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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #195904 > unrolled thread

Update on my update problem with gnome system.

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

Contents

  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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#196260

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. There is a well designed clear cut distinction between
> apt-get upgrade and dist-upgrade. "upgrade" upgrades the system

As there is between apt upgrade and apt full-upgrade.

> 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.

I'm sorry, the "intrusive/non-intrusive" aspect doesn't seem that useful
to me. After an update, apt can tell you which packages are upgradable.
That aspect strikes me as being very informative.

-- 
Brian.

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

#196264

On Wed, 30 May 2018 18:53:54 +0100
Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:

> 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. There is a well designed clear
> > cut distinction between apt-get upgrade and dist-upgrade. "upgrade"
> > upgrades the system  
> 
> As there is between apt upgrade and apt full-upgrade.
> 
> > 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.  
> 
> I'm sorry, the "intrusive/non-intrusive" aspect doesn't seem that
> useful to me. After an update, apt can tell you which packages are
> upgradable. That aspect strikes me as being very informative.
> 

This discussion led me to use apt-get again, instead of apt, which I
used to keep stretch installations up to date. The occasion was a
security update notification for the git package.

apt-get update printed 30 lines or so (sorry, I did not save the
output) but mentioned nothing about the need to upgrade.

apt-get upgrade produced no output.

There is nothing in /var/log/apt/term.log or /var/log/apt/history.log
to indicate that apt-get was used.

apt update mentioned 3 packages needing upgrade
apt upgrade processed the 3 packages and /var/log/apt/term.log
and /var/log/apt/history.log show this.

Is the above to be expected and is there some configuration change
needed if I want to use apt-get again?

 -Dan

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

#196240

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 08:39:28PM +0100, Brian wrote:

[...]

> 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.

False dichotomy. More "newbie friendly" maybe. And that is what it
was made for. For an experienced user, perhaps apt-get's behavior
makes more sense.

Of course, it seems somewhat unfortunate that both apt and apt-get
use the same subcommand name for slightly different things.

Cheers
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlsOS9MACgkQBcgs9XrR2kafVgCggfwFc3aCiDTVfbsmxB4JXwvA
etcAnA41FTjMt3Vde9QA5nYcrGXHMybw
=5SVQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#196259

On Wed 30 May 2018 at 08:59:31 +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 08:39:28PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > 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.
> 
> False dichotomy. More "newbie friendly" maybe. And that is what it
> was made for. For an experienced user, perhaps apt-get's behavior
> makes more sense.

True, experienced users have to adjust to the change in behaviour
(unless they were previously using --with-new-pkgs with apt-get),
but it is hardly a seismic event. The unification of apt-get and
apt-cache (some common directives only) is also beneficial to all
users (the target group for apt usage).
 
> Of course, it seems somewhat unfortunate that both apt and apt-get
> use the same subcommand name for slightly different things.

I agree, slightly inconvenient and takes some getting used to. We
could now argue about when is an "upgrade" not an "upgrade"? :).

-- 
Brian.

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

#196106

On 5/26/18, Pétùr <peturvilj@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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).


On occasion, I'm able to interchangeably use a suggest apt command
with apt-get instead. That's most likely not 100%, though. Just means
I got lucky a time or ten. :)


> My question was if apt (or apt-get) dist-upgrade was equivalent of apt
> (or apt-get) full-upgrade?


I can't directly answer your question, but I *could* at least grab
something from "man". :)

>From "man apt-get" (I only found dist-upgrade referenced there):

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.

>From "man apt" (I only found full-upgrade referenced there):

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.

*hm.* :)

Kind of sounds at least very similar, just that description is not as
verbose for "man apt". The "man apt-get" blurb helps *me* feel a
little more confident that I *might* better understand what *might* be
about to happen if I go that route.

With respect to "man apt-get" specifically suggesting/highlighting
"apt_preferences(5)"... the fun would be in determining what
individual packages might be direly affected such that an overriding
mechanism would be necessary.

"apt_preferences(5)" wasn't likewise specifically mentioned directly
related to "full-upgrade" in "man apt", but there was a helpful
bottom-of-the-page reference that did still point users toward "man 5
apt_preferences". It's then up to us users to heed those additionally
suggested manpages as potentially being important to whatever we may
be trying to accomplish. :)

Cindy :)
-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* runs with duct tape *

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

#196110

On Sat 26 May 2018 at 15:45:02 (-0400), Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
> On 5/26/18, Pétùr <peturvilj@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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).
> 
> 
> On occasion, I'm able to interchangeably use a suggest apt command
> with apt-get instead. That's most likely not 100%, though. Just means
> I got lucky a time or ten. :)
> 
> 
> > My question was if apt (or apt-get) dist-upgrade was equivalent of apt
> > (or apt-get) full-upgrade?
> 
> 
> I can't directly answer your question, but I *could* at least grab
> something from "man". :)
> 
> >From "man apt-get" (I only found dist-upgrade referenced there):
> 
> 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.
> 
> >From "man apt" (I only found full-upgrade referenced there):
> 
> 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.

I think that closes the circle:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2018/05/msg00847.html

Of course one is free to try both approaches and compare them
in at least a couple of ways:

→   -s for simulate,
→   just say no when asked to proceed.

Cheers,
David.

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

#196272

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Saturday, May 26, 2018 02:08:59 PM Pétùr wrote:
> 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).

   * [[https://itsfoss.com/apt-vs-apt-get-difference/][Difference Between 
apt and apt-get Explained]]

> 
> My question was if apt (or apt-get) dist-upgrade was equivalent of apt
> (or apt-get) full-upgrade?

   * [[https://itsfoss.com/apt-vs-apt-get-difference/][Difference Between 
apt and apt-get Explained]]

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

#196083

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Pétùr <peturvilj@gmail.com> wrote:

>    <snip>
>
> >        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.
>
> Warning:  Ubuntu ("close enough" to Debian to confuse me, multiple years)
regularly requires dist-upgrade to do their frequent Kernel Upgrades,
because they change Version Numbers on, among other things, the vmlinuz
file.  So, when I do "apt-get upgrade" on the remaining Ubuntu Laptop, I
regularly see things like,

>> root@EyeBlinkLenovo:~# apt-get -d upgrade
>> Reading package lists... Done
>> Building dependency tree
>> Reading state information... Done
>> Calculating upgrade... Done
>> The following packages have been kept back:
>>   linux-generic linux-headers-generic linux-image-generic
linux-signed-generic linux-signed-image-generic linux-tools-generic
>> 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 6 not upgraded.

But then, "apt-get dist-upgrade" gets me "new packages", where only a
"sub-version" is different.  For example, when the "smoke clears" from the
dist-upgrade, my "vmlinuz", in my /boot directory consists of (among other
things)

>> vmlinuz-4.4.0-124-generic
>> vmlinuz-4.4.0-127-generic

Note that these are different Packages.

Now I know, that Ubuntu is aimed, at a less technical audience, but this
threw me for a loop (and came to the foreground, when I didn't allocate a
large enough /boot partition.  I had to learn "apt-get autoremove" in a
HURRY!!!  Oh well.  I;m sure each of you have your own Administration War
Stories).

But this "Feature Creep" on the Linux Kernel, is why I am here now,
"upgrading" my Ubuntu Server Systems to Debian 9.4.  Once again, Go Debian!)

So, once again, watch out for "dist-upgrade", if there's any "hint" of
Ubuntu (i.e.   Mint, Elementary OS, and many others out there).

Word to the Wise.

Kenneth Parker

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

#196386

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Kenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>    <snip>
>>
>> >        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.
>>
>> Warning:  Ubuntu ("close enough" to Debian to confuse me, multiple years)
> regularly requires dist-upgrade to do their frequent Kernel Upgrades,
> because they change Version Numbers on, among other things, the vmlinuz
> file.  So, when I do "apt-get upgrade" on the remaining Ubuntu Laptop, I
> regularly see things like,
>
> <snip>

Wow!  I said "bad things" about Ubuntu regarding this topic but, just
today, experienced the same kind of thing, with Debian Stretch, regarding
the vlc "uber Package".  Seems it's replacing libvlccore8 with libvlccore9,
along with several other replacements!  So Debian also uses this technique
(dist-upgrade) for, other than "Upgrading the Distribution".

Sorry about that, Ubuntu.  :-)

Kenneth Parker

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

#196415

On Sun 03 Jun 2018 at 20:05:39 (-0400), Kenneth Parker wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Kenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >    <snip>
> >>
> >> >        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.
> >>
> >> Warning:  Ubuntu ("close enough" to Debian to confuse me, multiple years)
> > regularly requires dist-upgrade to do their frequent Kernel Upgrades,
> > because they change Version Numbers on, among other things, the vmlinuz
> > file.  So, when I do "apt-get upgrade" on the remaining Ubuntu Laptop, I
> > regularly see things like,
> >
> > <snip>
> 
> Wow!  I said "bad things" about Ubuntu regarding this topic but, just
> today, experienced the same kind of thing, with Debian Stretch, regarding
> the vlc "uber Package".  Seems it's replacing libvlccore8 with libvlccore9,
> along with several other replacements!  So Debian also uses this technique
> (dist-upgrade) for, other than "Upgrading the Distribution".
> 
> Sorry about that, Ubuntu.  :-)
> 
> Kenneth Parker

Your criticism of Debian is unjustified.   apt-get dist-upgrade   is
required to upgrade libvlccore8 to libvlccore9 because, of course, the
latter is a different package.

libvlccore8 is based on VLC version 2 and libvlccore9 is based on VLC 3.
VLC is susceptible to DSA-4203 (CVE-2017-17670), so VLC 3 has been fixed
in 3.0.2. As VLC 2.x will not get fixed, stretch had no alternative
but to move from version 2 to 3.

Cheers,
David.

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

#196421

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

> > Wow!  I said "bad things" about Ubuntu regarding this topic but, just
> > today, experienced the same kind of thing, with Debian Stretch, regarding
> > the vlc "uber Package".  Seems it's replacing libvlccore8 with
> libvlccore9,
> > along with several other replacements!  So Debian also uses this
> technique
> > (dist-upgrade) for, other than "Upgrading the Distribution".
> >
> > Sorry about that, Ubuntu.  :-)
> >
> > Kenneth Parker
>
> Your criticism of Debian is unjustified.   apt-get dist-upgrade   is
> required to upgrade libvlccore8 to libvlccore9 because, of course, the
> latter is a different package.
>

Sorry abut that.  I guess it's mainly a Teaching Moment for me.  With
Ubuntu, every Kernel Upgrade was handled this way, which had prompted my
prior comment, criticizing Ubuntu.

libvlccore8 is based on VLC version 2 and libvlccore9 is based on VLC 3.
> VLC is susceptible to DSA-4203 (CVE-2017-17670), so VLC 3 has been fixed
> in 3.0.2. As VLC 2.x will not get fixed, stretch had no alternative
> but to move from version 2 to 3.
>

And, of course, the Version Upgrade is for a very good reason. (The
vulnerability description is fascinating!)

Cheers,
> David.
>

Thanks for your patience.

Kenneth Parker

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

#195910

On Sat, 19 May 2018 10:37:08 -0400 Matthew Dyer said:

> Mornning all,

Hello Matthew,

> I then edited the sources list and changed the lines from buster to testing.

At this point in time, buster and testing are the same. The difference will
be important with the new Debian release (2 years away), when buster becomes
stable and bullseye become 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

It seems to be the "apt-get update" part of output, which is curiously terse.
If update is not working, then upgrade will neither work, naturally. Just to
be sure that "update" output is not trimmed somehow, could you run the command
below and attach the generated "update.log" file here?

# apt-get update 2>&1 | tee update.log

It would be better if you also attach /etc/apt/sources.list

Regards
-- 
Abdullah Ramazanoğlu

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

#195924

On Sat, 19 May 2018 21:27:42 +0300 Abdullah Ramazanoğlu said:
> On Sat, 19 May 2018 10:37:08 -0400 Matthew Dyer said:

>> 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  
> 
> It seems to be the "apt-get update" part of output, which is curiously terse.
> If update is not working, then upgrade will neither work, naturally. Just to
> be sure that "update" output is not trimmed somehow, could you run the command
> below and attach the generated "update.log" file here?
> 
> # apt-get update 2>&1 | tee update.log
> 
> It would be better if you also attach /etc/apt/sources.list

While it is early yet to speculate, I would also check;

* /etc/apt/sources.list : This file should be same as the one in MATE
  installation.
* /etc/apt/preferences : This file should not exist.
* /etc/apt/preferences.d/ : This directory should be empty.
* /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ : This directory should be empty.
* /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/ : This directory should not have been tampered with.
* /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/99synaptic : This file either should not exist, or should
  be empty.

I would have compared these files and directories to the ones in the MATE
installation.

Regards
-- 
Abdullah Ramazanoğlu

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

#195922

Matthew Dyer wrote:
...

these things come to mind:

  - perhaps you have automatic upgrades set up on
Gnome?

  there should be some record in /var/log/apt or
/var/log/dpkg.log of what is being updated.

  - if you have a fast enough connection it doesn't
hurt to make sure /var/lib/apt/lists files are 
consistent (i have erased them and redownloaded 
at times to get through strange apt-get issues).

  - if you have been messing with apt preferences you
may have messed that up.  dunno what you've been up
to.

  - there aren't any updates to apply at this time.


  songbird

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web