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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #200855 > unrolled thread

Synaptic fails to fix broken packages

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

Contents

  Synaptic fails to fix broken packages Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2018-10-03 14:30 +0200
    Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-10-03 16:00 +0200
      Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2018-10-04 13:40 +0200
      Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2018-10-04 14:10 +0200
        More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2018-10-04 16:10 +0200
          Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages] Glenn English <ghe2001@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 19:30 +0200
            Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages] Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 00:10 +0200
            Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages] mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 06:20 +0200
              Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2018-10-05 12:00 +0200
                Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages] Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2018-10-05 12:10 +0200
                  Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2018-10-05 13:00 +0200
                    Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages] Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2018-10-05 13:20 +0200
                  Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages] rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 13:10 +0200
                    Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages] Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2018-10-05 13:30 +0200
                      Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages] rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 17:10 +0200
                        Re: apt 101 (was: Re: More info) Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2018-10-05 17:40 +0200
                          Re: apt 101 (was: Re: More info) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 18:10 +0200
                        Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 21:50 +0200
                          Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages] rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 22:20 +0200
                            Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-10-05 23:40 +0200
                              Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages] David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 03:40 +0200
                                Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-10-06 16:50 +0200
                              Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages] Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-10-06 10:20 +0200
                Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages] Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-10-05 15:00 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#200855 — Synaptic fails to fix broken packages

I received an email with an attachment in .doc format.
I clicked to open with default program - LibreOffice Writer.
All I got was a brief display of the LibreOffice flash screen.
I tried to open from MATE's Application menu - failed likewise.

Tried to do a complete removal with intention of doing a re-install.
Tried to do the re-install receiving a "fix broken packages" response.

Got a failure message:
> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
> E: Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generated breaks, this may be caused by held packages.
> E: Unable to correct dependencies
> E: Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generated breaks, this may be caused by held packages.
> E: Unable to correct dependencies
> 

What should I do?
I have no particular need/desire for the suite as long as there a Debian 
program capable of _displaying_ *.doc files.
TIA

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#200865

Richard Owlett wrote:
> I received an email with an attachment in .doc format.
> I clicked to open with default program - LibreOffice Writer.
> All I got was a brief display of the LibreOffice flash screen.
> I tried to open from MATE's Application menu - failed likewise.

You sure that the *doc wasn't broken-by-design (i.e. one of the various
types of malware that tend to use *doc files, etc.)?
>
> Tried to do a complete removal with intention of doing a re-install.
> Tried to do the re-install receiving a "fix broken packages" response.

Mind sending the package(s) that're causing the conflict?



-- 
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

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

#200890

Dan Purgert wrote:
> Richard Owlett wrote:
>> I received an email with an attachment in .doc format.
>> I clicked to open with default program - LibreOffice Writer.
>> All I got was a brief display of the LibreOffice flash screen.
>> I tried to open from MATE's Application menu - failed likewise.
>
> You sure that the *doc wasn't broken-by-design (i.e. one of the various
> types of malware that tend to use *doc files, etc.)?

  my first thought too, i don't open any word
processor type documents sent to me via e-mail 
unless i absolutely trust the source and have 
verified by phone or prior conversation what it 
was to be sent to me AND WHEN <-- like i may 
open something sent to me a few minutes or an
hour from someone i know, but later than that
i'll assume someone's hacked their system or is
scanning e-mails and sending possible gunk.

  and, yes, i have gotten e-mails from someone
i thought was a valid account but it was hacked
and i never opened them.  i sent a plain text
question to them to that e-mail address and 
never heard a reply.  yah*oo e-mail addresses
seem commonly abused/cracked and i have seen
evidence of plain text e-mail scanning (using 
certain words or names in attempts to get me to 
think they actually know me).

  so, um, be careful out there!  :)


  songbird

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

#200894

On 10/03/2018 08:45 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
> Richard Owlett wrote:
>> I received an email with an attachment in .doc format.
>> I clicked to open with default program - LibreOffice Writer.
>> All I got was a brief display of the LibreOffice flash screen.
>> I tried to open from MATE's Application menu - failed likewise.
> 
> You sure that the *doc wasn't broken-by-design (i.e. one of the various
> types of malware that tend to use *doc files, etc.)?

Not the problem on on two counts.
1. I had same symptoms when directly opening LibreOffice Writer from
    MATE's application menu.
2. I later found a flash drive to which I had installed Debian 8.
    The .doc file opened properly there.

>>
>> Tried to do a complete removal with intention of doing a re-install.
>> Tried to do the re-install receiving a "fix broken packages" response.
> 
> Mind sending the package(s) that're causing the conflict?

Murphy decreed that the brokenness should evaporate ;/

A timeline:
1. Waited for a good night's sleep before following up your request.
2. I recently had a similar problem with Synaptic and was pointed to
    Synaptic's Help for fixing broken packages. I had not followed up
    as that machine had an apparent hardware/system failure. I'm on a
    different machine with a fresh install of Debian 9.
3. I attempted to view broken packages and got a list composed of
    packages I could not identify as ever having been installed.
    Did not notice any LibreOffice packages.
4. Did a search by package name for LibreOffice.
    Found many installed packages.
    Marked them for complete removal. Applied same.
    Now no evidence of broken packages.
5. Installed LibreOffice meta-package.
    It opened the doc file without problem.

As I've had similar problems twice I'll attempt to reproduce the 
problem. It will not be immediately as I have a higher priority project.

Is there a reproducible manner to break dependencies?

Thank you.

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

#200897 — More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages]

On 10/04/2018 07:05 AM, Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 10/03/2018 08:45 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> Richard Owlett wrote:
>>> I received an email with an attachment in .doc format.
>>> I clicked to open with default program - LibreOffice Writer.
>>> All I got was a brief display of the LibreOffice flash screen.
>>> I tried to open from MATE's Application menu - failed likewise.
>>
>> You sure that the *doc wasn't broken-by-design (i.e. one of the various
>> types of malware that tend to use *doc files, etc.)?
> 
> Not the problem on on two counts.
> 1. I had same symptoms when directly opening LibreOffice Writer from
>     MATE's application menu.
> 2. I later found a flash drive to which I had installed Debian 8.
>     The .doc file opened properly there.
> 
>>>
>>> Tried to do a complete removal with intention of doing a re-install.
>>> Tried to do the re-install receiving a "fix broken packages" response.
>>
>> Mind sending the package(s) that're causing the conflict?
> 
> Murphy decreed that the brokenness should evaporate ;/
> 
> A timeline:
> 1. Waited for a good night's sleep before following up your request.
> 2. I recently had a similar problem with Synaptic and was pointed to
>     Synaptic's Help for fixing broken packages. I had not followed up
>     as that machine had an apparent hardware/system failure. I'm on a
>     different machine with a fresh install of Debian 9.
> 3. I attempted to view broken packages and got a list composed of
>     packages I could not identify as ever having been installed.
>     Did not notice any LibreOffice packages.
> 4. Did a search by package name for LibreOffice.
>     Found many installed packages.
>     Marked them for complete removal. Applied same.
>     Now no evidence of broken packages.
> 5. Installed LibreOffice meta-package.
>     It opened the doc file without problem.
> 
> As I've had similar problems twice I'll attempt to reproduce the 
> problem. It will not be immediately as I have a higher priority project.
> 
> Is there a reproducible manner to break dependencies?
> 
> Thank you.

Just did a fresh install to another partition of the machine on which I 
observed the current problem.
Installation was from DVD 1 of Debian 9.1.0

Again LibreOffice Writer would not launch.
Attempted complete removal. This time the LibreOffice meta-package was 
identified as broke.
[I did _something_ ???]

Marked that package for installation.
All went well.
LibreOffice Writer launched properly from MATE application menu.

If/when I attempt again, what log files should I preserve.
I suspect that should include relevant log files from the clean install.

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

#200900 — Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages]

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 2:06 PM Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote:

> Just did a fresh install to another partition of the machine on which I
> observed the current problem.
> Installation was from DVD 1 of Debian 9.1.0
>
> Again LibreOffice Writer would not launch.
> Attempted complete removal. This time the LibreOffice meta-package was
> identified as broke.
> [I did _something_ ???]

If I may suggest, skip Stretch and install Buster. I had problems
(don't remember what they were) with Stretch too, and everything's
working fine on Buster.

I've never used anything but Stable, but this time it seemed to be
bent. The updates are massive on Testing, but it works.

YMMV...

-- 
Glenn English

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

#200910 — Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages]

On 10/4/18, Glenn English <ghe2001@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 2:06 PM Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote:
>
>> Just did a fresh install to another partition of the machine on which I
>> observed the current problem.
>> Installation was from DVD 1 of Debian 9.1.0
>>
>> Again LibreOffice Writer would not launch.
>> Attempted complete removal. This time the LibreOffice meta-package was
>> identified as broke.
>> [I did _something_ ???]
>
> If I may suggest, skip Stretch and install Buster. I had problems
> (don't remember what they were) with Stretch too, and everything's
> working fine on Buster.
>
> I've never used anything but Stable, but this time it seemed to be
> bent. The updates are massive on Testing, but it works.
>
> YMMV...


I ran into similar but was with Jessie for me (and a few users who had
almost "show stopper" problems way back when). Stretch has somewhat
become like that for me in the last few months, too. Not quite as bad
as Jessie was right from the start, but.. is becoming more "notable"
as Time keeps moving on.

Buster's turn is almost here, anyway:

https://release.debian.org/buster/freeze_policy.html

"The freeze for buster will happen according to the following timeline:

    2019-01-12 - Transition freeze
    2019-02-12 - Soft-freeze
    2019-03-12 - Full-freeze"

k/t Debian-Devel-Announce for that recent update:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2018/09/msg00004.html

Once Debian Developers' schedule hits that point in the release cycle,
I personally start feeling pretty comfortable about making the
permanent move...

But ditto the "YMMV" for all other users dependent upon usage needs
and setups. :)

Cindy :)

PS Double ditto on the "massive" updates experience with Testing. Have
MERCY, LOL! It was just too much for me this last go-round. I HAD to
take a break by stepping over to Stretch Stable a couple months after
the start of the last cycle. :)

A glass half full kind of thing was that personal choice left time for
other (likewise massive) downloads that led to more self-education
about the inner workings of *all* things #Linux.. :)

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

* runs with duct tape *

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

#200913 — Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages]

On 2018-10-04 18:27, Glenn English wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 2:06 PM Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Just did a fresh install to another partition of the machine on which 
>> I
>> observed the current problem.
>> Installation was from DVD 1 of Debian 9.1.0
>> 
>> Again LibreOffice Writer would not launch.
>> Attempted complete removal. This time the LibreOffice meta-package was
>> identified as broke.
>> [I did _something_ ???]
> 
> If I may suggest, skip Stretch and install Buster. I had problems
> (don't remember what they were) with Stretch too, and everything's
> working fine on Buster.
> 
> I've never used anything but Stable, but this time it seemed to be
> bent. The updates are massive on Testing, but it works.
> 
> YMMV...

I agree Buster / apt is working well.
Spent ages messing with different distributions in the past.
Really these days there seems to be no need.

mick





-- 
Key ID    4BFEBB31

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

#200914 — Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages]

On 10/04/2018 11:10 PM, mick crane wrote:
> On 2018-10-04 18:27, Glenn English wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 2:06 PM Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Just did a fresh install to another partition of the machine on which I
>>> observed the current problem.
>>> Installation was from DVD 1 of Debian 9.1.0
>>>
>>> Again LibreOffice Writer would not launch.
>>> Attempted complete removal. This time the LibreOffice meta-package was
>>> identified as broke.
>>> [I did _something_ ???]
>>
>> If I may suggest, skip Stretch and install Buster. I had problems
>> (don't remember what they were) with Stretch too, and everything's
>> working fine on Buster.
>>
>> I've never used anything but Stable, but this time it seemed to be
>> bent. The updates are massive on Testing, but it works.
>>
>> YMMV...
> 
> I agree Buster / apt is working well.
> Spent ages messing with different distributions in the past.
> Really these days there seems to be no need.
> 
> mick

I'm not comfortable with anything other than "stable".
When moving from one release to the next my custom is to purchase a DVD 
set and do a complete fresh install.

However, I *am* several point releases behind. I just read the apt-get 
man page and don't grasp how to chose between upgrade and dist-upgrade. 
It's purpose is focused more on "what" than "why" of each option.

Can someone point me to a discussion of why one would chose a particular 
option?

TIA

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

#200915 — Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages]

	Hi.

On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 04:57:36AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 10/04/2018 11:10 PM, mick crane wrote:
> > On 2018-10-04 18:27, Glenn English wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 2:06 PM Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Just did a fresh install to another partition of the machine on which I
> > > > observed the current problem.
> > > > Installation was from DVD 1 of Debian 9.1.0
> > > > 
> > > > Again LibreOffice Writer would not launch.
> > > > Attempted complete removal. This time the LibreOffice meta-package was
> > > > identified as broke.
> > > > [I did _something_ ???]
> > > 
> > > If I may suggest, skip Stretch and install Buster. I had problems
> > > (don't remember what they were) with Stretch too, and everything's
> > > working fine on Buster.
> > > 
> > > I've never used anything but Stable, but this time it seemed to be
> > > bent. The updates are massive on Testing, but it works.
> > > 
> > > YMMV...
> > 
> > I agree Buster / apt is working well.
> > Spent ages messing with different distributions in the past.
> > Really these days there seems to be no need.
> > 
> > mick
> 
> I'm not comfortable with anything other than "stable".
> When moving from one release to the next my custom is to purchase a DVD set and do a complete fresh install.
> 
> However, I *am* several point releases behind. I just read the apt-get man page and don't grasp how to chose between upgrade and
> dist-upgrade. It's purpose is focused more on "what" than "why" of each option.
> 
> Can someone point me to a discussion of why one would chose a particular option?

Why do you need a discussion of that if you have apt-get(8)?

upgrade is used to install the newest versions of all packages currently
installed on the system from the sources enumerated in
/etc/apt/sources.list. 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 in addition to performing the function of upgrade, also
intelligently handles changing dependencies with new versions of
packages.


tl;dr version:
apt-get upgrade is 'safe'.
apg-get dist-upgrade can install new and uninstall existing packages, so
it should be used with care.


If you're using stable without third-party repositories, it's 'upgrade'
that's needed most of the time.
If unsure always add '-s' flag to any apt-get invocation.

Reco

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

#200920 — Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages]

On 10/05/2018 05:06 AM, Reco wrote:
> 	Hi.
> 
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 04:57:36AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
>> On 10/04/2018 11:10 PM, mick crane wrote:
>>> On 2018-10-04 18:27, Glenn English wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 2:06 PM Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just did a fresh install to another partition of the machine on which I
>>>>> observed the current problem.
>>>>> Installation was from DVD 1 of Debian 9.1.0
>>>>>
>>>>> Again LibreOffice Writer would not launch.
>>>>> Attempted complete removal. This time the LibreOffice meta-package was
>>>>> identified as broke.
>>>>> [I did _something_ ???]
>>>>
>>>> If I may suggest, skip Stretch and install Buster. I had problems
>>>> (don't remember what they were) with Stretch too, and everything's
>>>> working fine on Buster.
>>>>
>>>> I've never used anything but Stable, but this time it seemed to be
>>>> bent. The updates are massive on Testing, but it works.
>>>>
>>>> YMMV...
>>>
>>> I agree Buster / apt is working well.
>>> Spent ages messing with different distributions in the past.
>>> Really these days there seems to be no need.
>>>
>>> mick
>>
>> I'm not comfortable with anything other than "stable".
>> When moving from one release to the next my custom is to purchase a DVD set and do a complete fresh install.
>>
>> However, I *am* several point releases behind. I just read the apt-get man page and don't grasp how to chose between upgrade and
>> dist-upgrade. It's purpose is focused more on "what" than "why" of each option.
>>
>> Can someone point me to a discussion of why one would chose a particular option?
> 
> Why do you need a discussion of that if you have apt-get(8)?
> 
> upgrade is used to install the newest versions of all packages currently
> installed on the system from the sources enumerated in
> /etc/apt/sources.list. 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 in addition to performing the function of upgrade, also
> intelligently handles changing dependencies with new versions of
> packages.
> 
> 
> tl;dr version:
> apt-get upgrade is 'safe'.
> apg-get dist-upgrade can install new and uninstall existing packages, so
> it should be used with care.
> 
> 
> If you're using stable without third-party repositories, it's 'upgrade'
> that's needed most of the time.
> If unsure always add '-s' flag to any apt-get invocation.
> 
> Reco

"... so it should be used with care." takes care of immediate decision.

However, I would still like to grok when/why the decision would be 
"dist-upgrade".

P.S. "Why?" goes back > three score and ten <chuckle>

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

#200923 — Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages]

	Hi.

On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 05:51:09AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> > > I'm not comfortable with anything other than "stable".
> > > When moving from one release to the next my custom is to purchase a DVD set and do a complete fresh install.
> > > 
> > > However, I *am* several point releases behind. I just read the apt-get man page and don't grasp how to chose between upgrade and
> > > dist-upgrade. It's purpose is focused more on "what" than "why" of each option.
> > > 
> > > Can someone point me to a discussion of why one would chose a particular option?
> > 
> > Why do you need a discussion of that if you have apt-get(8)?
> > 
> > upgrade is used to install the newest versions of all packages currently
> > installed on the system from the sources enumerated in
> > /etc/apt/sources.list. 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 in addition to performing the function of upgrade, also
> > intelligently handles changing dependencies with new versions of
> > packages.
> > 
> > 
> > tl;dr version:
> > apt-get upgrade is 'safe'.
> > apg-get dist-upgrade can install new and uninstall existing packages, so
> > it should be used with care.
> > 
> > 
> > If you're using stable without third-party repositories, it's 'upgrade'
> > that's needed most of the time.
> > If unsure always add '-s' flag to any apt-get invocation.
> > 
> > Reco
> 
> "... so it should be used with care." takes care of immediate decision.
> 
> However, I would still like to grok when/why the decision would be "dist-upgrade".

A real-life example would be stable-backports repository.
They dump fresh version of packages there once in a while, and some of
us like to use them.

For instance, the backported linux-image was uploaded there recently.
Along the other things they build 'perf' tool that comes with the Linux
kernel, so backported 'perf' ends up in backports too.

Recent 4.17→4.18 upgrade changed 'perf' dependencies from python-2.7 to
pyhton-3.5.


Now. One has your typical run-of-the-mill Debian stable installation
with the backported kernel and perf installed. But - there's no
python-3.5, as it was unneeded.

'perf' upgrade wants to install libpython3.5 as a dependency, but
'apt-get install' is forbidden from installing new packages.
The result of 'apt-get upgrade' is upgraded kernel, but 'perf' is put on
hold (i.e. not upgraded).
The result of 'apt-get dist-upgrade' is upgraded kernel, perf and a
pile of pyhton3.5-specific packages.


In this case no apparent harm was done, of course.

Reco

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

#200921 — Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages]

On Friday, October 05, 2018 06:06:25 AM Reco wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 04:57:36AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:

> > Can someone point me to a discussion of why one would chose a particular
> > option?
> 
> Why do you need a discussion of that if you have apt-get(8)?
> 
> upgrade is used to install the newest versions of all packages currently
> installed on the system from the sources enumerated in
> /etc/apt/sources.list. 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 in addition to performing the function of upgrade, also
> intelligently handles changing dependencies with new versions of
> packages.

I'm not the op, but I didn't quite get that (so I did try to read the relevant 
portions of apt-get (8), and here is my understanding.

As stated clearly, upgrade will not necessarily upgrade everything that could 
be upgraded, specifically if installing new dependencies would disable some 
other package.

dist-upgrade will attempt to handle those situations, but may end up disabling 
some packages.  dist-upgrade apparently has some mechanism to decide which 
packages are more important, and upgrade those while (possibly) disabling some 
packages that it deems less important.

(Maybe that mechanism is described elsewhere in apt-get (8).)

Is my understanding correct?

Can someone describe (or point to) a description of how dist-upgrade 
determines the more important app?  (Oh, I'm guessing it has to do with the 
whatever it is called label on each package, something like required, 
recommended, ... (I may be using the wrong words).  Supposed dist-upgrade has 
to choose between two packages that have the same label?

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

#200924 — Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages]

	Hi.

On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 07:03:13AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 05, 2018 06:06:25 AM Reco wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 04:57:36AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> 
> > > Can someone point me to a discussion of why one would chose a particular
> > > option?
> > 
> > Why do you need a discussion of that if you have apt-get(8)?
> > 
> > upgrade is used to install the newest versions of all packages currently
> > installed on the system from the sources enumerated in
> > /etc/apt/sources.list. 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 in addition to performing the function of upgrade, also
> > intelligently handles changing dependencies with new versions of
> > packages.
> 
> I'm not the op, but I didn't quite get that (so I did try to read the relevant 
> portions of apt-get (8), and here is my understanding.
> 
> As stated clearly, upgrade will not necessarily upgrade everything that could 
> be upgraded, specifically if installing new dependencies would disable some 
> other package.

It's the 'installed packages removed' part that people are usually are
worrying about ☺
'Installing by dependency' is something that only worries purists like
me ☺.


> dist-upgrade will attempt to handle those situations, but may end up disabling 
> some packages.

Not 'disabling'. 'Removing' aka 'it's not here anymore and you cannot
install it back'.


> dist-upgrade apparently has some mechanism to decide which 
> packages are more important, and upgrade those while (possibly) disabling some 
> packages that it deems less important.

And the mechanism is called 'dependency conflict resolution'.


> (Maybe that mechanism is described elsewhere in apt-get (8).)

They call it, to quote '"smart" conflict resolution system', but that's
it.


> Is my understanding correct?

Close enough.


> Can someone describe (or point to) a description of how dist-upgrade 
> determines the more important app?  (Oh, I'm guessing it has to do with the 
> whatever it is called label on each package, something like required, 
> recommended, ... (I may be using the wrong words).  Supposed dist-upgrade has 
> to choose between two packages that have the same label?

I'm afraid I lost you here.
Is 'more important' refers to dependency alternatives? Package
priorities? Something else?
By 'label' did you mean 'Tag' field or something else?

Let's try to do it this way.
Execute 'apt show bash', observe there result.
Ask your question once more, but this time use 'apt show bash' as a
guide.

Reco

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

#200935 — Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages]

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

On Friday, October 05, 2018 07:25:29 AM Reco wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 07:03:13AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > Can someone describe (or point to) a description of how dist-upgrade
> > determines the more important app?  (Oh, I'm guessing it has to do with
> > the whatever it is called label on each package, something like
> > required, recommended, ... (I may be using the wrong words).  Supposed
> > dist-upgrade has to choose between two packages that have the same
> > label?
> 
> I'm afraid I lost you here.
> Is 'more important' refers to dependency alternatives? Package
> priorities? Something else?
> By 'label' did you mean 'Tag' field or something else?
> 
> Let's try to do it this way.
> Execute 'apt show bash', observe there result.
> Ask your question once more, but this time use 'apt show bash' as a
> guide.

Thanks for your reply!

Ok, I ran 
<quote>
root@s31:~# apt show bash
Package: bash
Version: 4.3-11+deb8u1
Essential: yes
Installed-Size: 5,130 kB
Maintainer: Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>
Replaces: bash-completion (<< 20060301-0), bash-doc (<= 2.05-1)
Depends: base-files (>= 2.1.12), debianutils (>= 2.15)
Pre-Depends: dash (>= 0.5.5.1-2.2), libc6 (>= 2.15), libncurses5 (>=
5.5-5~), libtinfo5
Recommends: bash-completion (>= 20060301-0)
Suggests: bash-doc
Conflicts: bash-completion (<< 20060301-0)
Homepage: http://tiswww.case.edu/php/chet/bash/bashtop.html
Tag: implemented-in::c, interface::shell, role::program, scope::utility,
 suite::gnu, uitoolkit::ncurses
Section: shells
Priority: required
Download-Size: 1,172 kB
APT-Manual-Installed: yes
APT-Sources: http://debian.cc.lehigh.edu/debian/ jessie/main amd64 Packages
Description: GNU Bourne Again SHell
 Bash is an sh-compatible command language interpreter that executes
 commands read from the standard input or from a file.  Bash also
 incorporates useful features from the Korn and C shells (ksh and csh).
 .
 Bash is ultimately intended to be a conformant implementation of the
 IEEE POSIX Shell and Tools specification (IEEE Working Group 1003.2).
 .
 The Programmable Completion Code, by Ian Macdonald, is now found in
 the bash-completion package.
</quote>

I'm not sure I know enough to re-phrase the question.  I'm also surprised / 
confused to see the two tags: "Essential: yes" and "Priority: required" -- I 
presume that is not redundant information, but at first glance it seems so.

Anyway, I am just "fishing" for information on how dist-upgrade decides which 
package is more important to install (when faced with such  a decision).

I suppose I can live without knowing that ;-)

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

#200939 — Re: apt 101 (was: Re: More info)

On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:03:31AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 05, 2018 07:25:29 AM Reco wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 07:03:13AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Can someone describe (or point to) a description of how dist-upgrade
> > > determines the more important app?  (Oh, I'm guessing it has to do with
> > > the whatever it is called label on each package, something like
> > > required, recommended, ... (I may be using the wrong words).  Supposed
> > > dist-upgrade has to choose between two packages that have the same
> > > label?
> > 
> > I'm afraid I lost you here.
> > Is 'more important' refers to dependency alternatives? Package
> > priorities? Something else?
> > By 'label' did you mean 'Tag' field or something else?
> > 
> > Let's try to do it this way.
> > Execute 'apt show bash', observe there result.
> > Ask your question once more, but this time use 'apt show bash' as a
> > guide.
> 
> Thanks for your reply!
> 
> Ok, I ran 
> <quote>
> root@s31:~# apt show bash
> Package: bash
<your_usual_stable_bash_was here.>
> </quote>
> 
> I'm not sure I know enough to re-phrase the question. I'm also surprised / 
> confused to see the two tags: "Essential: yes" and "Priority: required" -- I 
> presume that is not redundant information, but at first glance it seems so.

Ok, let's start from the beginning.
Any package has a name, that's 'Package:'.
Any package has a version, that's 'Version:'.
Any package has 'Priority' field, that matters to Debian-Installer very
much, and does not matter to anyone else.

You do not remove a package designated as 'Essential' as it *will* break
your installation. An attempt to remove Essential package via apt-get
should force apt-get to display very verbose confirmation dialog.

Nearly any package has tags ('Tag:' field), only used for searching.

These package fields have nothing to do with upgrades.


> Anyway, I am just "fishing" for information on how dist-upgrade decides which 
> package is more important to install (when faced with such  a decision).

In a nutshell:

All installed packages are evaluated for the need of version bump aka
upgrade.
If package dependencies ('Depends', 'Recommends') require something
that's not installed it's included in the installation list.
If package's 'Depends' field contains several entities separated by pipe
symbol - the first of this gets installed unless other entity is
required by another package.
If new package's 'Conflicts' field contain something that's installed it
will be de-installed.


> I suppose I can live without knowing that ;-)

'apt-get -s dist-upgrade' will keep this sacred knowledge to itself so
you won't have to ☺

Reco

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

#200941 — Re: apt 101 (was: Re: More info)

Ok, thanks for the followup, that is helpful!  It will probably take me 
sleeping on it to let it completely sink in.  

My current summary to myself is to avoid using dist-upgrade unless I have some 
special reason and really know what I'm doing. ;-)

On Friday, October 05, 2018 11:35:46 AM Reco wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 11:03:31AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> Ok, let's start from the beginning.
---< good stuff snipped >---

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

#200944 — Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages]

On Fri 05 Oct 2018 at 11:03:31 -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure I know enough to re-phrase the question.  I'm also surprised / 
> confused to see the two tags: "Essential: yes" and "Priority: required" -- I 
> presume that is not redundant information, but at first glance it seems so.

At second glance you looked at

 https://wiki.debian.org/Glossary

and the light dawned.

> Anyway, I am just "fishing" for information on how dist-upgrade decides which 
> package is more important to install (when faced with such  a decision).
> 
> I suppose I can live without knowing that ;-)

I've lost track. Are you using dist-upgrade on stable or unstable?

-- 
Brian.

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

#200945 — Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages]

On Friday, October 05, 2018 03:40:09 PM Brian wrote:
> On Fri 05 Oct 2018 at 11:03:31 -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > I'm not sure I know enough to re-phrase the question.  I'm also surprised
> > / confused to see the two tags: "Essential: yes" and "Priority:
> > required" -- I presume that is not redundant information, but at first
> > glance it seems so.
> 
> At second glance you looked at
> 
>  https://wiki.debian.org/Glossary
> 
> and the light dawned.
> 
> > Anyway, I am just "fishing" for information on how dist-upgrade decides
> > which package is more important to install (when faced with such  a
> > decision).
> > 
> > I suppose I can live without knowing that ;-)
> 
> I've lost track. Are you using dist-upgrade on stable or unstable?

I'm not the OP, but the place where I plan to use (apt-get) upgrade and not 
dist-upgrade is Jessie (Debian 8).

The link to the Glossary is helpful, and I'm good -- for now, I think I know 
(or have access to) as much as I want to ;-)

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

#200948 — Re: More info - was [Re: Synaptic fails to fix broken packages]

On Fri 05 Oct 2018 at 16:17:22 -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, October 05, 2018 03:40:09 PM Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 05 Oct 2018 at 11:03:31 -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I'm not sure I know enough to re-phrase the question.  I'm also surprised
> > > / confused to see the two tags: "Essential: yes" and "Priority:
> > > required" -- I presume that is not redundant information, but at first
> > > glance it seems so.
> > 
> > At second glance you looked at
> > 
> >  https://wiki.debian.org/Glossary
> > 
> > and the light dawned.
> > 
> > > Anyway, I am just "fishing" for information on how dist-upgrade decides
> > > which package is more important to install (when faced with such  a
> > > decision).
> > > 
> > > I suppose I can live without knowing that ;-)
> > 
> > I've lost track. Are you using dist-upgrade on stable or unstable?
> 
> I'm not the OP, but the place where I plan to use (apt-get) upgrade and not 
> dist-upgrade is Jessie (Debian 8).

Debian 8 is obsolete; it doesn't even receive security updates.
dist-upgrade is most unlikely to bring it to its knees.

-- 
Brian.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web