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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #174155 > unrolled thread

Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org> - 2016-11-03 17:40 +0100
    Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org> - 2016-11-03 18:10 +0100
    Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question Steve <dlist@bluewin.ch> - 2016-11-06 08:30 +0100
      Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2016-11-06 10:50 +0100
        Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question steve <dlist@bluewin.ch> - 2016-11-06 20:50 +0100
          Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2016-11-07 09:10 +0100
      Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 14:20 +0100
        Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question steve <dlist@bluewin.ch> - 2016-11-06 21:00 +0100
          Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 02:40 +0100
            Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question steve <dlist@bluewin.ch> - 2016-11-14 14:10 +0100
              Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 19:50 +0100
      Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org> - 2016-11-07 00:30 +0100
        Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question steve <dlist@bluewin.ch> - 2016-11-14 14:20 +0100
      RE:Package Ikeysis Walker <ikeysiswalker3@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 01:10 +0100

#174155 — Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question

Hi Steve,

steve wrote:
> I'm trying to understand why
> 
> aptitude search ~Ajessie~i | wc -l
> 240
> 
> is different from
> 
> aptitude search ~Astable~i | wc -l
> 3243
> 
> but is the same as
> 
> aptitude search ~Ajessie-backports~i | wc -l
> 240

The main reason is that ~A does (as most of aptitude's patterns)
substring matching, e.g. the jessie-backports repository has the
following meta data (from the output of "apt-cache policy" without further
parameters):

  release o=Debian Backports,a=jessie-backports,n=jessie-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=main

~A matches the "a=" value. And since it does substring matching,
~Ajessie also matches a=jessie-backports.

The value of "a=" again comes from the Archive field in a repository's
Release file, e.g.
http://ftp.ch.debian.org/debian/dists/jessie-backports/main/binary-amd64/Release

Then again the normal jessie/stable repository has the following meta
data:

  release v=8.6,o=Debian,a=stable,n=jessie,l=Debian,c=main

(According Release file:
http://ftp.ch.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/main/binary-amd64/Release)

You see that there is a=stable while "jessie" only is in the "n="
value(*), so ~Ajessie does not match these packages.

(*) which is not even mentioned in the Release file listed above and
    hence probably comes from the sources.list -- not sure here, but
    the APT developers can likely explain that detail.

I don't know if that inconsistency between stable and jessie-backports
is on purpose (and if so, why) or by accident. Cc'ing the
debian-backports mailing list for that part. There someone can
probably explain that.

> This is something difficult to interpret and that's the reason I'm
> raising this question on aptitude-devel@ (this subject is currently
> being discussed on debian-user@ without any success).

So I'm Cc'ing debian-user too.

> Reading the docs and asking search engines hasn't given much
> unfortunately. May I ask to explain or point me to a relevant
> ressource?

Short summary of what IMHO is the relevant facts here:

* aptitude's ~A pattern matches substrings of the Archive value in the
  Release file.
* Jessie's APT repositories have "stable" and not "jessie" in the
  Archive value in the Release file.

The according documentation is at
https://aptitude.alioth.debian.org/doc/en/ch02s04s05.html#searchArchive
but I must admit, it's not perfect as it does not help with your question.

Hope this helps.

		Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-    |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#174156

Hi again,

Axel Beckert wrote:
> The main reason is that ~A does (as most of aptitude's patterns)
> substring matching,
[…]
> * aptitude's ~A pattern matches substrings of the Archive value in the
>   Release file.

Sven is of course right, and it's regular expression matching and not
(only) substring matching. See
https://aptitude.alioth.debian.org/doc/en/ch02s04s01.html

		Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-    |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE

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

#174229

Hi Sven and Axel,

Thank you for your explanation, I understand a bit better the logic. But
there is still something that doesn't quite match. Please consider the
following.

apt-cache policy | grep 'a='
     release a=now
     release v=14.04,o=LP-PPA-opencpn-opencpn,a=trusty,n=trusty,l=OpenCPN,c=main
     release o=Debian Mozilla Team,a=jessie-backports,n=jessie-backports,l=Debian Mozilla Team,c=firefox-release
     release v=8.6,o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages,a=stable,n=jessie,l=Unofficial Multimedia Packages,c=non-free
     release v=8.6,o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages,a=stable,n=jessie,l=Unofficial Multimedia Packages,c=main
     release o=Debian Backports,a=jessie-backports,n=jessie-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=contrib
     release o=Debian Backports,a=jessie-backports,n=jessie-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=main
     release v=8,o=Debian,a=stable,n=jessie,l=Debian-Security,c=non-free
     release v=8,o=Debian,a=stable,n=jessie,l=Debian-Security,c=contrib
     release v=8,o=Debian,a=stable,n=jessie,l=Debian-Security,c=main
     release v=8.6,o=Debian,a=stable,n=jessie,l=Debian,c=contrib
     release v=8.6,o=Debian,a=stable,n=jessie,l=Debian,c=non-free
     release v=8.6,o=Debian,a=stable,n=jessie,l=Debian,c=main


Now let's plug the value of a in 'aptitude search ~A$a~i | wc -l':


a=              aptitude search ~A[$a]~i | wc -l 					dpkg -l | grep ^ii | wc -l
trusty                                    16
jessie$                                    0
jessie-backports                         248
stable                                  3243
                                            
TOTAL                                   3507                3349
                                            
now                                     3349                3349


so 3507 ≠ 3349. Both figures should be equal as I understand. It seems
that some packages are counted two or more times or my calculation is
plain wrong.

Thoughts?

Best,
Steve



PS: the trusty part is for opencpn, which is currently not in Debian.

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

#174231

What is the output of

  aptitude -F "%p" '~o'

? Seems to me, there are packages installed on your system that don't belong to
any architecture in sources.list ("obsolete").

Regards,
jvp.

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

#174256

Le 06-11-2016, à 10:43:58 +0100, Jörg-Volker Peetz a écrit :

>What is the output of
>
>  aptitude -F "%p" '~o'

gives an error (unknown command « ~o »)

>? Seems to me, there are packages installed on your system that don't belong to
>any architecture in sources.list ("obsolete").

However, running aptitude in curses mode shows that I have 80 obsolete
packages. But that still doesn't connect the dots, since as shown in my
previous message, I had a total of 3507 installed package (with aptitude
search) and 3349 (with dpkg). That's a difference of 158.

But problem narrowed :)

Thanks.

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

#174273

steve wrote on 11/06/16 20:47:
> Le 06-11-2016, à 10:43:58 +0100, Jörg-Volker Peetz a écrit :
> 
>> What is the output of
>>
>>  aptitude -F "%p" '~o'
> 
> gives an error (unknown command « ~o »)
> 
Sorry, this should be

 aptitude -F "%p" search '~o'

>> ? Seems to me, there are packages installed on your system that don't belong to
>> any architecture in sources.list ("obsolete").
> 
> However, running aptitude in curses mode shows that I have 80 obsolete
> packages. But that still doesn't connect the dots, since as shown in my
> previous message, I had a total of 3507 installed package (with aptitude
> search) and 3349 (with dpkg). That's a difference of 158.
> 
> But problem narrowed :)

The number of installed packages can be counted with aptitude as

  aptitude search '~i' | wc -l

As others have explained the search with '~Astable$~i' does show packages which
are installed and are available in "stable" but maybe not with the same version
which is installed. Therefore, you probably counted some packages multiple.

Regards,
jvp.

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

#174241

On Sun 06 Nov 2016 at 08:18:52 (+0100), Steve wrote:
> Hi Sven and Axel,
> 
> Thank you for your explanation, I understand a bit better the logic. But
> there is still something that doesn't quite match. Please consider the
> following.
> 
> apt-cache policy | grep 'a='
>     release a=now
>     release v=14.04,o=LP-PPA-opencpn-opencpn,a=trusty,n=trusty,l=OpenCPN,c=main
>     release o=Debian Mozilla Team,a=jessie-backports,n=jessie-backports,l=Debian Mozilla Team,c=firefox-release
>     release v=8.6,o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages,a=stable,n=jessie,l=Unofficial Multimedia Packages,c=non-free
>     release v=8.6,o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages,a=stable,n=jessie,l=Unofficial Multimedia Packages,c=main
>     release o=Debian Backports,a=jessie-backports,n=jessie-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=contrib
>     release o=Debian Backports,a=jessie-backports,n=jessie-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=main
>     release v=8,o=Debian,a=stable,n=jessie,l=Debian-Security,c=non-free
>     release v=8,o=Debian,a=stable,n=jessie,l=Debian-Security,c=contrib
>     release v=8,o=Debian,a=stable,n=jessie,l=Debian-Security,c=main
>     release v=8.6,o=Debian,a=stable,n=jessie,l=Debian,c=contrib
>     release v=8.6,o=Debian,a=stable,n=jessie,l=Debian,c=non-free
>     release v=8.6,o=Debian,a=stable,n=jessie,l=Debian,c=main
> 
> 
> Now let's plug the value of a in 'aptitude search ~A$a~i | wc -l':
> 
> 
> a=              aptitude search ~A[$a]~i | wc -l 					dpkg -l | grep ^ii | wc -l
> trusty                                    16
> jessie$                                    0
> jessie-backports                         248
> stable                                  3243
> TOTAL                                   3507                3349
> now                                     3349                3349
> 
> 
> so 3507 ≠ 3349. Both figures should be equal as I understand. It seems
> that some packages are counted two or more times or my calculation is
> plain wrong.
> 
> Thoughts?

Piping to wc -l throws most of the information away.
Redirect the output to files instead, thus:

search jessie > /tmp/jessie
... repeated for others ...
search total | sort > /tmp/total

Now:

cat /tmp/jessie /tmp/all-the-others | sort | diff -u - /tmp/total | less -S

and see exactly what's going on. The lines starting with "-" are the
ones which are in the concatenation of files but not in the total file.
Vice versa for "+".

Cheers,
David.

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

#174258

Le 06-11-2016, à 07:05:15 -0600, David Wright a écrit :

>> so 3507 ≠ 3349. Both figures should be equal as I understand. It seems
>> that some packages are counted two or more times or my calculation is
>> plain wrong.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
>Piping to wc -l throws most of the information away.

I don't see why *here*. The output of 'aptitude search ~Ajessie~i' is a
simple list of lines and 'wc -l' does exactly that: count lines. What
information would be thrown away?

Thanks.

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

#174263

On Sun 06 Nov 2016 at 20:53:32 (+0100), steve wrote:
> Le 06-11-2016, à 07:05:15 -0600, David Wright a écrit :
> 
> >>so 3507 ≠ 3349. Both figures should be equal as I understand. It seems
> >>that some packages are counted two or more times or my calculation is
> >>plain wrong.
> >>
> >>Thoughts?
> >
> >Piping to wc -l throws most of the information away.
> 
> I don't see why *here*. The output of 'aptitude search ~Ajessie~i' is a
> simple list of lines and 'wc -l' does exactly that: count lines.

You wrote "It seems that some packages are counted two or more times
or my calculation is plain wrong." How do you see if some packages are
being counted twice?...by looking at what is being counted of course.

If you follow my recipe, any packages counted twice (as eg in both
the stable and jessie searches) will show up in the diff with a "-".

> What information would be thrown away?

The items that were counted.

apples
oranges
grapes
apples
peaches
pineapple
wc -l → 6
number of items to shop for: 5

Cheers,
David.

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

#174692

Hi David,

Coming back to this problem now that I have a bit more time.

As I have been making a lot of testing, this message is a bit long,
sorry for that.


>If you follow my recipe, any packages counted twice (as eg in both
>the stable and jessie searches) will show up in the diff with a "-".

I have done this first for a = [trusty,jessie$,jessie-backports,stable]
and then for a = now. No output for jessie$.

Then I have done this:

cat jessie-backports.txt trusty.txt stable.txt | sort | diff -u -now.txt > diff.txt

The first lines of diff.txt show

 i A augeas-lenses                   - ensemble de lentilles nécessaire pour que 
 i A autogen-doc                     - automated text file generator - documentat
 i A autopoint                       - le programme autopoint de GNU gettext     
-i A autopoint                       - le programme autopoint de GNU gettext     
 i A autotools-dev                   - infrastructure de mise à jour pour les fic
 i A avahi-daemon                    - Démon Avahi pour mDNS/DNS-SD              
 i A avidemux-common                 - Free video editor (Internationalization fi
@@ -39,7 +38,6 @@
 i A brasero-cdrkit                  - cdrkit extensions for the Brasero burning 
 i A bridge-utils                    - utilitaires destinés à configurer un pont 
 i A bundler                         - Manage Ruby application dependencies      
-i A bundler                         - Manage Ruby application dependencies      
 i A bzip2                           - Compresseur de fichier par tri de blocs de
 i A bzip2-doc                       - Compresseur de fichiers de haute qualité -
 i A cabextract                      - outil d'extraction de fichiers « Microsoft
@@ -51,7 +49,6 @@
 i A chromium-inspector              - web browser - page inspection support     
 i A cli-common                      - fichiers communs à tous les paquets CLI   
 i A cmake-data                      - fichiers de données pour CMake (modules, m
-i A cmake-data                      - fichiers de données pour CMake (modules, m
 i A colord-data                     - system service to manage device colour pro
 i A colord                          - service système pour gérer les profils cou
 i A consolekit                      - cadre applicatif pour définir et surveille
@@ -75,7 +72,6 @@
 i A cups-server-common              - Common UNIX Printing System(tm) - server c
 i A cups                            - système commun d'impression sous Unix - ge
 i A dbconfig-common                 - framework that helps packages to manage da
-i A dbconfig-common                 - framework that helps packages to manage da

…

+i A epdfview                        - Lightweight pdf viewer based on poppler li

Now, for example, we see that autopoint is present twice (once with a
"-" and once with a blank space at the beginning of the line). So if I
understand correctly, the package "autopoint" appears once in both the
concatenation and in the total file and another time only in the
concatenation. Can I see this behaviour using apt-cache?

apt-cache policy autopoint 
autopoint:
  Installé : 0.19.3-2
  Candidat : 0.19.3-2
 Table de version :
     0.19.8.1-1~bpo8+1 0
        100 http://ftp.ch.debian.org/debian/ jessie-backports/main amd64 Packages
 *** 0.19.3-2 0
        500 http://ftp.ch.debian.org/debian/ jessie/main amd64 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status


So it seems that it's the jessie version which is installed. But

aptitude search ~Astable~i | grep autopoint
i A autopoint

aptitude search ~Ajessie$~i | grep autopoint
(no output)

aptitude search ~Ajessie-backports~i | grep autopoint
i A autopoint


which contradicts apt-cache! Is this a bug? Same behaviour for the
package cmake-data.


(BTW, this package is taken from jessie but there is an existing
backport package. Is is possible to upgrade to jessie-backports all
jessie packages which have a jessie-backports version?)

The packages with a starting "+" are the obsolete ones.


>> What information would be thrown away?
>
>The items that were counted.
>
>apples
>oranges
>grapes
>apples
>peaches
>pineapple
>wc -l → 6
>number of items to shop for: 5

Ok thanks :-)

Best,
Steve

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

#174708

On Mon 14 Nov 2016 at 14:05:46 (+0100), steve wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> Coming back to this problem now that I have a bit more time.
> 
> As I have been making a lot of testing, this message is a bit long,
> sorry for that.
> 
> 
> >If you follow my recipe, any packages counted twice (as eg in both
> >the stable and jessie searches) will show up in the diff with a "-".
> 
> I have done this first for a = [trusty,jessie$,jessie-backports,stable]
> and then for a = now. No output for jessie$.
> 
> Then I have done this:
> 
> cat jessie-backports.txt trusty.txt stable.txt | sort | diff -u -now.txt > diff.txt
> 
> The first lines of diff.txt show
[snipped]
> Now, for example, we see that autopoint is present twice (once with a
> "-" and once with a blank space at the beginning of the line). So if I
> understand correctly, the package "autopoint" appears once in both the
> concatenation and in the total file and another time only in the
> concatenation. Can I see this behaviour using apt-cache?
> 
> apt-cache policy autopoint autopoint:
>  Installé : 0.19.3-2
>  Candidat : 0.19.3-2
> Table de version :
>     0.19.8.1-1~bpo8+1 0
>        100 http://ftp.ch.debian.org/debian/ jessie-backports/main amd64 Packages
> *** 0.19.3-2 0
>        500 http://ftp.ch.debian.org/debian/ jessie/main amd64 Packages
>        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> 
> 
> So it seems that it's the jessie version which is installed. But
> 
> aptitude search ~Astable~i | grep autopoint
> i A autopoint
> 
> aptitude search ~Ajessie$~i | grep autopoint
> (no output)
> 
> aptitude search ~Ajessie-backports~i | grep autopoint
> i A autopoint
> 
> 
> which contradicts apt-cache! Is this a bug? Same behaviour for the
> package cmake-data.

I'm glad this method is shining a light on your problem. I'm afraid
that I'm not very experienced in running the many apt* commands
available, but others may help.

> (BTW, this package is taken from jessie but there is an existing
> backport package. Is is possible to upgrade to jessie-backports all
> jessie packages which have a jessie-backports version?)

One *might* try the brute force approach of just telling it to reinstall
everything on your system, but specifying -t jessie-backports as the
target, and -s of course to prevent anything happening while you checked.
But I don't know the answer.

Cheers,
David.

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

#174261

Hi Steve,

Steve wrote:
> Thank you for your explanation, I understand a bit better the logic. But
> there is still something that doesn't quite match. Please consider the
> following.
[...]
> a=              aptitude search ~A[$a]~i | wc -l 					dpkg -l | grep ^ii | wc -l
> trusty                                    16
> jessie$                                    0
> jessie-backports                         248
> stable                                  3243
> TOTAL                                   3507                3349
> now                                     3349                3349
> 
> 
> so 3507 ≠ 3349. Both figures should be equal as I understand.

Nope.

There are packages where one version is in stable and another version
is in jessie-backports. Those are likely counted twice if any version
is installed, i.e. there are likely about 158 packages which are
either installed from backports and which are also available in stable
or vice versa.

Background is that even if you use ~A and ~i the same search term,
they don't necessarily match the same version of the package if
multiple versions of a package are available.

I don't know all the details by mind as I rather seldom run into
issues where this is relevant, but the details are explained on
https://aptitude.alioth.debian.org/doc/en/ch02s04s03.html

Please also see the patterns ?all-versions(), ?any-version(),
?narrow() and ?widen() on
https://aptitude.alioth.debian.org/doc/en/ch02s04s05.html

HTH.

		Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-    |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE

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

#174693

Dear Axel,

I just wrote an extensive answer to David *before* reading your reply
and it happens that it answers pretty much to what I discovered, which
is that if a backport package exists but the stable one is installed,
the search with ~A$a~i are counted twice. Seems strange at first thought
but maybe I simply haven't understood all the logic behind that.

Thanks.

Steve

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

#174262 — RE:Package

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

Never email me again

On Nov 6, 2016 6:47 PM, "ProZyalix+" <ProZyalix_@open.ac.uk> wrote:

> Please The Lady This Night Lola
>
> Give her what she really wants - Stay strong all night long
>
> Where do we ship Y O U R F R E E Trial bottle of Zyalix to ?
>
> <http://algiainterior.net/RLI=53-UI=353686950-OI=2816-ONI=51315-SI=112019-CI=0-BI=0-II=73247-IDSP=12-KLEM=11-TIE=A-IDE=1529939-MID=491-FID=0-DIOM=0>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web