On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:06:18 +0100
Brian wrote:
> On Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 14:19:42 -0400, Celejar wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the suggestion; I just tried - no luck. I'll add here that
> > apt-cache search some_package also segfaults, at least some of the time.
>
> I've dist-upgraded my Sid machine n
On Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 14:19:42 -0400, Celejar wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion; I just tried - no luck. I'll add here that
> apt-cache search some_package also segfaults, at least some of the time.
I've dist-upgraded my Sid machine not 5 minutes ago. It had 0.8.15.1 for
apt. Segfaulting and pin
On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:09:55 +0100
Brian wrote:
> On Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 08:40:32 -0400, Celejar wrote:
>
> > I've tried (repeatedly) deleting /var/cache/apt/*.bin, but it doesn't
> > help, nor does anything else I try.
>
> Did you try replacing /var/lib/dpkg/available and/or /var/lib/dpkg/statu
On Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 08:40:32 -0400, Celejar wrote:
> I've tried (repeatedly) deleting /var/cache/apt/*.bin, but it doesn't
> help, nor does anything else I try.
Did you try replacing /var/lib/dpkg/available and/or /var/lib/dpkg/status
with the -old copies?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-
This is really ugly - aptitude has begun to consistently segfault on
startup, and apt-get on 'apt-get upgrade' ('update' works):
~# aptitude
Ouch! Got SIGSEGV, dying..
Segmentation fault
~# apt-get update
Get:1 http://ftp.us.debian.org sid InRelease [146 kB]
Get:2 http://ftp.us.debian.org sid/ma
On Mi, 06 apr 11, 15:58:05, Aaron Toponce wrote:
>
> 'apt-get upgrade' is synonymous with 'aptitude full-upgrade'.
No, it's not. In fact, 'aptitude safe-upgrade' will install new
packages, while 'apt-get upgrade' will not ;)
> Either way, not to be a dick and suggest you RTFM, but you really
On Thursday 07 April 2011 16:38:42 David Jardine wrote:
> Nobody's challenged this yet, so perhaps I'm mistaken in thinking that
> aptitude's safe-upgrade and full-upgrade are equivalent to apt-get's
> upgrade and dist-upgrade respectively. But I still think so. :)
And they say that they are much
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 11:44:30PM +0100, Lisi wrote:
> I know very little about apt-get, but according to Aaron, who
> clearly does know about it, apt-get upgrade is equivalent to aptitude
> full-upgrade.
Nobody's challenged this yet, so perhaps I'm mistaken in thinking that
aptitude's s
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 23:44:30 +0100
Lisi wrote:
> You just need to remember that, in effect, if you run aptitude
> safe-upgrade you are telling aptitude that it mustn't remove
> anything. This restriction may mean that it can't upgrade.
Thanks for that information Lisi.
Aptitude does remove some
On Tuesday 05 April 2011 23:35:08 Charlie wrote:
> Trying to satisfy a curiosity.
>
> I upgrade my Debian Wheezy system with aptitude and it upgrades all but
> one application file.
>
> Redo: "aptitude update" and it shows that file hangs around for
> several days and doesn't get upgraded when I do
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 15:58:05 -0600
Aaron Toponce wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 08:35:08AM +1000, Charlie wrote:
> > I upgrade my Debian Wheezy system with aptitude and it upgrades all
> > but one application file.
> >
> > Redo: "aptitude update" and it shows that file hangs around for
> > sever
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 08:35:08AM +1000, Charlie wrote:
> I upgrade my Debian Wheezy system with aptitude and it upgrades all but
> one application file.
>
> Redo: "aptitude update" and it shows that file hangs around for
> several days and doesn't get upgraded when I do aptitude
> "safe-upgrade"
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 14:50:43 + (UTC)
Camaleón wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 08:35:08 +1000, Charlie wrote:
>
> > Trying to satisfy a curiosity.
> >
> > I upgrade my Debian Wheezy system with aptitude and it upgrades all
> > but one application file.
> >
> > Redo: "aptitude update" and it sho
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 08:35:08 +1000, Charlie wrote:
> Trying to satisfy a curiosity.
>
> I upgrade my Debian Wheezy system with aptitude and it upgrades all but
> one application file.
>
> Redo: "aptitude update" and it shows that file hangs around for several
> days and doesn't get upgraded when
Trying to satisfy a curiosity.
I upgrade my Debian Wheezy system with aptitude and it upgrades all but
one application file.
Redo: "aptitude update" and it shows that file hangs around for
several days and doesn't get upgraded when I do aptitude
"safe-upgrade" after "aptitude update" each time d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/16/08 13:24, Jude DaShiell wrote:
> Last night I did a complete reinstall of debian and am in the sid
> distribution now. That was to clear the iceape problem. A few minutes
> ago though this same thing happened when installing nethack-common a
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 13:24:34 -0500, Jude DaShiell wrote:
> Last night I did a complete reinstall of debian and am in the sid
> distribution now. That was to clear the iceape problem. A few minutes
> ago though this same thing happened when installing nethack-common a
> totally unrelated
Last night I did a complete reinstall of debian and am in the sid
distribution now. That was to clear the iceape problem. A few minutes
ago though this same thing happened when installing nethack-common a
totally unrelated package. Something almost for sure is broken with the
debian package
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:02:59AM -0300, Iuri Sampaio wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> In attempt to run apt-get update or even aptitude update, i got the error
> bellow:
>
> It seems the paths are wrongly typed. But I’m pretty sure they are correct
>
Looks like a network configuration problem. What d
Hi,
In attempt to run apt-get update or even aptitude update, i got the error
bellow:
It seems the paths are wrongly typed. But I’m pretty sure they are correct
debianserver:~# aptitude update
Err http://ftp.br.debian.org etch Release.gpg
Could not resolve 'ftp.br.debian.org'
Ign h
Luis Maceira wrote:
> aptitude and apt-get both don´t upgrade the packages
> libsigc++-2.0-0_2.0.10-1 and
> libsigc++-2.0-dev_2.0.10-1
> to the corresponding packages of the version 2.0.16-3.
> I built the packages of the 2.0.16-3 version in my own
> computer using the debian so
aptitude and apt-get both don´t upgrade the packages
libsigc++-2.0-0_2.0.10-1 and
libsigc++-2.0-dev_2.0.10-1
to the corresponding packages of the version 2.0.16-3.
I built the packages of the 2.0.16-3 version in my own
computer using the debian sources and all went
O.K.,and
the packages files
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 10:08:45PM +0100, Richard Kimber wrote:
> I have been running 'apt-get-update' from cron during the night. Root
> gets sent the output which is much as one would see in a terminal.
You might want to check out cron-apt, it's de
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 10:08:45PM +0100, Richard Kimber wrote:
> I have been running 'apt-get-update' from cron during the night. Root
> gets sent the output which is much as one would see in a terminal.
>
> However, following a recent message from someone (Colin Watson???) to
> the list suggest
I have been running 'apt-get-update' from cron during the night. Root
gets sent the output which is much as one would see in a terminal.
However, following a recent message from someone (Colin Watson???) to the
list suggesting that it is better to run aptitude than apt-get directly, I
have been e
On Wednesday 11 September 2002 08:52, Jeff wrote:
>
> I ran an strace on aptitude without any other instance and once with
> another instance running and diff'd the output and found this:
>
> aptitude:
> < fcntl64(3, F_SETLK, {type=F_WRLCK, whence=SEEK_SET, start=0, len=0})
> = 0
> < open("/va
Mike Kuhar, 2002-Sep-10 16:35 -0400:
> I've checked, and there are no other instances of either apt-get or aptitude
> running. Further, the appropriate permissions are set to the directories
> /var/cache/apt and /var/cache/apt/archives.
>
> One question, however. Is the pid of either apt-get or
ither may check?
-mk
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 4:10 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Aptitude and apt-get
>
>
> Mike Kuhar, 2002-Sep-10 13:43 -0400:
> > Thanks for the reply, J
Mike Kuhar, 2002-Sep-10 13:43 -0400:
> Thanks for the reply, Jeff.
>
> After reinstalling apt, aptitude and dpkg, I still had the same problem.
>
> -mk
Hmmm...the only time I see that message "could not lock the cache,
opening in read-only mode" is when I have left aptitude open on
another term
Thanks for the reply, Jeff.
After reinstalling apt, aptitude and dpkg, I still had the same problem.
-mk
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 12:55 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Aptitude and apt-g
Mike Kuhar, 2002-Sep-10 04:03 -0400:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've got a strange one. As root, in aptitude, I'll do an update
> successfully. Then I do an upgrade, the files download, the progress bar
> will not show total progress, just progress per file, then reset to 0% for
> the next file. When
Hi everyone,
I've got a strange one. As root, in aptitude, I'll do an update
successfully. Then I do an upgrade, the files download, the progress bar
will not show total progress, just progress per file, then reset to 0% for
the next file. When the files complete downloading, I hit a carrige r
I thought that basically all front-ends for pacakge system would work
same way, or at least similarly. However aptitude and apt-get
dist-upgrade seem to differ a lot. Why is that? And why are they trying
to remove various packages from the system? e.g. I don't want the
kde-designer to be re
33 matches
Mail list logo
