On 10/11/17, Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.net> wrote: > How can the following be possible? > > Note that I have not changed the mirror, and "apt update" does not > give any error. > > cventin:~> apt-show-versions -a libreoffice-common > libreoffice-common:all 1:5.4.2-1 install ok installed > libreoffice-common:all 1:5.2.7-1 stable ftp.fr.debian.org > No stable-updates version > libreoffice-common:all 1:5.4.1-1 testing ftp.fr.debian.org > No unstable version > No experimental version > libreoffice-common:all 1:5.4.2-1 newer than version in archive > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Why "No unstable version" while > > https://packages.debian.org/sid/libreoffice-common > > says "libreoffice-common (1:5.4.2-1)"? > > Is this a bug with the mirror?
Hi.. I had a (cognitively based) hard time understanding all this a while back. Still kind of do (not fully grasp) primarily because I haven't tracked down where to find the notes that hint at the "why". The packages not showing are possibly sitting waiting, and in fact this thread exists because you found that out. It has something to do with Developers' design for *LOGICAL* reasons known to them. It used to be that I would cherry pick my upgrades via "apt-get install" after running "apt-get update"... because I'm on dialup Internet access. I had to go that route to be able to upgrade AND stay active doing poverty related advocacy shtuff, etc, online. In going that route, I would install EVERYTHING while not knowing that some things should NOT be upgraded even though a package does, yes, sit ready in repositories. I filed a couple bugs back when because trying to install some of those packages led to "apt-get" UNINSTALLING other *critical* packages, sometimes over 100 at a time. As it turned out, THAT kind of thing is why those packages are on hold... And I guess that's why they're showing up the way they do in your "apt-show-versions" query feedback there. I'm using Buster/Testing, and libreoffice-common is on hold... and has been on hold A VERY LONG TIME. If I do "apt-get upgrade, I see something like this: ....... Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Calculating upgrade... Done The following packages have been kept back: [list of ~140 well-known package names (including everything libreoffice, cpp-6, cpp-7, yada] ....... NO complaints on packages of that size being held back, have I mentioned dialup, yada-yada. *grin* If you already do the following, then this is just noise, but I now go the "apt-get upgrade" route after updating my apt. In my special use case, I still "apt-get install" cherry pick after the readout from the pending upgrade. The difference now is I cherry pick from what UPGRADE would do versus where I used to pick from all things shown by "apt-show-versions upgrade". Oh, you know what, as I write that, I'm realizing that it sounds like you're seeing what I could have used back then. It sounds like apt-show-versions isn't reporting something that is in fact on hold. *COOL!* If that used to exist even way back way, then I just wasn't using the right flag to see that output or something. Two things I scratch my head over are: #1 Why do those packages show up at all, even though it's as being "held back"? For now, I *a-sume* it's so that it's public knowledge that there is the possibility for an upgrade if you just absolutely must do so. Knowing those packages are on hold is your sign to absolutely proceed with caution, nay, just don't even go there. Although.... I encountered something myself last night for the first time where it wants me to upgrade some of developer packages. I may just do it since it's because something else is not working right now anyway. Let's go for total broke. *grin* #2 WHY doesn't "apt-get install" balk when we try to manually install those packages that on hold? I just quick tested, and it still doesn't. My rather unhumble is that apt-get should balk (not unlike apt-show-versions there). It seems that apt-get should stop us and ask us ARE WE SURE then specifically state that those packages have been put on hold for intellectual reasons known to skilled Debian Developers. After that, we can make an informed executive decision regarding going ahead or canning the attempt for the time being.. Anyone have any feedback on what any other package managers do with packages that are on hold? It would be about being a *VERY* newbie friendly feature to at least warn before proceeding on....... Cindy :) -- Cindy-Sue Causey Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA * runs with... pumpkin spice cookies and a slushing cup of (cold) coffee *
