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 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 23:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <smuTL-3OR-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172901 |
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016, Miles Fidelman wrote: > As a general rule, I find that using Debian packaging for perl makes > absolutely no sense - and often problematic. There is pretty much a 1:1 mapping from CPAN packages to Debian packages. The only thing which is even remotely complicated is how perl itself is packaged, because many things link against perl, and when the perl API and/or ABI change, they all have to be rebuilt. > 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. We have a perl team which handles this pretty effectively, actually, and has tools to automate the updates to hundreds of CPAN modules. It also works much better than CPAN when you're deploying to production, as you can: + reproduce the production environment + don't have to deal with having compilers, etc. in production, + have security support + have long-term support and indeed, if you need something from CPAN which isn't packaged, that's literally just a dh-make-perl --cpan Foo::Bar; away. -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com If you wish to strive for peace of soul, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 11:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <smFFw-28g-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172901 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 05:03:26PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> As a general rule, I find that using Debian packaging for perl makes
> absolutely no sense - and often problematic.
It's more complicated than this. There are other (non-Perl, non-CPAN)
Debian packages dependent on Perl modules. Thus such a swaying statement
is almost surely wrong.
> Perl has its own ecosystem (cpan) that does an incredibly good job
> of packaging [...]
As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, Perl is a particularly
happy example of cross-package-system work. Most Perl packages are
co-maintained by the Debian Perl packaging group, are reasonably
up to date and interact well with the odd self-installed package.
> Far better to install perl manually and use cpan to manage updates
> and installs.
Again such an absolute statement. Put this way, that makes no sense.
It depends on *for whom*. If I'm mostly interested in Gnu R, because
I'm a biologist, and just want to have a reasonably working Debian
underneath (perhaps with some odd DBI and DBD::Pg or whatever), then
it'd be nonsense to use CPAN.
FWIW, Perl *is* one of my main languages, and I don't use CPAN on
my Debian box (although I use it regularly on some customer's
Redhat boxes, which tend to be too old). OTOH -- I compile my Emacs,
because I don't like the distro's defaults.
For me, that's exactly the invaluable help of the distro: it lets
me pick my fights and keeps my back clear of fights I don't want
to pick. And those will be different for each person.
Only when upstream is too obnoxious ("always use the latest and
greatest or..." -- Ruby, I'm looking at you!), it becomes difficult
to package properly for a distro. But I tend to avoid those
places. Perl isn't like that.
regards
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlfs278ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbn6QCeOK79Upm51aYwindToArEAn1u
aJwAn2MmmacDybOa295E1Qyw3ORHlpY0
=IVht
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 11:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <smFFw-28g-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172896 |
On 2016-09-28 14:50:50 -0500, John Hasler wrote: > 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. But when this occurs, all the solutions are bad. > You can also pin packages so that they will never be removed. but aptitude ignores the user's choices. -- 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 | Andre Majorel <aym-naibed@teaser.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 22:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <smtbj-2Ad-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172888 |
On 2016-09-28 10:46 -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. 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. When there's some kind of conflict during a package installation or upgrade, the first solutions proposed by aptitude almost invariably involve large numbers of package removals. The simple solution that upgrades/installs what can be and leaves the rest alone is usually there but buried under at least three -- and sometimes tens of -- very disruptive ones. If aptitude got it wrong half the time, it might be for want of reading minds. But in my experience it gets it consistently wrong. Suggests to me that what it needs is new heuristics. -- André Majorel <http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/> Ever got spam through an address harvested from bugs.debian.org ? Neither have I.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 22:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <smtEl-30U-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172897 |
Andre Majorel writes: > If aptitude got it wrong half the time, it might be for want of > reading minds. But in my experience it gets it consistently > wrong. Suggests to me that what it needs is new heuristics. Patches are always welcome. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 23:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <smuh3-3tr-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172897 |
Andre Majorel <aym-naibed@teaser.fr> wrote: > On 2016-09-28 10:46 -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. 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. > When there's some kind of conflict during a package installation or > upgrade, the first solutions proposed by aptitude almost invariably > involve large numbers of package removals. There is an option to tune the resolver. I have got the following in my /etc/apt/apt.conf: ,---- | // tweak Aptitude to not suggest removals as first option | Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost "removals"; `---- S° -- Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 11:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <smFma-1M8-31@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172900 |
On 2016-09-28 23:05:31 +0200, Sven Hartge wrote: > There is an option to tune the resolver. I have got the following in my > /etc/apt/apt.conf: > > ,---- > | // tweak Aptitude to not suggest removals as first option > | Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost "removals"; > `---- Unfortunately, it doesn't work: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=823928 and this is wontfix. :( It's a pity that Aptitude is so 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 | Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 14:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <smItH-423-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172906 |
On 2016-09-29 10:50:39 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-09-28 23:05:31 +0200, Sven Hartge wrote: > > There is an option to tune the resolver. I have got the following in my > > /etc/apt/apt.conf: > > > > ,---- > > | // tweak Aptitude to not suggest removals as first option > > | Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost "removals"; > > `---- > > Unfortunately, it doesn't work: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=823928 > > and this is wontfix. :( I wonder whether it could be better to increase the value of Aptitude::ProblemResolver::Remove-Level. Option: Aptitude::ProblemResolver::Remove-Level Default: 10000 Description: The safety cost assigned to actions that remove a package. See the section called “Safety costs” for a description of safety costs. But I fear that if Aptitude skips low-cost solution with SolutionCost "removals", it will also skip them with an increased Remove-Level (unless the decisions related to safety cost levels are privileged in the heuristics). -- 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 | 2016-09-30 01:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <smSCJ-2ey-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172906 |
> It's a pity that Aptitude is so poorly designed.
Just because it doesn't always work the way you want it doesn't mean it
should labeled "poorly designed".
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 11:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <sn2sq-8pw-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172948 |
On 2016-09-29 19:04:20 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > It's a pity that Aptitude is so poorly designed. > > Just because it doesn't always work the way you want it doesn't mean it > should labeled "poorly designed". I'm not the only one to complain. -- 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 | 2016-09-30 15:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sn6cG-2n1-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172958 |
>> > It's a pity that Aptitude is so poorly designed.
>> Just because it doesn't always work the way you want it doesn't mean it
>> should labeled "poorly designed".
> I'm not the only one to complain.
My point is that saying it's "poorly designed" is like calling the author
an idiot. So it's very different from complaining about some problems
with the program.
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 09:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <sos1r-7LY-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172966 |
On 2016-09-30 09:31:39 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> > It's a pity that Aptitude is so poorly designed. > >> Just because it doesn't always work the way you want it doesn't mean it > >> should labeled "poorly designed". > > I'm not the only one to complain. > > My point is that saying it's "poorly designed" is like calling the author > an idiot. So it's very different from complaining about some problems > with the program. It's poorly designed because bugs[*] are not fixable. [*] behavior that doesn't match the documentation. -- 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 | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 11:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <souwh-SP-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173176 |
On Tuesday, October 04, 2016 03:03:45 AM Vincent Lefevre wrote: > It's poorly designed because bugs[*] are not fixable. > > [*] behavior that doesn't match the documentation. If the program has behavior that doesn't match the documentation, that sounds more like poor implementation than poor design. (Assuming the documentation is / was intended to reflect the design.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 00:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <soFUJ-8jf-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173180 |
On Tuesday 04 October 2016 10:48:01 rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, October 04, 2016 03:03:45 AM Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > It's poorly designed because bugs[*] are not fixable. > > > > [*] behavior that doesn't match the documentation. > > If the program has behavior that doesn't match the documentation, that > sounds more like poor implementation than poor design. (Assuming the > documentation is / was intended to reflect the design.) Or poor documentation? Much Open Source software has poor or non-existent documentation - documentation is the boring bit to write!! Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Thomas <rbthomas@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 21:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sp0cN-64z-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #173192 |
On Oct 4, 2016, at 2:53 PM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote: > Much Open Source software has poor or non-existent > documentation - documentation is the boring bit to write!! Don’t know about boring, but documentation is much harder to write than programs. The development/testing cycle is *much* longer with documentation than it is with programs. It can take human documentation readers months or years to give you feedback, while a computer generally gives you the bronx cheer in mere minutes!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 15:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sn6cG-2n1-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172958 |
On Friday 30 September 2016 10:31:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-09-29 19:04:20 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > It's a pity that Aptitude is so poorly designed. > > > > Just because it doesn't always work the way you want it doesn't mean it > > should labeled "poorly designed". > > I'm not the only one to complain. 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. You COULD even change to an rpm distro and have a completely different moan available to you. ;-) Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 16:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <sn6Z4-2UA-31@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172967 |
On 09/30/2016 09:32 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > You COULD even change to an rpm distro and have a completely different moan > available to you. ;-) Who says Linux isn't sexy to use?? I think that the biggest beef is not the package manager, but the packages that depended on everything else installed so that their removal blows up your entire install. Try removing Firefox. That installs Firefox-esr. Removing that installs Firefox again. Suppose I don't want Firefox at all?? <grins> Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 16:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <soczo-68A-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172974 |
On Friday 30 September 2016 15:20:07 Ric Moore wrote: > Suppose I don't want Firefox at all?? There is the probable, the possible, the impossible, the unheard of - and then there is not wanting Firefox. ;-) Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andre Majorel <aym-naibed@teaser.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 21:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <snbm2-60q-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172967 |
On 2016-09-30 14:32 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 30 September 2016 10:31:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > I'm not the only one to complain. > > 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. Haven't you heard of the therapeutic value of whining ? ;-) Personally, what I find most remarkable is not that Vincent be complaining. It's that no more people would when aptitude has been getting it so consistently wrong for so long. And that getting some people to acknowledge that there even is a problem, let alone fix it, should be so difficult. -- André Majorel <http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/> M. X, éleveur de spambots, recommande bugs.debian.org.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 20:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages |
| Message-ID | <snwJP-3no-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #172998 |
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016, Andre Majorel wrote: > And that getting some people to acknowledge that there even is a > problem, let alone fix it, should be so difficult. This is a well-known limitation of aptitude (at least among DDs), and given the number of threads about it in d-user, it should be well-known around here as well. But the resolver is just one part of the aptitude design. You won't find a consensus that the resolver is the most important part of aptitude, either: since it is an interactive tool and the most powerful one available at that -- as long as you do take the time to learn its powerful features -- it typically allows you to override any of its bad decisions, you will get people like me defending aptitude's design while freely acknowledging that its resolver could do better. Were we talking about apt-get, it would be a different matter. There, the resolver is by far the most important component. Anyway, this is no excuse for the aptitude resolver behavior (just an explanation why a lot of DDs are never going to jump into the "aptitude is broken/crap/bad" bandwagon), but fixing it is non-trivial. While one does have enough tunables for aptitude's resolver that code changes might not be needed to address this specific issue at all (i.e. its first resolution choice being rather remove-happy), finding the "one solution that fits all" has been elusive. Besides, to push changes to aptitude's default resolver behavior, you have to *test* their effects, which actually means you need to reproduce a decent number of upgrade / downgrade / broken global package and archive states. Volunteers to tack that problem are welcome. 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. -- Henrique Holschuh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web