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 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 15:30 +0200 |
| Subject | WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <skVbI-1uc-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Good morning! Just a heads up that upgrading the following two packages attempts to remove 141 unrelated packages in Sid/Unstable this morning: perl 5.24.1~rc3-2 perl-base 5.24.1~rc3-2 I grab AMD64 packages in case that makes a difference AND I have other larger packages still waiting to be upgraded, as well.A total of almost 400MB the last couple days! Am on dialup and have to be selective about the order in which packages are upgraded in between taking the opportunity to actually participate online. Yes, a bug has been filed, just minutes ago, and only against Perl at this time. Just sharing because I was in a hurry and almost let it happen. I don't want anyone else to accidentally do the same. For newcomers, *always* protect yourself by making sure you backup your current state before upgrading, specifically for days like today. Good luck and Happy Debian'ing! Cindy :) -- Cindy-Sue Causey Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA * runs with duct tape *
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 15:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <skVv3-1Az-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172729 |
Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> wrote: > Good morning! Just a heads up that upgrading the following two > packages attempts to remove 141 unrelated packages in Sid/Unstable > this morning: > perl 5.24.1~rc3-2 > perl-base 5.24.1~rc3-2 > I grab AMD64 packages in case that makes a difference AND I have other > larger packages still waiting to be upgraded, as well.A total of > almost 400MB the last couple days! Am on dialup and have to be > selective about the order in which packages are upgraded in between > taking the opportunity to actually participate online. > Yes, a bug has been filed, just minutes ago, and only against Perl at this time. Why would you think this is a bug? This is just a normal Perl-API transition, the packages need to be rebuild against the new perl to be compatible. This _is_ Unstable after all, things like this happen all the time. Just use only "apt upgrade" for a few days until the transition is over. See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=838760#10 as well. S° -- Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 17:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <skXdv-2Iz-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172730 |
On 9/24/16, Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> wrote: > Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> wrote: >> Good morning! Just a heads up that upgrading the following two >> packages attempts to remove 141 unrelated packages in Sid/Unstable >> this morning: > >> perl 5.24.1~rc3-2 >> perl-base 5.24.1~rc3-2 > >> I grab AMD64 packages in case that makes a difference AND I have other >> larger packages still waiting to be upgraded, as well.A total of >> almost 400MB the last couple days! Am on dialup and have to be >> selective about the order in which packages are upgraded in between >> taking the opportunity to actually participate online. > >> Yes, a bug has been filed, just minutes ago, and only against Perl at this >> time. > > Why would you think this is a bug? This is just a normal Perl-API > transition, the packages need to be rebuild against the new perl to be > compatible. > > This _is_ Unstable after all, things like this happen all the time. YES, I know this is Unstable. That's why I specifically made that declaration in the email's subject line and other (i.e. "the bug report", grin). I'm one of the ones who issues that statement herself on regular occasion. I'm actually looking around at various distributions/releases because Unstable is so constantly changing right now. There's 400MB+ needing upgraded again, potentially almost 500MB since that 400MB+ number is courtesy "apt-get upgrade", GRIN. YES, that is Unstable's *expected* business as usual and opens the door to consider the *_CHOICE_* of potentially better using that much download time plus server wear-and-tear to make a new start somehow. > Just use only "apt upgrade" for a few days until the transition is over. > > See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=838760#10 as well. This email's very wholesome purpose was to serve as a notice to newbies (and people like me with cognitive disabilities) who could/would miss that they need to pay wide open attention today. "apt-get install"..... It *does* stop and give you that advisement that you're about to remove a bunch of packages. It's then the user's *_CHOICE_* to select yes or no regarding continuing the operation. It *would be nice* if there was an even more visual... a more "stern", stimulating trigger...... of some kind. Just this second, I don't know what would help newer users AND keep seasoned users happy at the same time. I saw this as a bug because 141 packages were being not only disabled but removed. Along the lines of my thoughts about apt-get's advisement in more extreme situations like this, perhaps a nice wishlist item for reportbug would be that it... I don't know.... guides the user based on its finding of the Sid/Unstable declaration (variable), as well, e.g. that part where reportbug picks up and reports this: "Debian Release: stretch/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable')" What you're saying about the use of "apt-get upgrade", that's just what I was saying the other day about the difference in how "apt-get install" and "apt-get upgrade" reacts... Except that... In the case I was saying the other day, it wasn't like this. Libreoffice was installing fine via "apt-get install". There were no glitches, no potentially negative advisements, to be seen in the "install" action towards upgrade. BUT if I performed a wide open, generic "apt-get upgrade" (purely on a whim), many libreoffice packages (including libreoffice itself) were then held back. Just tested it again and am still receiving the following (regarding libreoffice only via "apt-get upgrade"): "The following packages have been kept back: libreoffice libreoffice-avmedia-backend-gstreamer libreoffice-base libreoffice-base-core libreoffice-base-drivers libreoffice-calc libreoffice-core libreoffice-draw libreoffice-impress libreoffice-math libreoffice-report-builder-bin libreoffice-sdbc-firebird libreoffice-sdbc-hsqldb libreoffice-writer" Per your suggestion, perl and perl-base are, YES, additionally now included in what's being reported as being held back for that same "apt-get upgrade" just now. :) PS There are a couple other packages in there that have been in there for a VERY. LONG. TIME. Won't mention any names publicly here.... mostly because I'm not 100% sure why they're there. One's a possibly much lesser known but the other is something touched on with the most basic of installs via debootstrap. I think that one's ok to let have its head with package deletion via "apt-get install", but I need to *cognitively* understand first before following through. The one most basic of packages wants to remove openjdk-7-jre and openjdk-7-jre-headless. By doing things as manually as I have to do, I experience the nice advantage of knowing that openjdk-8-jre and openjdk-8-jre-headless are installed as the wave of the Future. I just don't want to a-sume it's ok to let the prior ones being automatically deleted until I read someone with authority saying that's the next step up, especially since "apt-get upgrade" considers it a situation that needs held back. :) Cindy :) -- Cindy-Sue Causey Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA * runs with duct tape *
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <skZIm-4oj-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172742 |
Copied from debian-devel-announce:
From: Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li>
Subject: Perl 5.24 transition underway
To: debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 18:57:14 +0100 (17 minutes, 7 seconds ago)
Mail-Followup-To: Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li>, debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org
Resent-From: debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org
Yesterday[0] I uploaded Perl 5.24 to Debian unstable, starting a 500+ package
transition. Wide uninstallability is to be expected in sid for the next
few days until the necessary rebuilds have been completed. Please avoid
unnecessary uploads of affected packages [1] until the transition is
over and perl has migrated to testing. There is no need to submit
bug reports against perl about the uninstallability of related
packages during this transition.
See the "perldelta" document [2] for information
on upstream changes since 5.22.
Cheers,
Dominic.
[0] I'm sorry that this message has only been distributed now. It was
originally sent yesterday, but the list server blackholed it.
[1] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/perl5.24.html
[2] https://metacpan.org/pod/distribution/perl/pod/perldelta.pod
--
John Hasler
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Seeker <seeker5528@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 21:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <sl0Ep-4WY-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172742 |
First off I have been playing around with 'compose > text' and 'send > text' options in Thunderbird so I apologize ahead of time if A: lines are excessively long and B: that is an issue for you in whatever you are using to read this. On 9/24/2016 8:33 AM, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote: <Snip> > What you're saying about the use of "apt-get upgrade", that's just > what I was saying the other day about the difference in how "apt-get > install" and "apt-get upgrade" reacts... > > Except that... > > In the case I was saying the other day, it wasn't like this. > Libreoffice was installing fine via "apt-get install". There were no > glitches, no potentially negative advisements, to be seen in the > "install" action towards upgrade. BUT if I performed a wide open, > generic "apt-get upgrade" (purely on a whim), many libreoffice > packages (including libreoffice itself) were then held back. > > Just tested it again and am still receiving the following (regarding > libreoffice only via "apt-get upgrade"): > > "The following packages have been kept back: libreoffice > libreoffice-avmedia-backend-gstreamer libreoffice-base > libreoffice-base-core libreoffice-base-drivers libreoffice-calc > libreoffice-core libreoffice-draw libreoffice-impress > libreoffice-math libreoffice-report-builder-bin > libreoffice-sdbc-firebird libreoffice-sdbc-hsqldb > libreoffice-writer" > > Per your suggestion, perl and perl-base are, YES, additionally now > included in what's being reported as being held back for that same > "apt-get upgrade" just now. :) > Normal behavior for 'apt-get upgrade', will not install anything new in a literal, based on package name sort of way and also will not install anything that would cause a package to be removed. So if upgrading LibreOffice would pull in something you don't already have it will get held back. If there is a version as part of the package name so libsomething01 would have to be removed and libsomething02 would have to be install, then you have a removal of a package you have and install of something you don't so again it gets held back. I have not looked into what all differences there are between 'apt upgrade' versus 'apt-get upgrade', but one difference is that 'apt upgrade' will pull in new packages in order to upgrade something you already have. I don't normally upgrade from the command line, so have not used 'apt upgrade' enough to notice if it will do the upgrade in cases where libsomething01 has to be removed and libsomething02 has to be installed. Later, Seeker
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 09:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <sn0gV-76O-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172742 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:33:58AM -0400, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote: > YES, I know this is Unstable. That's why I specifically made that > declaration in the email's subject line and other (i.e. "the bug > report", grin). I'm one of the ones who issues that statement herself > on regular occasion. Would jessie not be more suitable for your needs? Much less churn in a stable release than the development distribution. -- Jonathan Dowland Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 17:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <smoEF-8kS-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172730 |
On 2016-09-24 15:48:15 +0200, Sven Hartge wrote: > Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> wrote: > > Good morning! Just a heads up that upgrading the following two > > packages attempts to remove 141 unrelated packages in Sid/Unstable > > this morning: > > > perl 5.24.1~rc3-2 > > perl-base 5.24.1~rc3-2 > > > I grab AMD64 packages in case that makes a difference AND I have other > > larger packages still waiting to be upgraded, as well.A total of > > almost 400MB the last couple days! Am on dialup and have to be > > selective about the order in which packages are upgraded in between > > taking the opportunity to actually participate online. > > > Yes, a bug has been filed, just minutes ago, and only against Perl > > at this time. > > Why would you think this is a bug? This is just a normal Perl-API > transition, the packages need to be rebuild against the new perl to be > compatible. > > This _is_ Unstable after all, things like this happen all the time. Things like that should not happen. But this is not a bug in the perl packages. This is a misfeature of apt / aptitude, which want to remove packages instead of holding the new packages (well, AFAIK, aptitude has improved, but is still not perfect). -- 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 | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 17:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <smpho-by-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172886 |
Vincent Lefevre writes: > Things like that should not happen. But this is not a bug in the perl > packages. This is a misfeature of apt / aptitude, which want to remove > packages instead of holding the new packages (well, AFAIK, aptitude > has improved, but is still not perfect). Aptitude can't read your mind. When you tell it to install something it assumes that you mean what you say and proposes solutions to any conflicts based on various heuristics. You are expected to look over the proposals and accept or reject them. With Unstable often the best solution is to give up on installing that package for now. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 20:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <smrjb-1pQ-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172888 |
On 2016-09-28 10:46:31 -0500, John Hasler wrote: > Vincent Lefevre writes: > > Things like that should not happen. But this is not a bug in the perl > > packages. This is a misfeature of apt / aptitude, which want to remove > > packages instead of holding the new packages (well, AFAIK, aptitude > > has improved, but is still not perfect). > > Aptitude can't read your mind. I'm not asking it to read my mind. I just want it not to remove any package I have manually installed. -- 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 | Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 20:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <smrVU-1Ta-49@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172890 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 19:55:49 +0200
Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote:
Hello Vincent,
>I'm not asking it to read my mind. I just want it not to
>remove any package I have manually installed.
I don't use aptitude, but if I understand things correctly, you don't
have to accept the first thing offered. So, reject each option it offers
that doesn't do what you wish. Eventually, you should be offered a
solution you approve of or can at least live with.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"
This disease is catching
Into The Valley - Skids
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 11:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <smFvP-250-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172892 |
On 2016-09-28 19:30:07 +0100, Brad Rogers wrote: > On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 19:55:49 +0200 > Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote: > > Hello Vincent, > > >I'm not asking it to read my mind. I just want it not to > >remove any package I have manually installed. > > I don't use aptitude, but if I understand things correctly, you don't > have to accept the first thing offered. Aptitude is so broken that sometimes *all* the solutions it offers include removal of packages: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=823928#10 -- 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 | Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 11:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <smFFw-28g-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172907 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:00:30AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >On 2016-09-28 19:30:07 +0100, Brad Rogers wrote: >> On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 19:55:49 +0200 >> Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote: >> >> Hello Vincent, >> >> >I'm not asking it to read my mind. I just want it not to >> >remove any package I have manually installed. >> >> I don't use aptitude, but if I understand things correctly, you don't >> have to accept the first thing offered. > >Aptitude is so broken that sometimes *all* the solutions it offers >include removal of packages: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=823928#10 Looking at the documentation for SolutionCost, it only makes removals more costly. There is no way to say "never remove any packages". And nor should there be. If PackageA (to be installed) conflicts with PackageB (which is installed), what are the options? To remove PackageB or to countermand the user's instructions and NOT install PackageA. OK, so you've told it that removals are more costly than cancels, so it cancels the request. But what if PackageA is something like libc? A hundred packages are to be upgraded but PackageB is old and incompatible. Clearly, even though you've boosted the cost of removals, it's STILL cheaper to remove PackageB than it is to cancel those hundred installs. > >-- >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) > -- For more information, please reread.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 13:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <smHHk-3tO-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172913 |
On 2016-09-29 10:17:57 +0100, Darac Marjal wrote: > Looking at the documentation for SolutionCost, it only makes removals more > costly. There is no way to say "never remove any packages". Actually, the problem doesn't seem to be a cost one, but the fact that Aptitude *skips* solutions where some packages are kept at their current version (which would allow it to avoid any removal), i.e. it will never propose such solutions even though they cost less than the solution proposed first. > But what if PackageA is something like libc? A hundred packages are to be > upgraded but PackageB is old and incompatible. Clearly, even though you've > boosted the cost of removals, it's STILL cheaper to remove PackageB than it > is to cancel those hundred installs. Wrong. I've said "removals" in SolutionCost. So, 1 removal is cheaper than *any* number of canceled actions. If I wanted some compromise between removals and canceled actions, I would have put something like: removals + 100 * canceled-actions. Note than in practice, a single package can block hundreds of upgrades e.g. during transitions, because there is a temporary failure to rebuild this package. I generally prefer to wait for a few days than removing this package. By not proposing such a solution, Aptitude blocks even upgrades of packages than could be done (unless I upgrade each other package manually, which is tedious). -- 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 | 2016-09-29 13:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <smI0F-3zS-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172932 |
On 2016-09-29 13:28:48 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-09-29 10:17:57 +0100, Darac Marjal wrote: > > But what if PackageA is something like libc? A hundred packages are to be > > upgraded but PackageB is old and incompatible. Clearly, even though you've > > boosted the cost of removals, it's STILL cheaper to remove PackageB than it > > is to cancel those hundred installs. > > Wrong. I've said "removals" in SolutionCost. So, 1 removal is cheaper > than *any* number of canceled actions. If I wanted some compromise > between removals and canceled actions, I would have put something > like: removals + 100 * canceled-actions. I meant: 100 * removals + canceled-actions (i.e. 1 remove has the same cost of 100 canceled actions). -- 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 | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 20:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <smrVV-1Ta-67@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172890 |
> I'm not asking it to read my mind. I just want it not to
> remove any package I have manually installed.
FWIW, I really wish Debian could upgrade their package tools to follow
a model similar to Nix/Guix. Basically, I'd like to have a master
configuration file where I list the packages I want to be installed (more
or equivalent to the current notion of "manually installed"), as well as
any other constraints I want to impose (e.g. so as to hold packages)
(and ideally also any constraint I want to ignore, in case some package
comes with a Require with which I disagree).
Then from this the tools can build the set of packages that will be
installed, and then add/remove packages accordingly.
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 21:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <smsRY-2td-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172890 |
Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote: > On 2016-09-28 10:46:31 -0500, John Hasler wrote: >> Vincent Lefevre writes: >>> Things like that should not happen. But this is not a bug in the >>> perl packages. This is a misfeature of apt / aptitude, which want to >>> remove packages instead of holding the new packages (well, AFAIK, >>> aptitude has improved, but is still not perfect). >> Aptitude can't read your mind. > I'm not asking it to read my mind. I just want it not to remove any > package I have manually installed. Sometimes packages change their name or are replaced by different packages or are just removed without any viable replacement. If apt/aptitude would hold on to your manually installed packages forever you would soon end up in a situation where no further upgrades can take place because all changes, either direct or indirect through dependencies and conflicts, would violate your constraint of keeping every manually installed package forever. And just to remind again: this is Unstable/Sid we are talking about. Things like this during transitions can and will happen and every user of Unstable should be prepared to a) recognize such a situation and b) be able to deal with the situation accordingliy. That being said: yes, it would be nice if apt/aptitude somehow knew of running transitions, just like tracker.debian.org knows and factor that into the decision what to upgrade and what to remove. Grüße, Sven. -- Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 11:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <smFvQ-250-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172895 |
On 2016-09-28 21:37:54 +0200, Sven Hartge wrote: > Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote: > > On 2016-09-28 10:46:31 -0500, John Hasler wrote: > >> Vincent Lefevre writes: > > >>> Things like that should not happen. But this is not a bug in the > >>> perl packages. This is a misfeature of apt / aptitude, which want to > >>> remove packages instead of holding the new packages (well, AFAIK, > >>> aptitude has improved, but is still not perfect). > > >> Aptitude can't read your mind. > > > I'm not asking it to read my mind. I just want it not to remove any > > package I have manually installed. > > Sometimes packages change their name or are replaced by different > packages or are just removed without any viable replacement. But in such cases, the solution is to override the default requirements. And it is nice to be blocked by default, as this does not involve a simple package upgrade: one may need to update config files, scripts, and so on. -- 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 | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 22:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <smtbj-2Ad-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172890 |
Vincent Lefevre writes: > I'm not asking it to read my mind. I just want it not to remove any > package I have manually installed. It doesn't remove anything without your permission. It proposes a solution to the problem you present it with. You can reject that solution and have it try again. You can also pin packages so that they will never be removed. If you do this without fully understanding the consequences you will be sorry. Also understand that it is not optimized for use with Unstable. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 22:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <smtEm-30U-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172896 |
> It doesn't remove anything without your permission. It proposes
> a solution to the problem you present it with. You can reject that
> solution and have it try again.
FWIW, the way it presents the solution makes it hard to see what's
really going on. More specifically, the list of removed packages does
not distinguish the manually-installed packages from the
automatically-installed ones.
I usually don't care about removing automatically-installed packages,
whereas I rarely want to remove manually-installed packages.
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 23:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <smuh4-3tr-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172899 |
As a general rule, I find that using Debian packaging for perl makes absolutely no sense - and often problematic. Perl has its own ecosystem (cpan) that does an incredibly good job of packaging, updating, and dependency management. Mixing and matching that with Debian packaging, and expecting packagers to keep up with updates to lots of different perl modules, is just a recipe for disaster. Far better to install perl manually and use cpan to manage updates and installs. On 9/28/16 4:06 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> It doesn't remove anything without your permission. It proposes >> a solution to the problem you present it with. You can reject that >> solution and have it try again. > FWIW, the way it presents the solution makes it hard to see what's > really going on. More specifically, the list of removed packages does > not distinguish the manually-installed packages from the > automatically-installed ones. > > I usually don't care about removing automatically-installed packages, > whereas I rarely want to remove manually-installed packages. > > > Stefan -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web