Re: Aptitude back to neutral state of a package.

Hi, Le 16/06/2024, Dmitry a écrit: > if press `u` => iuA => Update > if pres `-` => idA => Delete > if press `_` => ipA => Purge > if press `=` => ihA => Hold > > But how to go back to `i A`? I believe you are looking for `:`, aka “keep”. This is less strong/persistent than `=` (Hold). Regards

Re: aptitude update / upgrade broke my Rapbian bullseye

On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 12:33 AM Steve Keller wrote: > > On Nov 26, I upgraded a Raspberry 4 from buster to bullseye using the > standard procedure of edit /etc/apt/sources.list and then apt-get > update && apt-get dist-upgrade. Everything went fine, it ran stable > for some days and one annoying

Re: `aptitude update' won't update

On 9/25/21 2:08 AM, Rodolfo Medina wrote: Please help with this: # aptitude update Hit http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb stable InRelease Get: 1 http://ftp.debian.org/debian stable InRelease [113 kB] Get: 2 http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian stable InRelease [113 kB] E: Repository 'http://ftp.d

Re: `aptitude update' won't update

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 08:32:26 AM Greg Wooledge wrote: > When you're ready to upgrade to a newer stable release, you can read > through the release notes, and take the time to perform the upgrade > properly. All replies I've seen so far mention this (reading (and following) the release

Re: `aptitude update' won't update

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 09:08:55AM +, Rodolfo Medina wrote: > Please help with this: Andrew already covered some or most of this, but I think it bears repeating. > > deb http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/ stable main > deb-src htt

Re: `aptitude update' won't update

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 09:08:55AM +, Rodolfo Medina wrote: > Please help with this: > > # aptitude update > Hit http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb stable InRelease > Get: 1 http://ftp.debian.org/debian stable InRelease [113 kB] > Get: 2 http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian stable InRelease [113

Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

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

Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

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

Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

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.

Re: Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

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

Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

Hi, On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 11:58:18 -0500 "R. Ramesh" wrote: (...) > I have these exact lines in my sources.list also. I thought we have > backports so that we can get the newer version of packages. For > example, buster multimedia has mythtv 0.30 and backports has mythtv > 0.31 (the last time I

Re: Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

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

Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

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

Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

On Du, 25 oct 20, 21:00:03, Joe wrote: > > Synaptic, the GUI tool, is a front end to apt-get. All the apt tools > are a front end to dpkg, which does all the work but does no dependency > checking and is therefore not safe to be used directly. dpkg does its own dependency checking, in addition to

Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

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

Re: Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

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

Re: aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get upgrade.

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

Re: aptitude problem with control file (in stretch)

On 2020-08-07 14:08 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: > On 8/5/20 6:29 PM, Sven Joachim wrote: >> I am not sure I understand what you actually want to do, though. >> > > I am maintaining a set of meta packages, referencing the packages > to install on my hosts. To avoid having separate meta packages for

Re: aptitude problem with control file (in stretch)

On 8/5/20 6:29 PM, Sven Joachim wrote: I am not sure I understand what you actually want to do, though. I am maintaining a set of meta packages, referencing the packages to install on my hosts. To avoid having separate meta packages for each new Debian version I have to use conditional depend

Re: aptitude why (Was: Re: After software update systemd runs into timeouts)

On 2020-08-06 at 07:24, Dan Ritter wrote: > Urs Thuermann wrote: > >> $ aptitude why libpam-systemd >> i systemd Recommends libpam-systemd >> $ aptitude why policykit-1 libpam-systemd >> i A policykit-1 Depends libpam-systemd >> >> But now I see reason: policykit-1 is also installed only becau

Re: aptitude why (Was: Re: After software update systemd runs into timeouts)

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020, 7:42 AM Dan Ritter wrote: > Urs Thuermann wrote: > > $ aptitude why libpam-systemd > > i systemd Recommends libpam-systemd > > $ aptitude why policykit-1 libpam-systemd > > i A policykit-1 Depends libpam-systemd > > > > But now I see reason: policykit-1 is also installed on

Re: aptitude why (Was: Re: After software update systemd runs into timeouts)

Urs Thuermann wrote: > $ aptitude why libpam-systemd > i systemd Recommends libpam-systemd > $ aptitude why policykit-1 libpam-systemd > i A policykit-1 Depends libpam-systemd > > But now I see reason: policykit-1 is also installed only because > virt-manager *recommends* libvirt-daemon-system

Re: aptitude problem with control file (in stretch)

Hello, perhaps options described here could help you: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/aptitude/ch02s05s05.en.html

Re: aptitude problem with control file (in stretch)

On 2020-08-05 12:33 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: > On 8/5/20 11:03 AM, Sven Joachim wrote: >> I am surprised to read that, considering that your installed lxc >> version >> does not actually fulfill the dependency. Note the epoch. >> $ dpkg --compare-versions 1:2.0.11-1~xgo90+1 lt 3 || echo 'Got i

Re: aptitude problem with control file (in stretch)

On 8/5/20 11:03 AM, Sven Joachim wrote: I am surprised to read that, considering that your installed lxc version does not actually fulfill the dependency. Note the epoch. $ dpkg --compare-versions 1:2.0.11-1~xgo90+1 lt 3 || echo 'Got it!' Got it! Maintaining the sample-lxc package I have no

Re: aptitude problem with control file (in stretch)

On 2020-08-05 09:42 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: > I've got a problem with upgrading a private package in Stretch. The control > file says: > > Package: sample-lxc > Architecture: all > Depends: ${misc:Depends} > , cgmanager | systemd > , debootstrap >

Re: aptitude: a way to reinstall a package and all its dependents?

Also dpkg has the following options to check files, dpkg -V packagename for verifying, dpkg -C packagename for auditing -V, --verify [package-name...] Verifies the integrity of package-name or all packages if omitted, by comparing information from the files installed by a pac

Re: aptitude: a way to reinstall a package and all its dependents?

On 2020-07-31 15:10 +0200, local10 wrote: > Am looking for a way to reinstall a package and all "subpackages" the > package depends on. Normally I use aptitude to install packages. Something like this should do the trick: # aptitude reinstall mypackage '~i~Rmypackage' See the "Search term refer

Re: aptitude: a way to reinstall a package and all its dependents?

Jul 31, 2020, 15:28 by semihozlemlinuxu...@gmail.com: > ... > Also I did not put any license agreement on this, and did not think about it > commercially. I am assuming that this wont be used for commercial purposes, > but educational purposes, or for the purpose of making open source more >

Re: aptitude doesn't remove unused packages

On 2020-04-23 09:19:10 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > This is controlled by the apt configuration options > > APT::AutoRemove::RecommendsImportant > APT::AutoRemove::SuggestsImportant > > See apt.conf(5) for how to adjust these. The user may want to keep Recommends. -- Vincent Lefèvre

Re: aptitude doesn't remove unused packages

On Mi, 22 apr 20, 22:13:36, Urs Thuermann wrote: > Debian's package management should remove packages that were installed > automatically, if they are no longer needed. Unfortunately, that > often seems to not work correctly. See this example on my Raspberry > Pi running Raspbian jessie: [...]

Re: aptitude doesn't remove unused packages

On Wed 22 Apr 2020 at 22:13:36 (+0200), Urs Thuermann wrote: > Debian's package management should remove packages that were installed > automatically, if they are no longer needed. Unfortunately, that > often seems to not work correctly. See this example on my Raspberry > Pi running Raspbian jess

Re: aptitude doesn't remove unused packages

On 2020-04-22 16:39:00 -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > I don't find 'aptitude why' very reliable in a lot of cases. Ditto. > One thing I habitually do nowadays, to minimize this type of problem, is > to also run > > # apt-get remove $(deborphan) > > and interleave that back and forth with 'apt-get

Re: aptitude doesn't remove unused packages

The Wanderer writes: > if you > want to know "what's the dependency chain which is keeping this from > being safe to remove?", you're probably better off running 'apt-get > --dry-run remove [packagename]', and seeing whether the result wants to > remove anything that you care about. Well, I usua

Re: aptitude doesn't remove unused packages

On 2020-04-22 at 16:13, Urs Thuermann wrote: > Debian's package management should remove packages that were > installed automatically, if they are no longer needed. > Unfortunately, that often seems to not work correctly. See this > example on my Raspberry Pi running Raspbian jessie: > > Some ti

Re: aptitude new packages list forgets old

> On 2019-07-08 19:21 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >> I am trying to look which packages are new in buster that were not in >> stretch. I am using aptitude since it't great tool for browsing packages. Sven Joachim wrote: > Beware that the list of new packages in buster is way too large

Re: aptitude new packages list forgets old

On 2019-07-08 19:21 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > I am trying to look which packages are new in buster that were not in > stretch. I am using aptitude since it't great tool for browsing packages. Beware that the list of new packages in buster is way too large to browse casually. In main

Re: Packages web page, was Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

On Wed 24 Jan 2018 at 16:38:24 (+), Curt wrote: > On 2018-01-24, wrote: > > > >> > [1] https://packages.debian.org/ > >> > [2] > >> > https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=aptitude&searchon=names&suite=all§ion=all > >> > >> Hm. I had occasion to go to ¹ yesterday. (In passing, if I re

Re: Packages web page, was Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

On 1/24/18, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 09:05:08AM -0600, David Wright wrote: >> So forget using this page for anything really vague like kernel-image, >> even if you set suite, section and then architecture; it can't even >> show you the most basic generic versions like lin

Re: Packages web page, was Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

Good morning.. :) I just noticed Webmaster was CC'd here. I left that in place because who knows when it comes to various Debian features evolving their perks over time.. :) On 1/24/18, David Wright wrote: > On Wed 24 Jan 2018 at 10:53:17 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018

Re: Packages web page, was Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

On 2018-01-24, wrote: > >> > [1] https://packages.debian.org/ >> > [2] >> > https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=aptitude&searchon=names&suite=all§ion=all >> >> Hm. I had occasion to go to ¹ yesterday. (In passing, if I remove the >> word "index", I end up at a different page ² but the r

Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018, OECT T wrote: Hi all: I just installed Debian Stretch 9.3.0 and noticed that the Aptitude package was not installed by default. I searched into Synaptics package manager and noticed that the package is not marked with the Debian icon indicating that the package is not sup

Re: Packages web page, was Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 09:05:08AM -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Wed 24 Jan 2018 at 10:53:17 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:21:45AM +0100, Floris wrote: > > > Op Tue, 23 Jan 2018 20:44:19 +0100 schreef OECT T : > > >

Packages web page, was Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

On Wed 24 Jan 2018 at 10:53:17 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:21:45AM +0100, Floris wrote: > > Op Tue, 23 Jan 2018 20:44:19 +0100 schreef OECT T : > > [...] > > > >I searched into Synaptics package manager and noticed that the > > >package is not marked with the Deb

Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

On Tue 23 Jan 2018 at 19:44:19 +, OECT T wrote: > I just installed Debian Stretch 9.3.0 and noticed that the Aptitude > package was not installed by default. The correct conclusion to draw from this is that aptitude does not have a Priority: higher than optional in stretch. > I searched int

Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 19:44:19 + OECT T wrote: Hello OECT, >I just installed Debian Stretch 9.3.0 and noticed that the Aptitude >package was not installed by default. With a Priority of 'optional', it won't be installed at installation time unless you specifically request that it be. >I sear

Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:08:52AM +0100, Floris wrote: > Op Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:53:17 +0100 schreef : > >Folks, learn to use the web site [...] > Thanks for explaining how to use the internet /s Always glad to help. > >For aptitude, it turns out t

Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 07:44:19PM +, OECT T wrote: I just installed Debian Stretch 9.3.0 and noticed that the Aptitude package was not installed by default. I searched into Synaptics package manager and noticed that the package is not marked with the Debian icon indicating that the package

Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

Op Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:53:17 +0100 schreef : -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:21:45AM +0100, Floris wrote: Op Tue, 23 Jan 2018 20:44:19 +0100 schreef OECT T : [...] >I searched into Synaptics package manager and noticed that the >package is not mark

Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:21:45AM +0100, Floris wrote: > Op Tue, 23 Jan 2018 20:44:19 +0100 schreef OECT T : [...] > >I searched into Synaptics package manager and noticed that the > >package is not marked with the Debian icon >indicating that the >

Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

Op Tue, 23 Jan 2018 20:44:19 +0100 schreef OECT T : Hi all: I just installed Debian Stretch 9.3.0 and noticed that the Aptitude package was not installed by default. I searched into Synaptics package manager and noticed that the package is not marked with the Debian icon >indicat

Re: Aptitude package manager "package"

On 1/23/2018 8:44 PM, OECT T wrote: What other command line packages are recommended instead of Aptitude? https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-pkgtools.en.html -- John Doe

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

On 2017-03-22 07:50:09 +0100, Nemeth Gyorgy wrote: > 2017-03-21 23:02 keltezéssel, Vincent Lefevre írta: > > On 2017-03-21 16:21:25 +0100, Nemeth Gyorgy wrote: > >> 2017-03-21 14:38 keltezéssel, Vincent Lefevre írta: > >>> Yes, but one can't exclude a package listed by apt-listbugs. > >> You can.

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

2017-03-21 23:02 keltezéssel, Vincent Lefevre írta: > On 2017-03-21 16:21:25 +0100, Nemeth Gyorgy wrote: >> 2017-03-21 14:38 keltezéssel, Vincent Lefevre írta: >>> Yes, but one can't exclude a package listed by apt-listbugs. >> You can. Just press 'h' (hold), and don't continue apt-get. > I didn't

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

What I do if I want to use experimental (or sid if I am on testing) is to put the deb-src-lines in my sources.list and then build a package when needed. I find wajig convenient to use (another front end to apt) in this case e.g. $ wajig build julia Regards Johann -- Because experiencing your loy

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

On 2017-03-21 16:55:36 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > Vincent Lefevre writes: > > By default, the apt preferences are such that unstable is preferred > > over experimental. But as explained in > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=795228 > > > > this is not the case with aptitu

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

Vincent Lefevre writes: > On 2017-03-21 21:39:40 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: >> On 2017-03-21 21:19 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >> > aptitude ignores the apt preferences. >> >> Huh? At least on my systems, it obeys them. > > Perhaps with your configuration. And this is probably also true when

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

On 2017-03-21 16:21:25 +0100, Nemeth Gyorgy wrote: > 2017-03-21 14:38 keltezéssel, Vincent Lefevre írta: > > Yes, but one can't exclude a package listed by apt-listbugs. > > You can. Just press 'h' (hold), and don't continue apt-get. I didn't know that apt-listbugs could do that. This is not doc

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

On 2017-03-21 21:39:40 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2017-03-21 21:19 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > aptitude ignores the apt preferences. > > Huh? At least on my systems, it obeys them. Perhaps with your configuration. And this is probably also true when the full resolver is not involved.

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

On 2017-03-21 21:19 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2017-03-21 08:36:40 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> See the apt_preferences man page for information on prioritizing >> distributions. My own preferences file contains >> >> Package: * >> Pin: release a=testing >> Pin-Priority: 700 >> >> Pack

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

On 2017-03-21 08:36:40 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > See the apt_preferences man page for information on prioritizing > distributions. My own preferences file contains > > Package: * > Pin: release a=testing > Pin-Priority: 700 > > Package: * > Pin: release a=stable > Pin-Priority: 650 > > Packa

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

2017-03-21 14:38 keltezéssel, Vincent Lefevre írta: > Yes, but one can't exclude a package listed by apt-listbugs. You can. Just press 'h' (hold), and don't continue apt-get. On the next apt-get start this package will be in 'hold' state. And later apt-listbugs will unhold the package automatical

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

Vincent Lefevre writes: > I've just noticed that aptitude upgraded packages from unstable to > experimental versions (just with 'U' from the UI) without any warning!!! > Again. > > Is there any replacement? Or a way to make aptitude ignore > experimental packages? > > Note: I still want to keep e

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

On Tuesday 21 March 2017 11:31:29 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Is there any replacement? Or a way to make aptitude ignore > experimental packages? > > Note: I still want to keep experimental in my sources.list for the > cases where I *explicitly* request experimental packages. Can experimental not be

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

On 2017-03-21 09:03:47 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Tue 21 Mar 2017 at 14:10:09 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > Now... After a closer look, I've found that aptitude was not the > > culprit here. > > Perhaps you could write this in a reply to the OP so that people > don't have to wade throug

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

On Tue 21 Mar 2017 at 14:10:09 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Now... After a closer look, I've found that aptitude was not the > culprit here. Perhaps you could write this in a reply to the OP so that people don't have to wade through the thread to the middle of a posting to find this out. It c

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

>> apt also uses apt-listbugs... > >Yes, but one can't exclude a package listed by apt-listbugs. >With aptitude, one just goes to the package and hits ":". Sure. Just press h on the package. -nik

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

On 2017-03-21 14:27:38 +0100, Dominik George wrote: > >1. When I want to exclude some buggy packages. I often do this with > > aptitude, where major bugs can be reported by apt-listbugs. > > apt also uses apt-listbugs... Yes, but one can't exclude a package listed by apt-listbugs. With aptitude

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

>1. When I want to exclude some buggy packages. I often do this with > aptitude, where major bugs can be reported by apt-listbugs. apt also uses apt-listbugs... -nik

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

On 2017-03-21 13:02:02 +0100, Dominik George wrote: > >I meant a replacement with a text UI. > > I never had any situation where this would have helped me instead of > being clumsy and painful within 12 years of systems administration. > > What's your use case? 1. When I want to exclude some bug

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

On 2017-03-21 08:00:52 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > Note: I still want to keep experimental in my sources.list for the > > cases where I *explicitly* request experimental packages. > > I keep these extra thingies commented out in my sources.list and > whenever I want to explicitly request some

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:31:29PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: I've just noticed that aptitude upgraded packages from unstable to experimental versions (just with 'U' from the UI) without any warning!!! Again. Is there any replacement? Or a way to make aptitude ignore experimental packages? N

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

On 21/03/17 23:00, Stefan Monnier wrote: Note: I still want to keep experimental in my sources.list for the cases where I *explicitly* request experimental packages. I keep these extra thingies commented out in my sources.list and whenever I want to explicitly request some package from them, I

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

>I meant a replacement with a text UI. I never had any situation where this would have helped me instead of being clumsy and painful within 12 years of systems administration. What's your use case? -nik

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

> Note: I still want to keep experimental in my sources.list for the > cases where I *explicitly* request experimental packages. I keep these extra thingies commented out in my sources.list and whenever I want to explicitly request some package from them, I uncomment the line, redo the `update` an

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

> I meant a replacement with a text UI. dselect is still in the repository, though it's deprecated. -- "It is said that no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones." -- Nelson Mand

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

To upgrade I always do apt-get update && apt-get upgrade. When jumping releases I also use apt-get dist-upgrade This seems to be the safest option thus far (my systems have been running smoothly). On 21/03/17 22:37, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2017-03-21 12:34:23 +0100, Dominik George wrote:

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

On 2017-03-21 12:34:23 +0100, Dominik George wrote: > >Is there any replacement? > > Yes, apt. I meant a replacement with a text UI. -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web: 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic

Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?

>Is there any replacement? Yes, apt. -nik

Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question

On Mon 14 Nov 2016 at 14:05:46 (+0100), steve wrote: > Hi David, > > Coming back to this problem now that I have a bit more time. > > As I have been making a lot of testing, this message is a bit long, > sorry for that. > > > >If you follow my recipe, any packages counted twice (as eg in both >

Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question

Dear Axel, I just wrote an extensive answer to David *before* reading your reply and it happens that it answers pretty much to what I discovered, which is that if a backport package exists but the stable one is installed, the search with ~A$a~i are counted twice. Seems strange at first thought bu

Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question

Hi David, Coming back to this problem now that I have a bit more time. As I have been making a lot of testing, this message is a bit long, sorry for that. If you follow my recipe, any packages counted twice (as eg in both the stable and jessie searches) will show up in the diff with a "-".

Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question

steve wrote on 11/06/16 20:47: > Le 06-11-2016, à 10:43:58 +0100, Jörg-Volker Peetz a écrit : > >> What is the output of >> >> aptitude -F "%p" '~o' > > gives an error (unknown command « ~o ») > Sorry, this should be aptitude -F "%p" search '~o' >> ? Seems to me, there are packages installed

Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question

On Sun 06 Nov 2016 at 20:53:32 (+0100), steve wrote: > Le 06-11-2016, à 07:05:15 -0600, David Wright a écrit : > > >>so 3507 ≠ 3349. Both figures should be equal as I understand. It seems > >>that some packages are counted two or more times or my calculation is > >>plain wrong. > >> > >>Thoughts?

Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question

Hi Steve, Steve wrote: > Thank you for your explanation, I understand a bit better the logic. But > there is still something that doesn't quite match. Please consider the > following. [...] > a= aptitude search ~A[$a]~i | wc -l > dpkg -l | grep ^i

Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question

Le 06-11-2016, à 07:05:15 -0600, David Wright a écrit : so 3507 ≠ 3349. Both figures should be equal as I understand. It seems that some packages are counted two or more times or my calculation is plain wrong. Thoughts? Piping to wc -l throws most of the information away. I don't see why *h

Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question

Le 06-11-2016, à 10:43:58 +0100, Jörg-Volker Peetz a écrit : What is the output of aptitude -F "%p" '~o' gives an error (unknown command « ~o ») ? Seems to me, there are packages installed on your system that don't belong to any architecture in sources.list ("obsolete"). However, running

Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question

On Sun 06 Nov 2016 at 08:18:52 (+0100), Steve wrote: > Hi Sven and Axel, > > Thank you for your explanation, I understand a bit better the logic. But > there is still something that doesn't quite match. Please consider the > following. > > apt-cache policy | grep 'a=' > release a=now > re

Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question

What is the output of aptitude -F "%p" '~o' ? Seems to me, there are packages installed on your system that don't belong to any architecture in sources.list ("obsolete"). Regards, jvp.

Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question

Hi Sven and Axel, Thank you for your explanation, I understand a bit better the logic. But there is still something that doesn't quite match. Please consider the following. apt-cache policy | grep 'a=' release a=now release v=14.04,o=LP-PPA-opencpn-opencpn,a=trusty,n=trusty,l=OpenCPN,c=m

Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question

Hi again, Axel Beckert wrote: > The main reason is that ~A does (as most of aptitude's patterns) > substring matching, […] > * aptitude's ~A pattern matches substrings of the Archive value in the > Release file. Sven is of course right, and it's regular expression matching and not (only) substr

Re: [Aptitude-devel] aptitude ~A question

Hi Steve, steve wrote: > I'm trying to understand why > > aptitude search ~Ajessie~i | wc -l > 240 > > is different from > > aptitude search ~Astable~i | wc -l > 3243 > > but is the same as > > aptitude search ~Ajessie-backports~i | wc -l > 240 The main reason is that ~A does (as most of apt

[solved]Re: aptitude cli undocumented behaviour [was: aptitude cli options vs. apt-get ...]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 22:37:40 +0200 Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > You used '~U' in the first and the last command, not '~ahold'. > This last command could also be written shorter: > > aptitude -y -v -s full-upgrade '~U' | ... Thanks!!! You are of course right, that was a copy and paste accident. (

Re: aptitude cli undocumented behaviour [was: aptitude cli options vs. apt-get ...]

Michael Lange wrote on 10/05/16 20:42: > Hi, > > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 11:19:52 +0200 > Michael Lange wrote: > > (...) >> So my question is: is there a way to include updates to packages put on >> hold to the output of "aptitude full-upgrade" as in apt-get, that I have >> been missing, or is this s

Re: aptitude cli options vs. apt-get (esp. --ignore-hold option)

Hi, On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:35:58 +0200 Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > Your aptitude variant will also list new packages to be installed > (e.g., a package with a version number in its name like libperl5.24). > Yes, that is in fact the point here. This is the same as for the corresponding apt-get co

Re: aptitude cli options vs. apt-get (esp. --ignore-hold option)

Michael Lange wrote on 10/05/16 11:19: > Hello, > > I use the following line (borrowed from apticron) in a script to generate > a list of upgradable packages: > > PKGNAMES=`apt-get -q -y -s --ignore-hold --allow-unauthenticated dist-upgrade > | \ > /bin/grep ^Inst | /usr/bin/cut -d\ -

Re: aptitude cli options vs. apt-get (esp. --ignore-hold option)

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 10:41:40 +0100 Darac Marjal wrote: > aptitude is, generally speaking, a more user-friendly interface to the > apt system. If you're scripting (and especially as it already works), > you should stick with apt-get. apt-get's output tends to be more stable > and more readily pa

Re: aptitude cli options vs. apt-get (esp. --ignore-hold option)

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:19:52AM +0200, Michael Lange wrote: Hello, I use the following line (borrowed from apticron) in a script to generate a list of upgradable packages: PKGNAMES=`apt-get -q -y -s --ignore-hold --allow-unauthenticated dist-upgrade | \ /bin/grep ^Inst | /usr/bin/c

Re: Aptitude Error

On Saturday 23 July 2016 14:02:55 Hans wrote: > Am Samstag, 23. Juli 2016, 08:38:02 schrieb S. P. Molnar: > > I am running v-8.4 and get the following error: > > > > E: The package virtualbox-5.1 needs to be reinstalled, but I can't find > > an archive for it. > > > > This resulted from my bumbling

Re: Aptitude Error

Am Samstag, 23. Juli 2016, 08:38:02 schrieb S. P. Molnar: > I am running v-8.4 and get the following error: > > E: The package virtualbox-5.1 needs to be reinstalled, but I can't find > an archive for it. > > This resulted from my bumbling effort to remove virtualbox. > > What is the solution to

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >