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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #182493 > unrolled thread

apt-get upgrade problem

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

Contents

  apt-get upgrade problem Mike McClain <mike.junk.46@att.net> - 2017-06-22 01:40 +0200
    Re: apt-get upgrade problem Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> - 2017-06-22 01:50 +0200
      Re: apt-get upgrade problem Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2017-06-22 09:40 +0200
      Re: apt-get upgrade problem Mike McClain <mike.junk.46@att.net> - 2017-06-22 21:20 +0200
        Re: apt-get upgrade problem Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2017-06-22 21:50 +0200
          Re: apt-get upgrade problem David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-06-25 02:40 +0200
            Re: apt-get upgrade problem Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2017-06-25 11:10 +0200
              Re: apt-get upgrade problem Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-06-26 15:00 +0200
                Re: apt-get upgrade problem Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2017-06-26 17:20 +0200
    Re: apt-get upgrade problem Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 03:30 +0200
    Re: apt-get upgrade problem davidson@freevolt.org - 2017-06-22 05:20 +0200
    Re: apt-get upgrade problem deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 08:40 +0200

#182493 — apt-get upgrade problem

When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
The following packages have been kept back:
  firefox-esr
and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade iceweasel?
Thanks,
Mike
--
As Andy Capp's wife said,
"You're only young once, but you can be childish all your life."

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#182494

On 06/21/2017 04:56 PM, Mike McClain wrote:
> When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
> The following packages have been kept back:
>    firefox-esr
> and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
> Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade iceweasel?
>
Have you tried typing "apt-get install firefox-esr"? It should tell you 
why it's held back.

The other thing would be "apt-get dist-upgrade".

-- 
Carl Fink          carl@finknetwork.com
Thinking and logic and stuff at Reasonably Literate
http://reasonablyliterate.com

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

#182503

On 2017-06-21, Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> wrote:
> On 06/21/2017 04:56 PM, Mike McClain wrote:
>> When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
>> The following packages have been kept back:
>>    firefox-esr
>> and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
>> Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade iceweasel?
>>
> Have you tried typing "apt-get install firefox-esr"? It should tell you 
> why it's held back.

That command will most likely reveal an extra package must be installed,
and if says yes to that, he'll be off to the races.

> The other thing would be "apt-get dist-upgrade".
>


-- 
"It might be a vision--of a shell, of a wheelbarrow, of a fairy kingdom on the
far side of the hedge; or it might be the glory of speed; no one knew." --Mrs.
Ramsay, speculating on why her little daughter might be dashing about, in "To
the Lighthouse," by Virginia Woolf.

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

#182521

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 07:40:59PM -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
> On 06/21/2017 04:56 PM, Mike McClain wrote:
> >Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade iceweasel?
> >
> Have you tried typing "apt-get install firefox-esr"? It should tell
> you why it's held back.

Duh, I'm an idiot.

Carl you hit the nail on the head. I'm so used to using
'update/upgrade' that I didn't think to try install.

Rather than telling me why FF was held back it just went ahead and
installed it.

Thanks a lot,
Mike
--
Lord, the money we do spend on government. And it's not a bit better
government than we got for one-third the money twenty years ago.
    - Will Rogers

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

#182523

On 2017-06-22, Mike McClain <mike.junk.46@att.net> wrote:
>
> Rather than telling me why FF was held back it just went ahead and
> installed it.
>

Is that the complete description of what you observed? You're not
leaving anything out, are you? 

-- 
"It might be a vision--of a shell, of a wheelbarrow, of a fairy kingdom on the
far side of the hedge; or it might be the glory of speed; no one knew." --Mrs.
Ramsay, speculating on why her little daughter might be dashing about, in "To
the Lighthouse," by Virginia Woolf.

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

#182616

On Thu 22 Jun 2017 at 19:44:27 (+0000), Curt wrote:
> On 2017-06-22, Mike McClain <mike.junk.46@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > Rather than telling me why FF was held back it just went ahead and
> > installed it.
> >
> 
> Is that the complete description of what you observed? You're not
> leaving anything out, are you? 
> 
> -- 
> "It might be a vision--of a shell, of a wheelbarrow, of a fairy kingdom on the
> far side of the hedge; or it might be the glory of speed; no one knew."

It doesn't seem likely that any of those would appear.

I think perhaps you're soliciting remarks re "It should tell you why
it's held back." Is that going to happen when you install rather than
upgrade? I thought it would take "install" as an instruction to include
all the dependencies automatically (and mark them so).

Cheers,
David.

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

#182629

On 2017-06-25, David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu 22 Jun 2017 at 19:44:27 (+0000), Curt wrote:
>> On 2017-06-22, Mike McClain <mike.junk.46@att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Rather than telling me why FF was held back it just went ahead and
>> > installed it.
>> >
>> 
>> Is that the complete description of what you observed? You're not
>> leaving anything out, are you? 
>> 
>> -- 
>> "It might be a vision--of a shell, of a wheelbarrow, of a fairy kingdom on the
>> far side of the hedge; or it might be the glory of speed; no one knew."
>
> It doesn't seem likely that any of those would appear.

What?

> I think perhaps you're soliciting remarks re "It should tell you why
> it's held back." Is that going to happen when you install rather than
> upgrade? I thought it would take "install" as an instruction to include
> all the dependencies automatically (and mark them so).

No, it is not automatic. For instance in my case, on Wheezy, apt held
firefox-esr back because it will not install an extra package unless
explicitly given permission to do so. This was revealed when I
executed the 'apt-get install firefox-esr' command, at which point apt
asked me to reply yes or no to the installation of a new package (the
name of which escapes me) and the updating of the package firefox-esr.

Because of the pedagogical interest of the thing, for those who come
after us, for posterity's sake, I wanted the OP to give us a complete
description of what occurred, rather than a misleading one (for we are
left wondering why FF was held back in the first place, if an 'apt-get
install' simply "went ahead and installed it."

> Cheers,
> David.
>
>


-- 
"It might be a vision--of a shell, of a wheelbarrow, of a fairy kingdom on the
far side of the hedge; or it might be the glory of speed; no one knew." --Mrs.
Ramsay, speculating on why her little daughter might be dashing about, in "To
the Lighthouse," by Virginia Woolf.

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

#182675

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 09:01:30AM +0000, Curt wrote:
> Because of the pedagogical interest of the thing, for those who come
> after us, for posterity's sake, I wanted the OP to give us a complete
> description of what occurred, rather than a misleading one (for we are
> left wondering why FF was held back in the first place, if an 'apt-get
> install' simply "went ahead and installed it."

In stretch, the upgrade from firefox-esr 45.x to 52.x requires a
new Depends: package, named libjsoncpp1.

If you are on stretch with firefox-esr 45.x and you do "apt-get upgrade"
(or the aptitude or apt or synaptics equivalent), you'll be told that
firefox-esr is held back, but you may not understand *why*, unless you
have some experience with Debian.

If you do "apt-get dist-upgrade" or "apt-get install firefox-esr", the
libjsoncpp1 package will be installed (after you confirm that it's OK),
and the firefox-esr package will be upgraded.

>From /var/log/apt/history.log:

Start-Date: 2017-06-16  14:15:04
Commandline: apt-get install firefox-esr
Requested-By: wooledg (1000)
Install: libjsoncpp1:amd64 (1.7.4-3, automatic)
Upgrade: firefox-esr:amd64 (45.9.0esr-1, 52.2.0esr-1~deb9u1)
End-Date: 2017-06-16  14:15:07

This sort of thing happens once in a while on stable, with some of the
security upgrades.  Web browsers are likely to see it, as well as
packages derived from the bind9 source package (dnsutils and so on).
This is because web browsers and bind9 are so completely full of
security holes that patching isn't even possible.  They have to roll
out new upstream versions instead.

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

#182685

On 2017-06-26, Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 09:01:30AM +0000, Curt wrote:
>> Because of the pedagogical interest of the thing, for those who come
>> after us, for posterity's sake, I wanted the OP to give us a complete
>> description of what occurred, rather than a misleading one (for we are
>> left wondering why FF was held back in the first place, if an 'apt-get
>> install' simply "went ahead and installed it."
>
> In stretch, the upgrade from firefox-esr 45.x to 52.x requires a
> new Depends: package, named libjsoncpp1.

Right. Same here on Wheezy. The name of the package escaped me. Actually
it was rhetorical wondering I was doing up there. Sorry if that was
unclear.

<snip exhaustive description for posterity absent from the OP's account,
thank-you Mr. Wooledge>

-- 
“Yeah yeah.” --Sidney Morgenbesser's retort to a speaker who said that although
there are many cases in which two negatives make a positive, he knew of no case
in which two positives made a negative.

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

#182497

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:56:45 -0700 Mike McClain <mike.junk.46@att.net>
wrote:

> When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
> The following packages have been kept back:
>   firefox-esr
> and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
> Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade
> iceweasel? Thanks,

A few days ago, I got the same.  apt-get dist-upgrade will install that
new version of firefox-esr replacing the old one.

B

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

#182499

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Mike McClain wrote:

> When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
> The following packages have been kept back:
>  firefox-esr
> and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
> Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade
> iceweasel?

% man apt-get
   [...]
   upgrade
     [...] Packages currently installed with new versions available are
     retrieved and upgraded; UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES ARE CURRENTLY
     INSTALLED PACKAGES REMOVED, OR PACKAGES NOT ALREADY INSTALLED
     RETRIEVED AND INSTALLED. New versions of currently installed
     packages that cannot be upgraded without changing the install
     status of another package will be left at their current
     version. [...]

   dist-upgrade
     dist-upgrade in addition to performing the function of upgrade,
     also intelligently handles changing dependencies with new versions
     of packages; apt-get has a "smart" conflict resolution system, and
     it will attempt to upgrade the most important packages at the
     expense of less important ones if necessary. The dist-upgrade
     command may therefore remove some packages. [...]

   [...]
   install
     [...] All packages required by the package(s) specified for
     installation will also be retrieved and installed.[...]

   [...]

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

#182502

Mike McClain wrote:

> When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
> The following packages have been kept back:
>   firefox-esr
> and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
> Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade
> iceweasel? Thanks,
> Mike
> --
> As Andy Capp's wife said,
> "You're only young once, but you can be childish all your life."

read the release notes and the information provided by mozilla.

They turned off most of the plugins - in fact all old plugins except
flashplayer do not work since firefox v 52.
firefox-esr is intended to support all old plugins as up to v52.
Debian decided to drop iceweasel/firefox and it was replaced by firefox-esr.
Use the instructions mentioned in this thread to install esr package.

regards

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web