Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #195904 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Matthew Dyer <ilovecountrymusic483@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-19 16:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2018-05-20 00:50 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 34 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Update on my update problem with gnome system. Matthew Dyer <ilovecountrymusic483@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 16:40 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2018-05-19 20:30 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> - 2018-05-19 21:10 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Pétùr <peturvilj@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 20:20 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-05-25 21:40 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Pétùr <peturvilj@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 20:10 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Abdullah Ramazanoğlu <ar018@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 20:40 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-05-29 15:20 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Abdullah Ramazanoğlu <ar018@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-29 17:40 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-05-29 20:20 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Abdullah Ramazanoğlu <ar018@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-29 21:00 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-05-29 21:40 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. John Cunningham <djohngo@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 22:00 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-05-29 23:40 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-05-30 06:20 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. John Cunningham <djohngo@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 16:50 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-05-30 20:20 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-05-30 20:40 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Abdullah Ramazanoğlu <ar018@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-29 23:40 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-05-30 06:40 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-05-30 20:00 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Dan Norton <dnorton@mindspring.com> - 2018-05-30 20:50 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-05-30 09:00 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-05-30 19:50 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 21:50 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-05-26 22:50 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-05-31 01:10 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Kenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 04:10 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Kenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 02:10 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-06-05 05:30 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Kenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com> - 2018-06-05 10:40 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Abdullah Ramazanoğlu <ar018@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-19 20:30 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. Abdullah Ramazanoğlu <ar018@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-20 02:30 +0200
Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system. songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2018-05-20 00:50 +0200
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
| From | Matthew Dyer <ilovecountrymusic483@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 16:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Update on my update problem with gnome system. |
| Message-ID | <vRbbz-ui-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Mornning all, A few days ago I reported a problem whare the gnome testing system which I am now using to write this message. Here is the resault. I did a clean install of the system using the alfa testing image. I then edited the sources list and changed the lines from buster to testing. I then did a sudo apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade which installed the securety updates it found yesterday. his morning I did the same command and here is the output from that update. root@matt-the-cat:/home/matthew# apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade Hit:1 http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing/updates InRelease Hit:2 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian testing InRelease Reading package lists... Done Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Calculating upgrade... Done 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. root@matt-the-cat:/home/matthew# Any ideas on why this is happens? If any one has any ideas on how to fix this without having to reinstall. > > root@matt-the-cat:/home/matthew# apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade > Hit:1 http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing/updates InRelease > Hit:2 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian testing InRelease > Reading package lists... Done > Reading package lists... Done > Building dependency tree > Reading state information... Done > Calculating upgrade... Done > 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. > root@matt-the-cat:/home/matthew# > n reinstall please let me know as it is really strange. My mate system does not have this problem. Thanks. Matthew
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | songbird <songbird@anthive.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 20:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vReM9-2He-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #195904 |
Matthew Dyer wrote: > Mornning all, > > > A few days ago I reported a problem whare the gnome testing system > which I am now using to write this message. Here is the resault. > > > I did a clean install of the system using the alfa testing image. I > then edited the sources list and changed the lines from buster to > testing. I then did a sudo apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade which > installed the securety updates it found yesterday. his morning I did > the same command and here is the output from that update. > > > root@matt-the-cat:/home/matthew# apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade > Hit:1 http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing/updates InRelease > Hit:2 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian testing InRelease > Reading package lists... Done > Reading package lists... Done > Building dependency tree > Reading state information... Done > Calculating upgrade... Done > 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. > root@matt-the-cat:/home/matthew# > > Any ideas on why this is happens? If any one has any ideas on how to > fix this without having to reinstall. > >> >> root@matt-the-cat:/home/matthew# apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade >> Hit:1 http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing/updates InRelease >> Hit:2 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian testing InRelease >> Reading package lists... Done >> Reading package lists... Done >> Building dependency tree >> Reading state information... Done >> Calculating upgrade... Done >> 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. >> root@matt-the-cat:/home/matthew# >> n > reinstall please let me know as it is really strange. My mate system > does not have this problem. Thanks. it looks like your /etc/apt/sources.list file doesn't contain all the lines for testing or they are improperly formed? mine look like: deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main contrib non-free deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing/updates main contrib non-free deb-src http://http.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main contrib non-free deb-src http://security.debian.org/debian-security testing/updates main contrib non-free songbird
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-19 21:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vRfoR-38Y-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #195909 |
Am Samstag, 19. Mai 2018, 20:26:25 CEST schrieb songbird: Isn't it today "apt update" and "apt full-upgrade"? It is also possible, to use "aptitude" (aptitude update && aptittude dist- upgrade) but be warned: aptitude for upgrading from one release to another is no good choice. However, aptitude does a good daily job at an actual and upgraded system. So, I suggest to try "apt update && apt full-upgrade", but this only works in testing. Good luck! Hans
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pétùr <peturvilj@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vTptL-1jz-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #195914 |
Le 19/05/2018 à 21:03, Hans a écrit : > Isn't it today "apt update" and "apt full-upgrade"? Thanks, I didn't know this new "full-upgrade" command. Is "apt full-upgrade" equivalent to "apt-get dist-upgrade" (or apt dist-upgrade)? According to the man pages (man apt and man apt-get), dist-upgrade "intelligently handles changing dependencies" when full-upgrade justs "remove currently installed packages if this is needed". > full-upgrade (apt-get(8)) > full-upgrade performs the function of upgrade but will remove currently installed > packages if this is needed to upgrade the system as a whole. > > 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. The /etc/apt/sources.list file contains a list of > locations from which to retrieve desired package files. See also apt_preferences(5) > for a mechanism for overriding the general settings for individual packages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-25 21:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vTqJb-1XN-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #196069 |
On Fri, 25 May 2018 20:17:52 +0200 Pétùr <peturvilj@gmail.com> wrote: > Le 19/05/2018 à 21:03, Hans a écrit : > > Isn't it today "apt update" and "apt full-upgrade"? > > Thanks, I didn't know this new "full-upgrade" command. > > Is "apt full-upgrade" equivalent to "apt-get dist-upgrade" (or apt > dist-upgrade)? > > According to the man pages (man apt and man apt-get), dist-upgrade > "intelligently handles changing dependencies" when full-upgrade justs > "remove currently installed packages if this is needed". > More or less. Apt-get is actually a bit less intelligent, but in the case of upgrades of very large numbers of packages (400+), that seems to work better. It has been recommended for several version upgrades in preference to aptitude. I haven't used apt, but I've used aptitude to upgrade long-neglected unstable installations, and I've known it to run overnight without finding a solution. For smaller numbers of packages, aptitude (and presumably apt) is generally quicker at reaching a solution, apt-get may have to be run a few times with selected packages to break an impasse. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pétùr <peturvilj@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-26 20:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vTLND-6F9-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #196073 |
Le 25/05/2018 à 21:33, Joe a écrit : >> Le 19/05/2018 à 21:03, Hans a écrit : >>> Isn't it today "apt update" and "apt full-upgrade"? >> Thanks, I didn't know this new "full-upgrade" command. >> >> Is "apt full-upgrade" equivalent to "apt-get dist-upgrade" (or apt >> dist-upgrade)? > More or less. Apt-get is actually a bit less intelligent, but in the > case of upgrades of very large numbers of packages (400+), that seems to > work better. It has been recommended for several version upgrades in > preference to aptitude. > > I haven't used apt, but I've used aptitude to upgrade long-neglected > unstable installations, and I've known it to run overnight without > finding a solution. > > For smaller numbers of packages, aptitude (and presumably apt) is > generally quicker at reaching a solution, apt-get may have to be run a > few times with selected packages to break an impasse. I don't use aptitude. I use only apt and apt-get but I believe apt is just a shortcut for apt-get. `apt update` is equivalent for me to `apt-get update` and `apt dist-upgrade` to `apt-get dist-upgrade` (correct me if I am wrong). My question was if apt (or apt-get) dist-upgrade was equivalent of apt (or apt-get) full-upgrade?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Abdullah Ramazanoğlu <ar018@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-26 20:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vTMgF-6OW-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #196097 |
On Sat, 26 May 2018 20:08:59 +0200 Pétùr said: > I don't use aptitude. I use only apt and apt-get but I believe apt is > just a shortcut for apt-get. `apt update` is equivalent for me to > `apt-get update` and `apt dist-upgrade` to `apt-get dist-upgrade` > (correct me if I am wrong). > > My question was if apt (or apt-get) dist-upgrade was equivalent of apt > (or apt-get) full-upgrade? There is no "apt-get full-upgrade" nor "apt dist-upgrade". apt or apt-get upgrade does upgrade in passive mode: It never install new packages, never removes existing ones. Just upgrades existing ones as far as possible. apt-get dist-upgrade does upgrade in proactive mode: It installs new packages and removes existing packages if need be. OTOH apt full-upgrade works in between: It never installs new packages (as in upgrade), but removes existing packages if need be. I never use apt, so I am relying on the man page. It seems that there is no equivalent of "apt-get dist-upgrade" in apt. Regards -- Abdullah Ramazanoğlu
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 15:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vUMHD-4iD-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #196101 |
On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:31:14PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote: > apt or apt-get upgrade does upgrade in passive mode: It never install new > packages, never removes existing ones. Just upgrades existing ones as far as > possible. That's incorrect. One of the differences between apt and apt-get is that apt WILL install new packages when doing "apt upgrade" (but it will not remove existing packages). Another difference is that apt will remove all of the .deb files from /var/cache/apt/archives that were downloaded for the CURRENT apt command session (but will not remove any that were already there). (This behavior can be changed in a config file.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Abdullah Ramazanoğlu <ar018@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 17:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vUOT8-5vs-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #196195 |
On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:14:12 -0400 Greg Wooledge said: > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:31:14PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote: > > apt or apt-get upgrade does upgrade in passive mode: It never install new > > packages, never removes existing ones. Just upgrades existing ones as far as > > possible. > > That's incorrect. One of the differences between apt and apt-get is > that apt WILL install new packages when doing "apt upgrade" (but it > will not remove existing packages). > > Another difference is that apt will remove all of the .deb files from > /var/cache/apt/archives that were downloaded for the CURRENT apt command > session (but will not remove any that were already there). (This > behavior can be changed in a config file.) Hmm yes, apt upgrade do install new packages. I didn't look at the man page for apt and assumed that -at least- the same keywords would work the same in both apt and apt-get. I was wrong. I wonder why apt should be so close to apt-get but confusingly different. One has dist-upgrade with certain functionality, the other has full-upgrade with different functionality. Upgrade function works different between them. Who knows what else. AIUI apt-get is the older and more complete tool. I don't know what was the reason for inventing apt. It is not higher level, it is not as complete as apt-get, it is not conformant (to apt-get). Perhaps the idea was to unify apt-get and apt-cache into one tool, but it was done badly IMO. I don't use apt anyway. Sticking to good old apt-get and apt-cache. Regards -- Abdullah Ramazanoğlu
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vURnY-71V-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #196202 |
On Tue 29 May 2018 at 18:38:40 (+0300), Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote: > On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:14:12 -0400 Greg Wooledge said: > > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:31:14PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote: > > > apt or apt-get upgrade does upgrade in passive mode: It never install new > > > packages, never removes existing ones. Just upgrades existing ones as far as > > > possible. --✁-------- > > > I never use apt, so I am relying on the man page. --✃-------- (That got snipped.) > > That's incorrect. One of the differences between apt and apt-get is > > that apt WILL install new packages when doing "apt upgrade" (but it > > will not remove existing packages). > > > > Another difference is that apt will remove all of the .deb files from > > /var/cache/apt/archives that were downloaded for the CURRENT apt command > > session (but will not remove any that were already there). (This > > behavior can be changed in a config file.) > > Hmm yes, apt upgrade do install new packages. I didn't look at the man page for > apt and assumed that -at least- the same keywords would work the same in both > apt and apt-get. I was wrong. Mmm. > I wonder why apt should be so close to apt-get but confusingly different. One > has dist-upgrade with certain functionality, the other has full-upgrade with > different functionality. Upgrade function works different between them. Who > knows what else. > > AIUI apt-get is the older and more complete tool. I don't know what was the > reason for inventing apt. It is not higher level, it is not as complete as > apt-get, it is not conformant (to apt-get). Perhaps the idea was to unify > apt-get and apt-cache into one tool, but it was done badly IMO. It wasn't designed to unify, but to cherry-pick the parts most used by the "less sophisticated" (for want of a better term) user. This explains the defaults chosen for it. It may also evolve with time in a way that might make it hazardous for script users, particularly if they don't keep up with the man pages. Wisely, the OP quoted the precise commands they used, something that all too often doesn't happen. The confusion over command/actions arose later in the thread for no good reason. That's not the fault of apt or apt-get. > I don't use apt anyway. Sticking to good old apt-get and apt-cache. Their aim is to preserve their interface across upgrades, so that scripts using them (as recommended) don't require incessant modification. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Abdullah Ramazanoğlu <ar018@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 21:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vUS0G-7eN-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #196210 |
On Tue, 29 May 2018 13:18:16 -0500 David Wright said: > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 18:38:40 (+0300), Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote: > > On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:14:12 -0400 Greg Wooledge said: > > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:31:14PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote: > --✁-------- > > > > I never use apt, so I am relying on the man page. > --✃-------- > > (That got snipped.) > > > > That's incorrect. One of the differences between apt and apt-get is > > > that apt WILL install new packages when doing "apt upgrade" (but it > > > will not remove existing packages). > > > > > > Another difference is that apt will remove all of the .deb files from > > > /var/cache/apt/archives that were downloaded for the CURRENT apt command > > > session (but will not remove any that were already there). (This > > > behavior can be changed in a config file.) > > > > Hmm yes, apt upgrade do install new packages. I didn't look at the man page > > for apt and assumed that -at least- the same keywords would work the same > > in both apt and apt-get. I was wrong. > > Mmm. I think I owe an explanation regarding whether I referred to the man page or not. :) For different operations and keywords like full-upgrade vs. dist-upgrade I did refer to the man page, but it didn't occur to me that the exact same keyword (upgrade) would behave different in apt, so I didn't cross check behavior of "upgrade" in respective man pages. I simply assumed apt upgrade would behave ditto apt-get upgrade. This is how I both do and don't look up at the man pages at the same time. Regards -- Abdullah Ramazanoğlu
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 21:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vUSDn-7Gz-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #196211 |
On Tue 29 May 2018 at 21:57:31 +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote: > On Tue, 29 May 2018 13:18:16 -0500 David Wright said: > > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 18:38:40 (+0300), Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote: > > > On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:14:12 -0400 Greg Wooledge said: > > > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:31:14PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote: > > > --✁-------- > > > > > I never use apt, so I am relying on the man page. > > --✃-------- > > > > (That got snipped.) > > > > > > That's incorrect. One of the differences between apt and apt-get is > > > > that apt WILL install new packages when doing "apt upgrade" (but it > > > > will not remove existing packages). > > > > > > > > Another difference is that apt will remove all of the .deb files from > > > > /var/cache/apt/archives that were downloaded for the CURRENT apt command > > > > session (but will not remove any that were already there). (This > > > > behavior can be changed in a config file.) > > > > > > Hmm yes, apt upgrade do install new packages. I didn't look at the man page > > > for apt and assumed that -at least- the same keywords would work the same > > > in both apt and apt-get. I was wrong. > > > > Mmm. > > I think I owe an explanation regarding whether I referred to the man page or > not. :) > > For different operations and keywords like full-upgrade vs. dist-upgrade I did > refer to the man page, but it didn't occur to me that the exact same keyword > (upgrade) would behave different in apt, so I didn't cross check behavior of > "upgrade" in respective man pages. I simply assumed apt upgrade would behave > ditto apt-get upgrade. > > This is how I both do and don't look up at the man pages at the same time. If a package is upgraded, surely a user would want any new packages to be installed if they are required to satisfy dependencies. apt's designed behaviour looks more sensible than apt-get's. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Cunningham <djohngo@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 22:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vUSWJ-7MA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #196214 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:39 PM Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 21:57:31 +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote: > > > On Tue, 29 May 2018 13:18:16 -0500 David Wright said: > > > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 18:38:40 (+0300), Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote: > > > > On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:14:12 -0400 Greg Wooledge said: > > > > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:31:14PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu > wrote: > > > > > --✁-------- > > > > > > I never use apt, so I am relying on the man page. > > > --✃-------- > > > > > > (That got snipped.) > > > > > > > > That's incorrect. One of the differences between apt and apt-get > is > > > > > that apt WILL install new packages when doing "apt upgrade" (but it > > > > > will not remove existing packages). > > > > > > > > > > Another difference is that apt will remove all of the .deb files > from > > > > > /var/cache/apt/archives that were downloaded for the CURRENT apt > command > > > > > session (but will not remove any that were already there). (This > > > > > behavior can be changed in a config file.) > > > > > > > > Hmm yes, apt upgrade do install new packages. I didn't look at the > man page > > > > for apt and assumed that -at least- the same keywords would work the > same > > > > in both apt and apt-get. I was wrong. > > > > > > Mmm. > > > > I think I owe an explanation regarding whether I referred to the man > page or > > not. :) > > > > For different operations and keywords like full-upgrade vs. dist-upgrade > I did > > refer to the man page, but it didn't occur to me that the exact same > keyword > > (upgrade) would behave different in apt, so I didn't cross check > behavior of > > "upgrade" in respective man pages. I simply assumed apt upgrade would > behave > > ditto apt-get upgrade. > > > > This is how I both do and don't look up at the man pages at the same > time. > > If a package is upgraded, surely a user would want any new packages > to be installed if they are required to satisfy dependencies. apt's > designed behaviour looks more sensible than apt-get's. > Not necessarily. Sometimes the dependencies get out of hand, like when a big project adopts a small utility and then decides that the entire project is a dependency for the tiny utility. It doesn't happen often, but it has happened to me. I like that apt-get upgrade updates everything else. If I decide I can stomach the other packages, I can always do a apt-get dist-upgrade and install them. --John
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 23:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vUUvv-nt-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #196216 |
On Tue 29 May 2018 at 15:52:12 -0400, John Cunningham wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:39 PM Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 21:57:31 +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 29 May 2018 13:18:16 -0500 David Wright said: > > > > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 18:38:40 (+0300), Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:14:12 -0400 Greg Wooledge said: > > > > > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:31:14PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu > > wrote: > > > > > > > --✁-------- > > > > > > > I never use apt, so I am relying on the man page. > > > > --✃-------- > > > > > > > > (That got snipped.) > > > > > > > > > > That's incorrect. One of the differences between apt and apt-get > > is > > > > > > that apt WILL install new packages when doing "apt upgrade" (but it > > > > > > will not remove existing packages). > > > > > > > > > > > > Another difference is that apt will remove all of the .deb files > > from > > > > > > /var/cache/apt/archives that were downloaded for the CURRENT apt > > command > > > > > > session (but will not remove any that were already there). (This > > > > > > behavior can be changed in a config file.) > > > > > > > > > > Hmm yes, apt upgrade do install new packages. I didn't look at the > > man page > > > > > for apt and assumed that -at least- the same keywords would work the > > same > > > > > in both apt and apt-get. I was wrong. > > > > > > > > Mmm. > > > > > > I think I owe an explanation regarding whether I referred to the man > > page or > > > not. :) > > > > > > For different operations and keywords like full-upgrade vs. dist-upgrade > > I did > > > refer to the man page, but it didn't occur to me that the exact same > > keyword > > > (upgrade) would behave different in apt, so I didn't cross check > > behavior of > > > "upgrade" in respective man pages. I simply assumed apt upgrade would > > behave > > > ditto apt-get upgrade. > > > > > > This is how I both do and don't look up at the man pages at the same > > time. > > > > If a package is upgraded, surely a user would want any new packages > > to be installed if they are required to satisfy dependencies. apt's > > designed behaviour looks more sensible than apt-get's. > > Not necessarily. Sometimes the dependencies get out of hand, like when a > big project adopts a small utility and then decides that the entire project > is a dependency for the tiny utility. It doesn't happen often, but it has > happened to me. I like that apt-get upgrade updates everything else. If I > decide I can stomach the other packages, I can always do a apt-get > dist-upgrade and install them. Your unfortunate (and undetailed) experience has to be balanced against the benefits which accrue to most users in having an up-to-date Debian. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 06:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vV0KB-47D-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #196219 |
On Tue 29 May 2018 at 22:37:08 (+0100), Brian wrote: > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 15:52:12 -0400, John Cunningham wrote: > > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:39 PM Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 21:57:31 +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 29 May 2018 13:18:16 -0500 David Wright said: > > > > > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 18:38:40 (+0300), Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:14:12 -0400 Greg Wooledge said: > > > > > > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:31:14PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > --✁-------- > > > > > > > > I never use apt, so I am relying on the man page. > > > > > --✃-------- > > > > > > > > > > (That got snipped.) > > > > > > > > > > > > That's incorrect. One of the differences between apt and apt-get > > > is > > > > > > > that apt WILL install new packages when doing "apt upgrade" (but it > > > > > > > will not remove existing packages). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another difference is that apt will remove all of the .deb files > > > from > > > > > > > /var/cache/apt/archives that were downloaded for the CURRENT apt > > > command > > > > > > > session (but will not remove any that were already there). (This > > > > > > > behavior can be changed in a config file.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm yes, apt upgrade do install new packages. I didn't look at the > > > man page > > > > > > for apt and assumed that -at least- the same keywords would work the > > > same > > > > > > in both apt and apt-get. I was wrong. > > > > > > > > > > Mmm. > > > > > > > > I think I owe an explanation regarding whether I referred to the man > > > page or > > > > not. :) > > > > > > > > For different operations and keywords like full-upgrade vs. dist-upgrade > > > I did > > > > refer to the man page, but it didn't occur to me that the exact same > > > keyword > > > > (upgrade) would behave different in apt, so I didn't cross check > > > behavior of > > > > "upgrade" in respective man pages. I simply assumed apt upgrade would > > > behave > > > > ditto apt-get upgrade. > > > > > > > > This is how I both do and don't look up at the man pages at the same > > > time. > > > > > > If a package is upgraded, surely a user would want any new packages > > > to be installed if they are required to satisfy dependencies. apt's > > > designed behaviour looks more sensible than apt-get's. > > > > Not necessarily. Sometimes the dependencies get out of hand, like when a > > big project adopts a small utility and then decides that the entire project > > is a dependency for the tiny utility. It doesn't happen often, but it has > > happened to me. I like that apt-get upgrade updates everything else. If I > > decide I can stomach the other packages, I can always do a apt-get > > dist-upgrade and install them. > > Your unfortunate (and undetailed) experience has to be balanced against > the benefits which accrue to most users in having an up-to-date Debian. As I wrote (got snipped), "It [apt] wasn't designed to unify, but to cherry-pick the parts most used by the "less sophisticated" (for want of a better term) user. This explains the defaults chosen for it." I guess that equates to your "most users". Fair enough. In today's thread "File managers show files and directories in reverse order" there was talk of Kate and Lyx, neither of which is installed here. I toyed with installing kate just to see what the OP might be seeing. Here's what would happen: # apt-get -s install kate Reading package lists... Building dependency tree... Reading state information... The following additional packages will be installed: kactivities-bin kactivitymanagerd kate5-data kio kpackagelauncherqml kpackagetool5 ktexteditor-data ktexteditor-katepart libdbusmenu-qt5-2 libfam0 libgit2-24 libgpgmepp6 libhttp-parser2.1 libkf5activities5 libkf5archive5 libkf5attica5 libkf5auth-data libkf5auth5 libkf5bookmarks-data libkf5bookmarks5 libkf5calendarevents5 libkf5codecs-data libkf5codecs5 libkf5completion-data libkf5completion5 libkf5config-bin libkf5config-data libkf5configcore5 libkf5configgui5 libkf5configwidgets-data libkf5configwidgets5 libkf5coreaddons-data libkf5coreaddons5 libkf5crash5 libkf5dbusaddons-bin libkf5dbusaddons-data libkf5dbusaddons5 libkf5declarative-data libkf5declarative5 libkf5globalaccel-bin libkf5globalaccel-data libkf5globalaccel5 libkf5globalaccelprivate5 libkf5guiaddons5 libkf5i18n-data libkf5i18n5 libkf5iconthemes-bin libkf5iconthemes-data libkf5iconthemes5 libkf5itemmodels5 libkf5itemviews-data libkf5itemviews5 libkf5jobwidgets-data libkf5jobwidgets5 libkf5kiocore5 libkf5kiofilewidgets5 libkf5kiontlm5 libkf5kiowidgets5 libkf5newstuff-data libkf5newstuff5 libkf5notifications-data libkf5notifications5 libkf5package-data libkf5package5 libkf5parts-data libkf5parts-plugins libkf5parts5 libkf5plasma5 libkf5plasmaquick5 libkf5quickaddons5 libkf5service-bin libkf5service-data libkf5service5 libkf5solid5 libkf5solid5-data libkf5sonnet5-data libkf5sonnetcore5 libkf5sonnetui5 libkf5texteditor5 libkf5textwidgets-data libkf5textwidgets5 libkf5threadweaver5 libkf5wallet-bin libkf5wallet-data libkf5wallet5 libkf5widgetsaddons-data libkf5widgetsaddons5 libkf5windowsystem-data libkf5windowsystem5 libkf5xmlgui-bin libkf5xmlgui-data libkf5xmlgui5 libkwalletbackend5-5 libphonon4qt5-4 libpolkit-qt5-1-1 libpulse-mainloop-glib0 libqt5script5 libxcb-composite0 libxcb-damage0 phonon4qt5 phonon4qt5-backend-vlc plasma-framework qml-module-org-kde-kquickcontrols qml-module-org-kde-kquickcontrolsaddons sonnet-plugins Suggested packages: khelpcenter konsole-kpart fam media-player-info phonon4qt5-backend-gstreamer hspell The following NEW packages will be installed: kactivities-bin kactivitymanagerd kate kate5-data kio kpackagelauncherqml kpackagetool5 ktexteditor-data ktexteditor-katepart libdbusmenu-qt5-2 libfam0 libgit2-24 libgpgmepp6 libhttp-parser2.1 libkf5activities5 libkf5archive5 libkf5attica5 libkf5auth-data libkf5auth5 libkf5bookmarks-data libkf5bookmarks5 libkf5calendarevents5 libkf5codecs-data libkf5codecs5 libkf5completion-data libkf5completion5 libkf5config-bin libkf5config-data libkf5configcore5 libkf5configgui5 libkf5configwidgets-data libkf5configwidgets5 libkf5coreaddons-data libkf5coreaddons5 libkf5crash5 libkf5dbusaddons-bin libkf5dbusaddons-data libkf5dbusaddons5 libkf5declarative-data libkf5declarative5 libkf5globalaccel-bin libkf5globalaccel-data libkf5globalaccel5 libkf5globalaccelprivate5 libkf5guiaddons5 libkf5i18n-data libkf5i18n5 libkf5iconthemes-bin libkf5iconthemes-data libkf5iconthemes5 libkf5itemmodels5 libkf5itemviews-data libkf5itemviews5 libkf5jobwidgets-data libkf5jobwidgets5 libkf5kiocore5 libkf5kiofilewidgets5 libkf5kiontlm5 libkf5kiowidgets5 libkf5newstuff-data libkf5newstuff5 libkf5notifications-data libkf5notifications5 libkf5package-data libkf5package5 libkf5parts-data libkf5parts-plugins libkf5parts5 libkf5plasma5 libkf5plasmaquick5 libkf5quickaddons5 libkf5service-bin libkf5service-data libkf5service5 libkf5solid5 libkf5solid5-data libkf5sonnet5-data libkf5sonnetcore5 libkf5sonnetui5 libkf5texteditor5 libkf5textwidgets-data libkf5textwidgets5 libkf5threadweaver5 libkf5wallet-bin libkf5wallet-data libkf5wallet5 libkf5widgetsaddons-data libkf5widgetsaddons5 libkf5windowsystem-data libkf5windowsystem5 libkf5xmlgui-bin libkf5xmlgui-data libkf5xmlgui5 libkwalletbackend5-5 libphonon4qt5-4 libpolkit-qt5-1-1 libpulse-mainloop-glib0 libqt5script5 libxcb-composite0 libxcb-damage0 phonon4qt5 phonon4qt5-backend-vlc plasma-framework qml-module-org-kde-kquickcontrols qml-module-org-kde-kquickcontrolsaddons sonnet-plugins 0 upgraded, 106 newly installed, 0 to remove and 2 not upgraded. Inst libqt5script5 (5.7.1~20161021+dfsg-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libhttp-parser2.1 (2.1-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5activities5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst kactivities-bin (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5archive5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5codecs-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5codecs5 (5.28.0-1+b2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5completion-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5config-data (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5configcore5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5configgui5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5widgetsaddons-data (5.28.0-3 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5widgetsaddons5 (5.28.0-3 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5completion5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5configwidgets-data (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5auth-data (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5coreaddons-data (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libfam0 (2.7.0-17.2+b1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5coreaddons5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libpolkit-qt5-1-1 (0.112.0-5 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5auth5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5guiaddons5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5i18n-data (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5i18n5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5configwidgets5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5dbusaddons-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5dbusaddons5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5itemviews-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5itemviews5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5windowsystem-data (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5windowsystem5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5crash5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5service-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5service5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5service-bin (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5kiocore5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5kiontlm5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5iconthemes-data (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5iconthemes5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5jobwidgets-data (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5jobwidgets5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5kiowidgets5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5notifications-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libdbusmenu-qt5-2 (0.9.3+16.04.20160218-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libpulse-mainloop-glib0 (10.0-1+deb9u1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libphonon4qt5-4 (4:4.9.0-4 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst phonon4qt5-backend-vlc (0.9.0-2+deb9u1 Debian-Security:9/stable [amd64]) Inst phonon4qt5 (4:4.9.0-4 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5notifications5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5solid5-data (5.28.0-3 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5solid5 (5.28.0-3 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5textwidgets-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5sonnet5-data (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5sonnetcore5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5sonnetui5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5textwidgets5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libgpgmepp6 (1.8.0-3+b2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5wallet-data (5.28.0-3 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkwalletbackend5-5 (5.28.0-3 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5wallet5 (5.28.0-3 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5wallet-bin (5.28.0-3 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst kio (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5globalaccel-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5globalaccel5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5xmlgui-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5attica5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5xmlgui5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst kactivitymanagerd (5.8.4-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst kate5-data (4:16.08.3-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst ktexteditor-data (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libgit2-24 (0.25.1+really0.24.6-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5parts-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5parts5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5texteditor5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst ktexteditor-katepart (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5declarative-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5package-data (5.28.1-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5package5 (5.28.1-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst kpackagetool5 (5.28.1-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5declarative5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst qml-module-org-kde-kquickcontrols (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5quickaddons5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst qml-module-org-kde-kquickcontrolsaddons (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5calendarevents5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5plasma5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5plasmaquick5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libxcb-composite0 (1.12-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libxcb-damage0 (1.12-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst plasma-framework (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5bookmarks-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5bookmarks5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5itemmodels5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5kiofilewidgets5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5newstuff-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Inst libkf5newstuff5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5threadweaver5 (5.28.0-1+b2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst kate (4:16.08.3-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst kpackagelauncherqml (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5config-bin (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5dbusaddons-bin (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5globalaccelprivate5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5globalaccel-bin (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5iconthemes-bin (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5parts-plugins (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst libkf5xmlgui-bin (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Inst sonnet-plugins (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libqt5script5 (5.7.1~20161021+dfsg-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libhttp-parser2.1 (2.1-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5activities5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf kactivities-bin (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5archive5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5codecs-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5codecs5 (5.28.0-1+b2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5completion-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5config-data (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5configcore5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5configgui5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5widgetsaddons-data (5.28.0-3 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5widgetsaddons5 (5.28.0-3 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5completion5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5configwidgets-data (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5auth-data (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5coreaddons-data (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libfam0 (2.7.0-17.2+b1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5coreaddons5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libpolkit-qt5-1-1 (0.112.0-5 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5auth5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5guiaddons5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5i18n-data (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5i18n5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5configwidgets5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5dbusaddons-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5dbusaddons5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5itemviews-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5itemviews5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5windowsystem-data (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5windowsystem5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5crash5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5service-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5service5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5service-bin (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5kiocore5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5kiontlm5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5iconthemes-data (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5iconthemes5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5jobwidgets-data (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5jobwidgets5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5kiowidgets5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5notifications-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libdbusmenu-qt5-2 (0.9.3+16.04.20160218-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libpulse-mainloop-glib0 (10.0-1+deb9u1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libphonon4qt5-4 (4:4.9.0-4 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf phonon4qt5-backend-vlc (0.9.0-2+deb9u1 Debian-Security:9/stable [amd64]) Conf phonon4qt5 (4:4.9.0-4 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5notifications5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5solid5-data (5.28.0-3 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5solid5 (5.28.0-3 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5textwidgets-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5sonnet5-data (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5sonnetcore5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5sonnetui5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5textwidgets5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libgpgmepp6 (1.8.0-3+b2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5wallet-data (5.28.0-3 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkwalletbackend5-5 (5.28.0-3 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5wallet5 (5.28.0-3 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5wallet-bin (5.28.0-3 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf kio (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5globalaccel-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5globalaccel5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5xmlgui-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5attica5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5xmlgui5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf kactivitymanagerd (5.8.4-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf kate5-data (4:16.08.3-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf ktexteditor-data (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libgit2-24 (0.25.1+really0.24.6-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5parts-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5parts5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5texteditor5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf ktexteditor-katepart (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5declarative-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5package-data (5.28.1-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5package5 (5.28.1-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf kpackagetool5 (5.28.1-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5declarative5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf qml-module-org-kde-kquickcontrols (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5quickaddons5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf qml-module-org-kde-kquickcontrolsaddons (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5calendarevents5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5plasma5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5plasmaquick5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libxcb-composite0 (1.12-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libxcb-damage0 (1.12-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf plasma-framework (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5bookmarks-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5bookmarks5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5itemmodels5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5kiofilewidgets5 (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5newstuff-data (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [all]) Conf libkf5newstuff5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5threadweaver5 (5.28.0-1+b2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf kate (4:16.08.3-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf kpackagelauncherqml (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5config-bin (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5dbusaddons-bin (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5globalaccelprivate5 (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5globalaccel-bin (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5iconthemes-bin (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5parts-plugins (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf libkf5xmlgui-bin (5.28.0-1 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) Conf sonnet-plugins (5.28.0-2 Debian:9.4/stable [amd64]) # AFAICT apt does the same but prefixed by: WARNING: apt does not have a stable CLI interface. Use with caution in scripts. I don't know if kate is a "small utility" but 106 packages does seem to be getting "out of hand". Anyway, thanks but no thanks. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Cunningham <djohngo@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 16:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vVaAh-1mK-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #196219 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 5:37 PM Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 15:52:12 -0400, John Cunningham wrote: > > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:39 PM Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 21:57:31 +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 29 May 2018 13:18:16 -0500 David Wright said: > > > > > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 18:38:40 (+0300), Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:14:12 -0400 Greg Wooledge said: > > > > > > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:31:14PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > --✁-------- > > > > > > > > I never use apt, so I am relying on the man page. > > > > > --✃-------- > > > > > > > > > > (That got snipped.) > > > > > > > > > > > > That's incorrect. One of the differences between apt and > apt-get > > > is > > > > > > > that apt WILL install new packages when doing "apt upgrade" > (but it > > > > > > > will not remove existing packages). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another difference is that apt will remove all of the .deb > files > > > from > > > > > > > /var/cache/apt/archives that were downloaded for the CURRENT > apt > > > command > > > > > > > session (but will not remove any that were already there). > (This > > > > > > > behavior can be changed in a config file.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm yes, apt upgrade do install new packages. I didn't look at > the > > > man page > > > > > > for apt and assumed that -at least- the same keywords would work > the > > > same > > > > > > in both apt and apt-get. I was wrong. > > > > > > > > > > Mmm. > > > > > > > > I think I owe an explanation regarding whether I referred to the man > > > page or > > > > not. :) > > > > > > > > For different operations and keywords like full-upgrade vs. > dist-upgrade > > > I did > > > > refer to the man page, but it didn't occur to me that the exact same > > > keyword > > > > (upgrade) would behave different in apt, so I didn't cross check > > > behavior of > > > > "upgrade" in respective man pages. I simply assumed apt upgrade would > > > behave > > > > ditto apt-get upgrade. > > > > > > > > This is how I both do and don't look up at the man pages at the same > > > time. > > > > > > If a package is upgraded, surely a user would want any new packages > > > to be installed if they are required to satisfy dependencies. apt's > > > designed behaviour looks more sensible than apt-get's. > > > > Not necessarily. Sometimes the dependencies get out of hand, like when a > > big project adopts a small utility and then decides that the entire > project > > is a dependency for the tiny utility. It doesn't happen often, but it > has > > happened to me. I like that apt-get upgrade updates everything else. If I > > decide I can stomach the other packages, I can always do a apt-get > > dist-upgrade and install them. > > Your unfortunate (and undetailed) experience has to be balanced against > the benefits which accrue to most users in having an up-to-date Debian. > In my belief, it is right in the sweet spot in that regard. It provides information and lets the user make the decision. It's much easier to do a dist-upgrade than to find and remove unwanted packages. --John
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vVdRv-3pv-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #196255 |
On Wed 30 May 2018 at 10:37:32 -0400, John Cunningham wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 5:37 PM Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > > On Tue 29 May 2018 at 15:52:12 -0400, John Cunningham wrote: > > > > > Not necessarily. Sometimes the dependencies get out of hand, like when a > > > big project adopts a small utility and then decides that the entire > > project > > > is a dependency for the tiny utility. It doesn't happen often, but it > > has > > > happened to me. I like that apt-get upgrade updates everything else. If I > > > decide I can stomach the other packages, I can always do a apt-get > > > dist-upgrade and install them. > > > > Your unfortunate (and undetailed) experience has to be balanced against > > the benefits which accrue to most users in having an up-to-date Debian. > > In my belief, it is right in the sweet spot in that regard. It provides > information and lets the user make the decision. It's much easier to do a > dist-upgrade than to find and remove unwanted packages. I'm at a loss to understand the argument here. 'apt update/upgrade' also provides information that the user can act on. If a package on your system acquires a new dependency X, 'apt-get upgrade' will not upgrade it (is that really an upgrade? :) ) but apt upgrade will (if it does require the removal of an existing package). The question becomes: do you really want the system to be upgraded or only half-upgraded? -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 20:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vVeaR-3ve-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #196262 |
On 2018-05-30, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > I'm at a loss to understand the argument here. 'apt update/upgrade' > also provides information that the user can act on. If a package on > your system acquires a new dependency X, 'apt-get upgrade' will not > upgrade it (is that really an upgrade? :) ) but apt upgrade will (if > it does require the removal of an existing package). > > The question becomes: do you really want the system to be upgraded or > only half-upgraded? > They want to be sophisticated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Abdullah Ramazanoğlu <ar018@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-29 23:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vUUvv-nt-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #196214 |
On Tue, 29 May 2018 20:39:28 +0100 Brian said: > If a package is upgraded, surely a user would want any new packages > to be installed if they are required to satisfy dependencies. apt's > designed behaviour looks more sensible than apt-get's. Then removal of blocking packages are equally (if not more) sensible than installing new ones. There is a well designed clear cut distinction between apt-get upgrade and dist-upgrade. "upgrade" upgrades the system non-intrusively, while "dist-upgrade" does that intrusively as its name suggests. OTOH apt upgrade's behavior is in-between, semi-intrusive, and spoils that clear-cut distinction. Therefore I think apt-get works more sensible than apt in this regard. Regards -- Abdullah Ramazanoğlu
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-30 06:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vV13Y-4fZ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #196220 |
On Wed 30 May 2018 at 00:31:25 (+0300), Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote: > On Tue, 29 May 2018 20:39:28 +0100 Brian said: > > > If a package is upgraded, surely a user would want any new packages > > to be installed if they are required to satisfy dependencies. apt's > > designed behaviour looks more sensible than apt-get's. > > Then removal of blocking packages are equally (if not more) sensible than > installing new ones. Yes and no. If I go shopping, I can put up with the kids each tossing in some oranges or apples: they'll get eaten eventually. However, if they were to remove the onions or the milk, there'd be trouble. So the philosophy is that the "less sophisticated" don't mind extra packages being thrown in but will be surprised by the disappearance of packages they use. > There is a well designed clear cut distinction between > apt-get upgrade and dist-upgrade. "upgrade" upgrades the system > non-intrusively, while "dist-upgrade" does that intrusively as its name > suggests. Agreed. That's one of the reasons apt-get is recommended for scripting; another is the stable CLI interface. > OTOH apt upgrade's behavior is in-between, semi-intrusive, and spoils > that clear-cut distinction. Therefore I think apt-get works more sensible than > apt in this regard. That distinction may well be lost on many users, for whom apt might be a better fit. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web