-milter clamav-unofficial-sigs clamdscan colord curl dirmngr git gnupg gnupg2 gpg-wks-client libapache2-mod-php8.2
  libapache2-mod-ruid2 libaprutil1-ldap libclamav11 libcurl3-gnutls libcurl4 libdb5.3t64 libgphoto2-6 libldap-2.5-0 libmailutils9 libmemcached11 libpq5 libsane1 libsasl2-2
  libsasl2-modules-db mailutils mongo-tools opendkim opendkim-tools python-apt python3-certbot-apache python3-debianbts python3-pycurl python3-pysimplesoap python3-reportbug reportbug
  sane-utils sasl2-bin sendmail sendmail-bin sensible-mda
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  libdb5.3 php8.2-fpm
The following packages will be DOWNGRADED:
  db-util db5.3-util
0 upgraded, 2 newly installed, 2 downgraded, 46 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 1,743 kB/2,507 kB of archives.
After this operation, 234 MB disk space will be freed.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
Abort.

> > Is there some way to get apt to reinstall a package such that it does
> > not think it has to uninstall things which depend on it because it's
> > being immediatly reinstalled?
> 
> That is the idea behind reinstall, though downgrading is always
> a test of its ability to succeed.

What it says it's going to do is actually remove those 46 packages and
not reinstall them.  I believe it!  Clearly apt is unwinding the
dependencies.  It seems like it's not taking into account the
downgraded libdb5.3 is a valid dependency for all the things it's
about to uninstall so it doesn't need to uninstall those things.  I
thought it should do that, but for some reason, it's not doing that
for me.

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

#269630

On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 06:10:11AM -0400, Michael Grant wrote:
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
>   [...] libdb5.3t64 [...]

You've *clearly* still got testing packages installed.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web