On 07/08/10 at 00:30 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > On Fr, 2010-08-06 at 11:04 -0400, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 06/08/10 at 11:35 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > > > On Fr, 2010-08-06 at 02:40 -0400, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > Package: apt > > > > Version: 0.7.25.3 > > > > Severity: serious > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I have been testing upgrades from lenny to sid with a tool similar to > > > > piuparts. I ran into many (~80) strange failures, where apt takes a > > > > wrong decision about which packages to upgrade. > > > > > > > > All the logs are available from > > > > http://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2010/08/05/pkg-upgrade/ > > > > Here are the various cases: > > > > package-not-upgraded/: > > > > The package under test was not upgraded during apt-get dist-upgrade. > > > > That is always because upgrading it would have required the removal of > > > > another package. However, in the case of library packages being > > > > removed > > > > to permit the upgrade, I was wondering whether it was possible to > > > > trick > > > > apt into upgrading the package. > > > > > > > > package-uninstalled/: > > > > The package under test was removed during apt-get dist-upgrade. > > > > > > > > package-uninstalled/no-removal/ <= that's where the serious issues are > > > > The package under test was removed during dist-upgrade, but no removal > > > > was neded to get it back! It should really have been upgraded together > > > > with the other packages. > > > > There are quite a lot of failures related to emacs packages, so they > > > > are separated in the logs. > > > > > > > > package-uninstalled/removals/: > > > > A package was removed to permit the upgrade. I'm wondering if in some > > > > cases, it would have made sense to auto-detect the correct solution. > > > > > > Please use a two stage upgrade process: > > > apt-get upgrade > > > apt-get dist-upgrade > > > This will reduce the number of issues. > > > > I'm now doing: > > apt-get install apt (to upgrade apt) > > apt-get upgrade > > apt-get dist-upgrade > > And I don't really see any difference (I haven't tested all the packages > > that were failing). > > > > Good examples of packages that fail are pyrex-mode and > > python-application. Both get removed during apt-get dist-upgrade, but > > can be installed without removing any package after that. > > At least those two work now with the latest commit in > debian-experimental-ma.
Great! I'll install the experimental version instead of the unstable one next time I run my tests. (probably not before ~1 week) -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
