Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #172729 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-24 15:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-09-24 23:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 81 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:30 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2016-09-24 15:50 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 17:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-09-24 20:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Seeker <seeker5528@comcast.net> - 2016-09-24 21:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-09-30 09:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-09-28 17:10 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-09-28 17:50 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-09-28 20:00 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2016-09-28 20:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-09-29 11:10 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-09-29 11:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-09-29 13:30 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-09-29 13:50 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-09-28 20:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2016-09-28 21:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-09-29 11:10 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-09-28 22:00 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-09-28 22:30 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2016-09-28 23:10 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2016-09-28 23:50 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-09-29 11:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-09-29 11:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Andre Majorel <aym-naibed@teaser.fr> - 2016-09-28 22:00 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-09-28 22:30 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2016-09-28 23:10 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-09-29 11:00 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-09-29 14:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-09-30 01:10 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-09-30 11:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-09-30 15:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-10-04 09:10 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 11:50 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 00:00 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> - 2016-10-05 21:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 15:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 16:30 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 16:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Andre Majorel <aym-naibed@teaser.fr> - 2016-09-30 21:10 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2016-10-01 20:00 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-10-04 09:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-10-04 09:30 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 16:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 07:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 00:00 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-10-07 16:50 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2016-10-07 22:30 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 01:10 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2016-10-13 01:50 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-12-07 16:10 +0100
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 00:50 +0100
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-12-16 12:50 +0100
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-12-16 19:10 +0100
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-12-19 12:40 +0100
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-12-19 20:00 +0100
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2016-12-20 01:40 +0100
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 20:00 +0100
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-12-21 21:20 +0100
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-12-16 20:00 +0100
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 07:30 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 18:00 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 18:30 +0200
Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 01:50 +0200
Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2016-10-10 03:20 +0200
Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-10-10 10:10 +0200
Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 13:20 +0200
Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 13:20 +0200
Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-10-10 20:10 +0200
Re: Unsubscribing in order to killfile one individual. Was: Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 23:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-09-30 17:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2016-09-30 20:10 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> - 2016-10-01 10:30 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-09-24 15:50 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 18:00 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Glenn English <ghe2001@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 18:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de> - 2016-09-24 18:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@galactic.demon.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 20:30 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-09-24 20:40 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Glenn English <ghe2001@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 19:00 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-09-24 20:20 +0200
Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2016-09-24 23:40 +0200
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 09:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <sosut-7Z7-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173069 |
On 2016-10-01 14:58:05 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On that note, I wonder if it would be easier to give aptitude some > "resolver profiles" that are selectable on the UI and behave more like > dist-upgrade, safe-upgrade, and the "should work for everything, but > might offer rather bad deals as the first choice" we currently have. There is actually some resolver profile thanks to SolutionCost. But it is buggy, and the maintainers don't want / don't know how to fix it. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 09:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <soskN-7UY-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172967 |
On 2016-09-30 14:32:49 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > For goodness sake!!! This is Debian. Open Source. Choice. Your call. > Either rewrite Aptitude and publish a fork; use it; or don't use it. I like > it. Many like it. No-one is making you use it. Use your package manager of > choice, or no package manager and manage your own dependency hell. But do > stop complaining and moaning. I had looked at the source of the resolver code to see if I could do something, but it was too horrible to read. So, unless someone points at good documentation on how the resolver works and/or explain what happened in the bug 823928 I reported, my position remains the same: aptitude is poorly designed. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 16:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <soyJz-3Tq-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173177 |
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:25:46AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-09-30 14:32:49 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > For goodness sake!!! This is Debian. Open Source. Choice. Your call. > > Either rewrite Aptitude and publish a fork; use it; or don't use it. I like > > it. Many like it. No-one is making you use it. Use your package manager of > > choice, or no package manager and manage your own dependency hell. But do > > stop complaining and moaning. > > I had looked at the source of the resolver code to see if I could do > something, but it was too horrible to read. Translation: you couldn't understand it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 07:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sqf05-5y-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173182 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
2016-10-04 16:12 GMT+02:00 Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:25:46AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2016-09-30 14:32:49 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > For goodness sake!!! This is Debian. Open Source. Choice. Your > call. > > > Either rewrite Aptitude and publish a fork; use it; or don't use it. > I like > > > it. Many like it. No-one is making you use it. Use your package > manager of > > > choice, or no package manager and manage your own dependency hell. > But do > > > stop complaining and moaning. > > > > I had looked at the source of the resolver code to see if I could do > > something, but it was too horrible to read. > > Translation: you couldn't understand it. > What does that mean ? What's wrong with not understanding piece of code ? Sometimes people lost their way in open source. The matter in open source is not sharing free code, it's about sharing knowledge. If documentation does not reflect the way code work then something is bad. Users complaining about code is really important in open source. If you're not agree with that why are you still using open source software ? The "I like it and it works for me" is not enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 00:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <soFUJ-8jf-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173177 |
On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > my position remains the same: > aptitude is poorly designed. Fine. So don't use it. But moaning won't help anyone, not even you. You don't like Aptitude. We get the message. So don't use Aptitude. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 16:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <spEDf-1QU-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173193 |
On 2016-10-04 22:51:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > my position remains the same: > > aptitude is poorly designed. > > Fine. So don't use it. But moaning won't help anyone, not even you. You > don't like Aptitude. We get the message. So don't use Aptitude. And what do you propose instead? -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 22:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <spJWi-5BJ-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173273 |
On 08/10/16 03:43, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-10-04 22:51:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: >> On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote: >>> my position remains the same: >>> aptitude is poorly designed. >> Fine. So don't use it. But moaning won't help anyone, not even you. You >> don't like Aptitude. We get the message. So don't use Aptitude. > And what do you propose instead? I would not use a package manager that does things behind my back. I have been having great success on unstable with: apt-get dist-upgrade -s -V If apt is not proposing brutal removals of a necessary application or even an entire architecture (e.g. i386 on multiarch, yes it offered to do this once), then I follow this with: apt-get dist-upgrade -V During stormy weather (transitions), I use (with and then without -s): apt-get upgrade -V Also, apt-listbugs is your friend. Kind regards, -- Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> Director Transient Software Limited <http://transient.nz/> New Zealand
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 01:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <srAOR-2Ru-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173273 |
On Friday 07 October 2016 15:43:17 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-10-04 22:51:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > my position remains the same: > > > aptitude is poorly designed. > > > > Fine. So don't use it. But moaning won't help anyone, not even you. > > You don't like Aptitude. We get the message. So don't use Aptitude. > > And what do you propose instead? I don't use Sid, so haven't tested out which package managers are good for it when there are problems, but how about looking at apt or apt-get? Ben says that he has great success with apt-get. Apt-get is much less aggressive than aptitude - but less fully featured. If I use aptitude with a large number of upgrades, I try to break it up. At the very least I do # aptitude update #aptitude -s safe-upgrade # aptitude safe-upgrade # aptitude -s full-upgrade # aptitude full-upgrade Thus giving me a chance to sort out problems before I wreck my system! Then nothing gets removed if I don't want it to be. And there are tricks like: http://serverfault.com/questions/696241/mark-packages-to-be-installed-and-run-aptitude-in-interactive-mode If you ask what people find good for that particular problem, I am sure you will get a lot of helpful replies. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 01:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <srBrz-3a8-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173460 |
On 13/10/16 12:09, Lisi Reisz wrote: > I don't use Sid, so haven't tested out which package managers are good for it > when there are problems, but how about looking at apt or apt-get? Ben says > that he has great success with apt-get. Apt-get is much less aggressive than > aptitude - but less fully featured. "apt-get dist-upgrade" can be very aggressive and should be used with caution. In my view, the key skill for users is to recognise when an upgrade is likely to have unwanted effects. This requires caution and experience. Users who proceed with upgrades without considering the possible effects will have unpleasant experiences. A small amount of effort to investigate unusual removals or upgrades, such as identifying a package or looking in changelogs, will go a long way to improving user experience. Kind regards, -- Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> Director Transient Software Limited <http://transient.nz/> New Zealand
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 16:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <sLM14-1HQ-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173460 |
On 2016-10-13 00:09:02 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 07 October 2016 15:43:17 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2016-10-04 22:51:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > my position remains the same: > > > > aptitude is poorly designed. > > > > > > Fine. So don't use it. But moaning won't help anyone, not even you. > > > You don't like Aptitude. We get the message. So don't use Aptitude. > > > > And what do you propose instead? > > I don't use Sid, so haven't tested out which package managers are good for it > when there are problems, but how about looking at apt or apt-get? Ben says > that he has great success with apt-get. Apt-get is much less aggressive than > aptitude - but less fully featured. > > If I use aptitude with a large number of upgrades, I try to break it up. At > the very least I do > # aptitude update > #aptitude -s safe-upgrade > # aptitude safe-upgrade > # aptitude -s full-upgrade > # aptitude full-upgrade Sorry for the late reply, but all these may remove important packages, i.e. they have the same issues. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 00:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sLU8h-6PU-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #175511 |
On Wednesday 07 December 2016 14:55:40 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-10-13 00:09:02 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Friday 07 October 2016 15:43:17 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On 2016-10-04 22:51:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > > my position remains the same: > > > > > aptitude is poorly designed. > > > > > > > > Fine. So don't use it. But moaning won't help anyone, not even you. > > > > You don't like Aptitude. We get the message. So don't use Aptitude. > > > > > > And what do you propose instead? > > > > I don't use Sid, so haven't tested out which package managers are good > > for it when there are problems, but how about looking at apt or apt-get? > > Ben says that he has great success with apt-get. Apt-get is much less > > aggressive than aptitude - but less fully featured. > > > > If I use aptitude with a large number of upgrades, I try to break it up. > > At the very least I do > > # aptitude update > > #aptitude -s safe-upgrade > > # aptitude safe-upgrade > > # aptitude -s full-upgrade > > # aptitude full-upgrade > > Sorry for the late reply, but all these may remove important packages, > i.e. they have the same issues. Don't let them - that is the point of the -s. safe-upgrade is specifically not supposed to remove anything at all, important or otherwise. And have you looked into apt and apt-get? Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 12:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <sOZbr-32P-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #175538 |
On 2016-12-07 23:45:24 +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 December 2016 14:55:40 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2016-10-13 00:09:02 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > On Friday 07 October 2016 15:43:17 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > On 2016-10-04 22:51:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > > > my position remains the same:
> > > > > > aptitude is poorly designed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fine. So don't use it. But moaning won't help anyone, not even you.
> > > > > You don't like Aptitude. We get the message. So don't use Aptitude.
> > > >
> > > > And what do you propose instead?
> > >
> > > I don't use Sid, so haven't tested out which package managers are good
> > > for it when there are problems, but how about looking at apt or apt-get?
> > > Ben says that he has great success with apt-get. Apt-get is much less
> > > aggressive than aptitude - but less fully featured.
> > >
> > > If I use aptitude with a large number of upgrades, I try to break it up.
> > > At the very least I do
> > > # aptitude update
> > > #aptitude -s safe-upgrade
> > > # aptitude safe-upgrade
> > > # aptitude -s full-upgrade
> > > # aptitude full-upgrade
> >
> > Sorry for the late reply, but all these may remove important packages,
> > i.e. they have the same issues.
>
> Don't let them - that is the point of the -s.
The -s is actually not necessary since if a package is to be removed,
the user may still refuse. Safe, but still annoying as this requires
a manual handling.
> safe-upgrade is specifically not supposed to remove anything at all,
> important or otherwise.
Perhaps this is better now, but a few months ago:
ypig:~> aptitude safe-upgrade -s
The following packages will be REMOVED:
gmp-ecm{u}
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove and 8 not upgraded.
Well, the bug is now claimed to be fixed:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819636
But since, I've still had problems with the UI. One problem is that
safe-upgrade is apparently missing from the UI.
> And have you looked into apt and apt-get?
They have there own issues, but mainly limitations: no UI to
exclude individual packages from an upgrade (e.g. because of
a serious bug), no support for frozen packages (a feature from
aptitude).
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 19:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <sP57c-75S-49@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #175745 |
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 12:40:29 +0100
Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote:
> On 2016-12-07 23:45:24 +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 December 2016 14:55:40 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > On 2016-10-13 00:09:02 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > > On Friday 07 October 2016 15:43:17 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > > On 2016-10-04 22:51:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > > > > my position remains the same:
> > > > > > > aptitude is poorly designed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fine. So don't use it. But moaning won't help anyone, not
> > > > > > even you. You don't like Aptitude. We get the message. So
> > > > > > don't use Aptitude.
> > > > >
> > > > > And what do you propose instead?
> > > >
> > > > I don't use Sid, so haven't tested out which package managers
> > > > are good for it when there are problems, but how about looking
> > > > at apt or apt-get? Ben says that he has great success with
> > > > apt-get. Apt-get is much less aggressive than aptitude - but
> > > > less fully featured.
> > > >
> > > > If I use aptitude with a large number of upgrades, I try to
> > > > break it up. At the very least I do
> > > > # aptitude update
> > > > #aptitude -s safe-upgrade
> > > > # aptitude safe-upgrade
> > > > # aptitude -s full-upgrade
> > > > # aptitude full-upgrade
> > >
> > > Sorry for the late reply, but all these may remove important
> > > packages, i.e. they have the same issues.
> >
> > Don't let them - that is the point of the -s.
>
> The -s is actually not necessary since if a package is to be removed,
> the user may still refuse. Safe, but still annoying as this requires
> a manual handling.
>
> > safe-upgrade is specifically not supposed to remove anything at all,
> > important or otherwise.
>
> Perhaps this is better now, but a few months ago:
>
> ypig:~> aptitude safe-upgrade -s
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
> gmp-ecm{u}
> 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove and 8 not
> upgraded.
>
> Well, the bug is now claimed to be fixed:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819636
>
> But since, I've still had problems with the UI. One problem is that
> safe-upgrade is apparently missing from the UI.
>
> > And have you looked into apt and apt-get?
>
> They have there own issues, but mainly limitations: no UI to
> exclude individual packages from an upgrade (e.g. because of
> a serious bug), no support for frozen packages (a feature from
> aptitude).
>
Do you have X running? I use Synaptic in these situations, where it is
easy to try packages to see what can be upgraded without removals I'm
not willing to accept. On a few occasions, I have managed to hit on the
right order to do a large upgrade, and actually managed to upgrade
every package in a few passes when neither apt-get nor aptitude could do
it in one go.
--
Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 12:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <sQ4sq-77B-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #175751 |
On 2016-12-16 18:06:26 +0000, Joe wrote: > Do you have X running? Not always. > I use Synaptic in these situations, where it is easy to try packages > to see what can be upgraded without removals I'm not willing to > accept. But that's not automatic (aptitude can also do that, and one can undo a choice if it yields removals). -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 20:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <sQbkj-3a7-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #175822 |
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:38:51 +0100 Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote: > On 2016-12-16 18:06:26 +0000, Joe wrote: > > Do you have X running? > > Not always. > > > I use Synaptic in these situations, where it is easy to try packages > > to see what can be upgraded without removals I'm not willing to > > accept. > > But that's not automatic (aptitude can also do that, and one can > undo a choice if it yields removals). > Difficult to see how it could be automated, as sometimes it's a value judgement as to whether to temporarily sacrifice application x in order to upgrade y immediately, or whether to wait a while. Occasionally, a package is removed permanently, and there's no obvious way of differentiating such a removal from a temporary dependency issue without resorting to a search engine. And I know that aptitude can do all kinds of amazing things in interactive mode, but I have some kind of mental block about it. I've tried learning it two or three times, and it seems to be just about as counter-intuitive to operate as anything possibly can be. I have nothing against curses programs, I use mc in preference to other file managers for admin work on my workstation, which does run X at all times. I just don't get on with aptitude. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-20 01:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <sQgDf-6G5-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #175832 |
On 2016-12-19 18:58:43 +0000, Joe wrote: > On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:38:51 +0100 > Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote: > > But that's not automatic (aptitude can also do that, and one can > > undo a choice if it yields removals). > > Difficult to see how it could be automated, as sometimes it's a value > judgement as to whether to temporarily sacrifice application x in order > to upgrade y immediately, or whether to wait a while. Occasionally, a > package is removed permanently, and there's no obvious way of > differentiating such a removal from a temporary dependency issue > without resorting to a search engine. This is not a problem. All what is needed is to have the choice. Typically, I like to do the following: 1. Upgrade all packages that don't need removals. 2. If some upgrade is blocked, inspect manually what will happen (it's easier to do that if one has handled the non-problematic cases first). Manual inspection is needed because the default choice is sometimes wrong (and only the user can know that). Currently, I can't even do (1) in all cases. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-21 20:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sQUhj-748-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #175832 |
On Monday 19 December 2016 18:58:43 Joe wrote: > On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:38:51 +0100 > > Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote: > > On 2016-12-16 18:06:26 +0000, Joe wrote: > > > Do you have X running? > > > > Not always. > > > > > I use Synaptic in these situations, where it is easy to try packages > > > to see what can be upgraded without removals I'm not willing to > > > accept. > > > > But that's not automatic (aptitude can also do that, and one can > > undo a choice if it yields removals). > > Difficult to see how it could be automated, as sometimes it's a value > judgement as to whether to temporarily sacrifice application x in order > to upgrade y immediately, or whether to wait a while. Occasionally, a > package is removed permanently, and there's no obvious way of > differentiating such a removal from a temporary dependency issue > without resorting to a search engine. > > And I know that aptitude can do all kinds of amazing things in > interactive mode, but I have some kind of mental block about it. I've > tried learning it two or three times, and it seems to be just about as > counter-intuitive to operate as anything possibly can be. I have > nothing against curses programs, I use mc in preference to other file > managers for admin work on my workstation, which does run X at all > times. I just don't get on with aptitude. aptitude can do a lot on the cli. I don't get on with n-curses programs. That's not to say that you personally would like it any better, of course, but one doesn't have to use n-curses to use aptitude. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-21 21:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <sQVwJ-820-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #175870 |
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 19:00:06 +0000 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday 19 December 2016 18:58:43 Joe wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:38:51 +0100 > > > > Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote: > > > On 2016-12-16 18:06:26 +0000, Joe wrote: > > > > Do you have X running? > > > > > > Not always. > > > > > > > I use Synaptic in these situations, where it is easy to try > > > > packages to see what can be upgraded without removals I'm not > > > > willing to accept. > > > > > > But that's not automatic (aptitude can also do that, and one can > > > undo a choice if it yields removals). > > > > Difficult to see how it could be automated, as sometimes it's a > > value judgement as to whether to temporarily sacrifice application > > x in order to upgrade y immediately, or whether to wait a while. > > Occasionally, a package is removed permanently, and there's no > > obvious way of differentiating such a removal from a temporary > > dependency issue without resorting to a search engine. > > > > And I know that aptitude can do all kinds of amazing things in > > interactive mode, but I have some kind of mental block about it. > > I've tried learning it two or three times, and it seems to be just > > about as counter-intuitive to operate as anything possibly can be. > > I have nothing against curses programs, I use mc in preference to > > other file managers for admin work on my workstation, which does > > run X at all times. I just don't get on with aptitude. > > aptitude can do a lot on the cli. I don't get on with n-curses > programs. That's not to say that you personally would like it any > better, of course, but one doesn't have to use n-curses to use > aptitude. > Yes, I drive it cli, except for my sid installations that are rarely upgraded: aptitude isn't really up to 500-package dependency calculations. But elsewhere I use it in general preference to apt-get. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 20:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <sP5Tz-7mH-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #175745 |
On Fri 16 Dec 2016 at 12:40:29 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-12-07 23:45:24 +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Wednesday 07 December 2016 14:55:40 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On 2016-10-13 00:09:02 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > On Friday 07 October 2016 15:43:17 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > > On 2016-10-04 22:51:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > > > > my position remains the same: > > > > > > > aptitude is poorly designed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Fine. So don't use it. But moaning won't help anyone, not even you. > > > > > > You don't like Aptitude. We get the message. So don't use Aptitude. > > > > > > > > > > And what do you propose instead? > > > > > > > > I don't use Sid, so haven't tested out which package managers are good > > > > for it when there are problems, but how about looking at apt or apt-get? > > > > Ben says that he has great success with apt-get. Apt-get is much less > > > > aggressive than aptitude - but less fully featured. > > > > > > > > If I use aptitude with a large number of upgrades, I try to break it up. > > > > At the very least I do > > > > # aptitude update > > > > #aptitude -s safe-upgrade > > > > # aptitude safe-upgrade > > > > # aptitude -s full-upgrade > > > > # aptitude full-upgrade > > > > > > Sorry for the late reply, but all these may remove important packages, > > > i.e. they have the same issues. > > > > Don't let them - that is the point of the -s. > > The -s is actually not necessary since if a package is to be removed, > the user may still refuse. It protects one from making a mistake by a lapse of attention while focussing on the problem in hand, ie examining lists of packages that apt* wants to remove. Why discourage its use? But more than that, -s allows one to $ aptitude -s full-upgrade rather than # aptitude -s full-upgrade so one can investigate these issues without even taking on root privilege at all. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 07:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sqeQp-8ud-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173193 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
2016-10-04 23:51 GMT+02:00 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com>: > On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > my position remains the same: > > aptitude is poorly designed. > > Fine. So don't use it. But moaning won't help anyone, not even you. You > don't like Aptitude. We get the message. So don't use Aptitude. > If open source people said the same 30 years ago, we will not be there listening to this. (replace aptitude with linux kernel and think about really early release) Not every people are able to fix or read code and if they're not complaining how can developper improve their code ? This way of answering is really bad. If you have nothing to say, don't write a mail. > > Lisi > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web