On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 08:01:00PM -0700, Troy Telford wrote: > Package: apt > Version: 2.9.30 > Severity: normal > > Dear Maintainer, > > * What led up to the situation? > > Standard system upgrade; `apt upgrade` isn't working > > * What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or > ineffective)? > > `apt upgrade` (specifically) fails > > * What was the outcome of this action? > > I realize this probalby looks boring and like user error - Bear with > me a bit; I've been a `sid` user for 25+ years, so there's more to > it than appears. > > > $ apt upgrade > > > Calculating upgrade... Error! > > Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have > > requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable > > distribution that some required packages have not yet been created > > or been moved out of Incoming. > > The following information may help to resolve the situation: > > > Unsatisfied dependencies: > > libmarblewidget-qt6-28 : Depends: libastro1 (= 4:24.12.2-3) but > > 4:22.12.3-2.1 is to be installed > > marble-plugins : Depends: libastro1 (= 4:24.12.2-3) but > > 4:22.12.3-2.1 is to be installed > > Error: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. > > NORMALLY, as a `sid` user, I'd just wait a day or so and everything > sorts itself out. However, after "a long enough time" I start to > think that it's less a problem with package- upstream, and the > problem lies elsewhere, and start debugging... > > - Noteworthy is that `apt-mark showhold` returns _nothing_ as I'm not > holding any packages.
To be fair *apt upgrade* is holding all packages that don't have upgrades, i.e. it's not allowed to remove them. APT's terminology isn't clear; keep, hold, protected all have double meanings, and sometimes they mean the same thing. Like in dist-upgrade, "held packages" refers to packages that were marked protected, but that includes any command-line arguments, the properly held packages, and even some random decisions the solver made it sometimes calls Protect() on. > - `apt-get upgrade` (ie. a slightly different commandline) has > absolutely no issues whatsoever. > - If I `apt install marble-plugins`, `apt` was immediately able to > install/upgrade `marble-plugins.` > > * What outcome did you expect instead? > > I expected the usual apt ugprade experience. > > > Now then: I run ZFS on my Root filesystem - which means I've > snapshots of my full filesystem both pre- and post- upgrade, in spite of > the fact I've moved past the but I'm reporting. > > So, if you want to puruse this issue, and obtain anything out of my bag > of holding (within the next 90 days of the filing of this bug), please > let me know. Please run apt upgrade -o Dir::Log::Solver=/tmp/bug-1098997.edsp or similar and attach the file. This will generate a full dump of the solver request, installed packages, and configured sources, such that it can be piped into /usr/lib/apt/solvers/apt for reproducing. -- debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev ubuntu core developer i speak de, en
