On Ma, 27 oct 20, 13:03:32, David Wright wrote:
> On Tue 27 Oct 2020 at 15:05:36 (+0200), Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Lu, 26 oct 20, 09:55:00, John Hasler wrote:
> >
> > I believe someone demonstrated quite recently on list that dpkg has some
> > limits in the number and/or combination of packag
On Tue 27 Oct 2020 at 15:05:36 (+0200), Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 26 oct 20, 09:55:00, John Hasler wrote:
> > Andrei writes:
> > > dpkg does its own dependency checking, in addition to APT (the
> > > software, not the command), and will prevent any inconsistencies
> > > unless you use one of t
On Lu, 26 oct 20, 09:55:00, John Hasler wrote:
> Andrei writes:
> > dpkg does its own dependency checking, in addition to APT (the
> > software, not the command), and will prevent any inconsistencies
> > unless you use one of the --force switches.
>
> What it does not do is resolve dependencies.
So, if you don't pin down the priority of deb-multimedia, virtually every
audio- and video-related package on your system will be replaced with the
deb-multimedia version, which for the sake of stability is very likely a
bad idea.
So it is safer to lower the priority of deb-multimedia and that of
an easily mess
with apt's dependencies and cause nasty situations ("dependency hell")
> In other words, should I stick to aptitude's decision?
I really recommend to do the pinning first, then re-run
$ apt update
and then look again what is suggested when you call apt-g
To resolve this, you might consider to create a file
like e.g. /etc/apt/preferences.d/multimedia .
Here the content of that file looks like:
Package: *
Pin: release o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages,n=buster
Pin-Priority: 332
Package: *
Pin: release o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages,n=buster-back
Andrei writes:
> dpkg does its own dependency checking, in addition to APT (the
> software, not the command), and will prevent any inconsistencies
> unless you use one of the --force switches.
What it does not do is resolve dependencies. Apt recursively resolves
dependencies, installing them as r
al problem in
> upgrading.
'apt-get upgrade' is insufficient even on a stable system, e.g. due to
the kernel package changing names, it's better to just use 'apt upgrade'
(or 'aptitude safe-upgrade') instead.
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 17:53:16 -0500
"R. Ramesh" wrote:
(...)
> Nothing fancy. Installed debian 10 from USB and added multi-media and
> installed mythfrontend. That is all I have done.
> This is a NUC Pentium (N3700) box and not fancy at all. Here is my
> kernel
(...)
> My apt-get/aptitud
To begin with, which distribution is it? In general, with Stable, it
pretty much doesn't matter which tool is used. The kind of problems you
have indicate Unstable or Testing.
First, apt is pretty much apt-get, with different syntax and a few
extra features. Aptitude can generally do a better job
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 12:12:19 -0500
Ram Ramesh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to upgrade the current setup and I am unable to
> understand the differences between aptitude vs. apt-get usage.
> When I do apt-get -s upgrade, I get
> > myth2 [rramesh] 100 > sudo apt-get -s upgrade
> > Reading pack
Hi,
I am trying to upgrade the current setup and I am unable to
understand the differences between aptitude vs. apt-get usage.
When I do apt-get -s upgrade, I get
myth2 [rramesh] 100 > sudo apt-get -s upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information...
On Sun, 2015-08-02 at 19:17 +0800, tan...@hushmail.com wrote:
[...]
> Running
>
> ip route add default dev ppp0
>
> solved the problem. Thank you very much!
>
> Just out of curiosity, why would a upgrade make the default route disappear?
Presumably whatever script or config set's up networking
On 8/2/2015 at 4:57 PM, "Tixy" wrote:
>
>On Sun, 2015-08-02 at 01:48 +0800, tan...@hushmail.com wrote:
>[...]
>> Running "ip route" gave
>>
>> 203.218.189.254 dev ppp0 proto kernel scope link src
>> 218.102.187.173
>
>On a computer running Debian 7 (Squeeze) which I have acting as a
>router
>
On Sun, 2015-08-02 at 01:48 +0800, tan...@hushmail.com wrote:
[...]
> Running "ip route" gave
>
> 203.218.189.254 dev ppp0 proto kernel scope link src
> 218.102.187.173
On a computer running Debian 7 (Squeeze) which I have acting as a router
and firewall, running "ip route" gives
default dev
I found something else.
On my computer that has a working internet connection
netstat -rn
shows
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway GenmaskFlags MSS
Window irtt Iface
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.00.0.0.0 U
> On 1/8/2015 at 10:09 PM, "Tixy" wrote:On Sat, 2015-08-01 at
> 02:48 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> [...]
[...]
> >
> > The only place you are getting an IPV4 address is ppp0. And to get
that
> > you are running pppoeconf. Are you equipt with some sort of a
phone
> > modem card in your machine?
>
On Sat, 2015-08-01 at 02:48 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
[...]
> > Now instead of outcome 1 I have
> >
> > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 10:c3:7b:9d:d0:d2
> > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> > RX packets:61 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> >
On Friday 31 July 2015 23:39:37 tan...@hushmail.com wrote:
> >> Outcome 1
> >>
> >> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 10:c3:7b:9d:d0:d2
> >> inet6 addr: fe80::12c3:7bff:fe9d:d0d2/64 Scope:Link
> >> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> >> RX packets
>>
>> Outcome 1
>>
>> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 10:c3:7b:9d:d0:d2
>> inet6 addr: fe80::12c3:7bff:fe9d:d0d2/64 Scope:Link
>> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
>> RX packets:10 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>> TX packets:28
On Friday 31 July 2015 10:54:31 tan...@hushmail.com wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I use an ADSL modem to connect to the internet. A few hours ago I ran
> "aptitude safe-upgrade" on two computers with sid installed on them.
> As soon as the upgrade finished I lost my internet conne
On 7/31/15, tan...@hushmail.com wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I use an ADSL modem to connect to the internet. A few hours ago I ran
> "aptitude safe-upgrade" on two computers with sid installed on them.
> As soon as the upgrade finished I lost my internet connection on both
> com
Hi!
I use an ADSL modem to connect to the internet. A few hours ago I ran
"aptitude safe-upgrade" on two computers with sid installed on them.
As soon as the upgrade finished I lost my internet connection on both
computers. When I rebooted them and ran "pon dsl-provider" an
* Sven Joachim [130609 06:12]:
> On 2013-06-09 10:10 +0200, John Magolske wrote:
> > After an `aptitude safe-upgrade` I'm getting the following, which
> > leaves zsh unconfigured. Any suggestions about how to untangle this?
> > [...]
> > % sudo aptitude install z
On 2013-06-09 10:10 +0200, John Magolske wrote:
> After an `aptitude safe-upgrade` I'm getting the following, which
> leaves zsh unconfigured. Any suggestions about how to untangle this?
>
> *
>
> % sudo aptitude install zsh
> The following NEW packages will be installe
On Du, 09 iun 13, 01:10:18, John Magolske wrote:
> After an `aptitude safe-upgrade` I'm getting the following, which
> leaves zsh unconfigured. Any suggestions about how to untangle this?
...
> Unpacking zsh-common (from .../zsh-common_5.0.2-3_all.deb) ...
> dpkg: error processi
After an `aptitude safe-upgrade` I'm getting the following, which
leaves zsh unconfigured. Any suggestions about how to untangle this?
*
% sudo aptitude install zsh
The following NEW packages will be installed:
zsh-common{a}
The following partially installed packages will be configured:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Steven Post
wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 13:10 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>> On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 12:52 +0200, Dan wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> > I checked, and the kernel has not been updated.
>>
>> That's strange, if you downgraded to the old version of X and the ker
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 13:10 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 12:52 +0200, Dan wrote:
[...]
>
> > I checked, and the kernel has not been updated.
>
> That's strange, if you downgraded to the old version of X and the kernel
> version still is the same, but it doesn't work, then so
Any interesting output by
$ grep EE /var/log/Xorg.0.log
$ cat ~/.xsession-errors
?
It also could be that some security things changed for polkit or what
ever.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.d
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 12:52 +0200, Dan wrote:
> That means that AMD will not support Linux and X anymore? Is it better
> to use the opensource driver?
No, they don't update drivers for aged graphics, if you buy new ATI
cards, they provide drivers for current versions of X. It's likely that
the up
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 12:20 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 12:01 +0200, Dan wrote:
>> > I was able to downgrade
>> > But this didn't work.
>>
>> Downgrading the kernel, so that it can use the old modules, that fit t
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 12:20 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 12:01 +0200, Dan wrote:
> > I was able to downgrade
> > But this didn't work.
>
> Downgrading the kernel, so that it can use the old modules, that fit to
> the kernel version would work ;) or you build the modules
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 12:01 +0200, Dan wrote:
> I was able to downgrade
> But this didn't work.
Downgrading the kernel, so that it can use the old modules, that fit to
the kernel version would work ;) or you build the modules to fit to the
new kernel ;).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 00:57 +0200, Dan wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I did an aptitude safe-upgrade of my Squeeze debian. And now the
> drivers for the graphics card are broken. I am using an Radeon
> Graphics card, but I downloaded the drivers directly from the webpage.
>
>
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Jean-Marc wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:17:31 +0100, Darac Marjal
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:57:21AM +0200, Dan wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>I did an aptitude safe-upgrade of my Squeeze debian. And now the
> driv
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:17:31 +0100, Darac Marjal
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:57:21AM +0200, Dan wrote:
>>Hi,
>>I did an aptitude safe-upgrade of my Squeeze debian. And now the drivers
>>for the graphics card are broken. I am using an Radeon Graph
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:57:21AM +0200, Dan wrote:
>Hi,
>I did an aptitude safe-upgrade of my Squeeze debian. And now the drivers
>for the graphics card are broken. I am using an Radeon Graphics card, but
>I downloaded the drivers directly from the webpage.
>H
Hi,
I did an aptitude safe-upgrade of my Squeeze debian. And now the drivers
for the graphics card are broken. I am using an Radeon Graphics card, but I
downloaded the drivers directly from the webpage.
How could I undo the aptitude safe-upgrade in order to use the xserver
version that I was
It may be due to dbus request for packagekit. From 'apt-config dump |
grep 'DPkg::Post-Invoke':
<* snip *>
DPkg::Post-Invoke:: "/usr/bin/test
-e /usr/share/dbus-1/system-services/org.freedesktop.PackageKit.service
&& /usr/bin/test -S /var/run/dbus/system_bus_socket && /usr/bin/gdbus
call --system
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:49:40AM -0400, songbird wrote:
> Guo Yixuan wrote:
>
> if this is not a typo on your part then
> this could be a problem elsewhere:
>
> "tassksel-data" is not a package, but "tasksel-data" is...
>
> > Searching "Timeout was reached" in aptitude's source code doesn'
Guo Yixuan wrote:
>Hendrik Boom wrote:
>> I just did a routine
>>
>> aptitude safe-upgrade
>>
>> from the root command-line on an 1386 Debian testing system. Here are
>> the past few lines in its output. Is this anything to worry about? Or
>> just an
On 04/10/2012 12:52 AM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
I just did a routine
aptitude safe-upgrade
from the root command-line on an 1386 Debian testing system. Here are
the past few lines in its output. Is this anything to worry about? Or
just an unimportant problem that will fix itself in some future
I just did a routine
aptitude safe-upgrade
from the root command-line on an 1386 Debian testing system. Here are
the past few lines in its output. Is this anything to worry about? Or
just an unimportant problem that will fix itself in some future upgrade?
setting up tassksel-data
setting
de"/"dist-upgrade" only appears when new versions of packages
stand in different dependency relationships from old versions of those
packages. The "aptitude safe-upgrade" command does not install new packages
nor remove installed packages.
Thanks for your reply. I had done some
On 28/02/2012 01:25, Whit Hansell wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for your reply. I had done some googling at the debian site and
> found info on the differences as you state. I have to admit I am not
> sure which is the best way to update/upgrade my system. I had read a
> few years ago that "aptitude" wa
-reference/ch02.en.html#_literal_apt_get_literal_literal_apt_cache_literal_vs_literal_aptitude_literal
>>
>> Quote: The difference between "safe-upgrade"/"upgrade" and
>> "full-upgrade"/"dist-upgrade" only appears when new versions of packages
>> stand in different dependency relationships from old
fe-upgrade|"/"|upgrade|" and
"|full-upgrade|"/"|dist-upgrade|" only appears when new versions of
packages stand in different dependency relationships from old versions
of those packages. The "|aptitude safe-upgrade|" command does not
install n
k my system by doing this major apt-get dist-upgrade?
The equivalent of "aptitude safe-upgrade" is "apt-get upgrade".
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f4b5d2b.4040...@gmsl.co.uk
-upgrade"/"
dist-upgrade" only appears when new versions of packages stand in different
dependency relationships from old versions of those packages. The "aptitude
safe-upgrade" command does not install new packages nor remove installed
packages.
HTH
OK, Y'all. Confusin', confusin', confusin.
Been safely running Wheezy on my home desktop and lovin' it even w. the
occasional slight breaks, etc. But a while ago, I upgraded and lost my
admin and system submenus under the System menu at the gnome top panel.
Really not been a big pain an
On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 22:43 -0400, Dan wrote:
> > checkrestart from the debian-goodies is handy for checking that - it
> > will give you a list of what still has old libraries open, and
> > suggestions (not always the best ones) as to how to re-open them. If
> > there are lots, or you don't know ho
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Richard Hector wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 22:21 -0400, Dan wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I would like to know when I have to reboot my server after doing
>> safe-upgrade with aptitude. I googled it and I didn't find a clear
>> answer. In my desktop there is a package calle
On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 22:21 -0400, Dan wrote:
> Hi,
> I would like to know when I have to reboot my server after doing
> safe-upgrade with aptitude. I googled it and I didn't find a clear
> answer. In my desktop there is a package called update-notifier-common
> which has some scripts that write a
Hi,
I would like to know when I have to reboot my server after doing
safe-upgrade with aptitude. I googled it and I didn't find a clear
answer. In my desktop there is a package called update-notifier-common
which has some scripts that write a file called
/var/run/reboot-required when a reboot is re
ska0,
> librasqal2, libwpd8c2a, libwpg-0.1-1,
>
> libwps-0.1-1, openoffice.org-base-core, openoffice.org-core,
> openoffice.org-report-builder-bin
>
> root@tao:~# aptitude safe-upgrade
> Resolving dependencies...
> open: 26
-core, openoffice.org-core,
openoffice.org-report-builder-bin
root@tao:~# aptitude safe-upgrade
Resolving dependencies...
open: 26929; closed: 16283; defer: 97; conflict: 8
--
http://www.skymesh.net.au/~taogypsy
JF Pirl wrote:
8<
> By the way, is the graphical ugliness of some days ago in Sid solved
> now? (when logging in, GTK/the gnome-panels seemed to be broken or
> something, and some panel applets did not want to work, as well as no
> direct shutdown possibilities in the gdm session - I swit
Hello,
You might as well do a simple
aptitude install epiphany-browser
(if my memory doesn't fail, it will warn you about the fact that
epiphany-gecko - and possibly epiphany-extensions-more - will have to
be removed, which is no problem as they are now obsolete).
By the way, is the graphical ugl
Rick Thomas wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion...
But I think there's something I don't understand...
From the package descriptions, it sounds like the epiphany folks are
headed in the direction of epiphany-browser and away from
epiphany-webkit. Wouldn't installing epiphany-webkit be a step b
On Oct 8, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Tomek Kruszona wrote:
Rick Thomas wrote:
The following packages are BROKEN:
epiphany-browser epiphany-extensions-more libgnokii4 python-qt4
Hello!
Regarding epiphany:
It seems has something in common with epiphany gecko to webkit
transition. Try installing epi
Rick Thomas wrote:
The following packages are BROKEN:
epiphany-browser epiphany-extensions-more libgnokii4 python-qt4
Hello!
Regarding epiphany:
It seems has something in common with epiphany gecko to webkit
transition. Try installing epiphany-webkit. It should remove obsolete
packages and
I understand "normal sid churn", but usually a problem like this is
fixed in a couple of days. These packages have been broken for well
over a week.So I thought I'd bring the problem to a larger
audience, in hopes that somebody who knows more than I do could give
it some attention.
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 06:59:27AM +0200, Sven Joachim was
heard to say:
> On 2009-04-08 04:40 +0200, Daniel Burrows wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 08:23:55AM +0200, Sven Joachim
> > was heard to say:
> >>
> >> But not the transition to kde4, since right now I cannot upgrade
> >> anythi
On 2009-04-08 04:40 +0200, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 08:23:55AM +0200, Sven Joachim was
> heard to say:
>>
>> But not the transition to kde4, since right now I cannot upgrade
>> anything:
>
> BTW, I have learned that if you pass "-o aptitude::delete-unused=false"
> as an
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 08:23:55AM +0200, Sven Joachim was
heard to say:
> On 2009-04-06 08:59 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
>
> > On a side note, I never use the full-upgrade command because it has the
> > potential to remove a huge number of packages, and safe-upgrade handles
> > most situations
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 08:23:55AM +0200, Sven Joachim was
heard to say:
> On 2009-04-06 08:59 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
>
> > On a side note, I never use the full-upgrade command because it has the
> > potential to remove a huge number of packages, and safe-upgrade handles
> > most situations
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 08:23:55AM +0200, Sven Joachim was
heard to say:
> Oh well. :-( Looks like I'll have to try the experimental aptitude.
Just FYI, I expect to upload a new version in the next week or two
with a whole pile of fixes for the dependency solver.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRI
On 2009-04-06 08:59 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On a side note, I never use the full-upgrade command because it has the
> potential to remove a huge number of packages, and safe-upgrade handles
> most situations (like library transitions) just fine.
But not the transition to kde4, since right no
On 2008-12-02 21:28 +0100, Rick Thomas wrote:
> When I do "aptitude safe-upgrade" on my sid powerpc systems, it says
> that libgnomekbd-common is being kept back. This has been going on
> for a week or more.
>
> It doesn't do that on my sid i386 systems.
>
On Dec 2, 2008, at 3:28 PM, Rick Thomas wrote:
When I do "aptitude safe-upgrade" on my sid powerpc systems, it
says that libgnomekbd-common is being kept back. This has been
going on for a week or more.
It doesn't do that on my sid i386 systems.
It doesn't seem to
When I do "aptitude safe-upgrade" on my sid powerpc systems, it says
that libgnomekbd-common is being kept back. This has been going on
for a week or more.
It doesn't do that on my sid i386 systems.
It doesn't seem to be hurting anything...
Anybody got an idea
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 05:13:38AM +0200, Manon Metten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> Hi Aaron,
>
> What's this for kind of 'aptitude why' command you used?
>
> > frenesi: ~ % aptitude why poppler-utils
> > i cupsys Depends poppler-utils | xpdf-utils
>
> When I tried 'aptitude wh
Hi Aaron,
What's this for kind of 'aptitude why' command you used?
> frenesi: ~ % aptitude why poppler-utils
> i cupsys Depends poppler-utils | xpdf-utils
When I tried 'aptitude why poppler-utils', aptitude complained
'Unknown command "why"'.
I' running Etch (aptitude 0.4.4-4). Could this
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 05:35:18PM -0500, Aaron Hall
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
>
> > My sid box has cupsys and xpdf-utils installed (among a bunch of other
> > things). When I run "aptitude safe-upg
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 05:35:18PM -0500, Aaron Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> My sid box has cupsys and xpdf-utils installed (among a bunch of other
> things). When I run "aptitude safe-upgrade", aptitude runs through its
> normal prep, followed by
My sid box has cupsys and xpdf-utils installed (among a bunch of other
things). When I run "aptitude safe-upgrade", aptitude runs through its
normal prep, followed by many lines of "Resolving dependencies...",
followed by:
The following packages have unmet dependen
Steve Lamb wrote:
> Tobias Nissen wrote:
[...]
>> When in the "Preconfiguring"-stage, does `ps aux` show something
>> unusual?
>
> Looks like it is hanging on exim's preconfig?
Try purging exim4 (if you customised your config, save it beforehand)
and then do the safe-upgrade. If that finishe
Tobias Nissen wrote:
> Does `aptitude -v` give relevant additional output?
Nope.
> When in the "Preconfiguring"-stage, does `ps aux` show something unusual?
Looks like it is hanging on exim's preconfig?
root 19494 7.3 14.7 52668 38816 pts/1Sl+ 10:59 0:17 aptitude -v
safe-up
Steve Lamb wrote:
> Any ideas why aptitude is hanging at "Preconfiguring Packages..."
> on a safe-upgrade? This is in testing.
[...]
Does `aptitude -v` give relevant additional output? When in the
"Preconfiguring"-stage, does `ps aux` show something unusual?
Regards,
Tobias
pgpnPdVbGTenG.
Any ideas why aptitude is hanging at "Preconfiguring Packages..." on a
safe-upgrade? This is in testing.
265 packages upgraded, 10 newly installed, 4 to remove and 12 not upgraded.
Need to get 11.7MB/174MB of archives. After unpacking 44.4MB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]
Writ
81 matches
Mail list logo
