o the upgrade action.
Aldo
On 10/24/24 19:46, Frank Weißer wrote:
Hello Daniel,
# man apt-get
(german translation) doesn't tell anything else. apt-get upgrade
upgrades ALL installed packages.
Kind regards
Frank
Daniel Roberts:
Hello,
I've run into this a few times
s". However, passing a package name to
> "apt-get upgrade" results in the argument being ignored and all packages
> upgraded.
>
> Is there some reason that this is the case? Is it a bug that has
> always existed and never fixed?
I can't provoke this bug, so w
Hello,
I've run into this a few times over the years and it can be a headache to
resolve.
Passing a package name to "apt-get update" results in the response "E: The
update command takes no arguments". However, passing a package name to
"apt-get upgrade" result
;. However, passing a package name to
> "apt-get upgrade" results in the argument being ignored and all packages
> upgraded.
> Is there some reason that this is the case? Is it a bug that has
> always existed and never fixed?
It's not like dnf or zypper or urpmi. If you w
Hello Daniel,
# man apt-get
(german translation) doesn't tell anything else. apt-get upgrade
upgrades ALL installed packages.
Kind regards
Frank
Daniel Roberts:
Hello,
I've run into this a few times over the years and it can be a headache
to resolve.
Passing a package name t
Greetings,
This has been an annoyance/issue for a while - at least for me - and I'm
wondering if anyone else has seen this?
The problem: after an apt-get update/upgrade, the Default Applications for
"Web" in Gnome will somehow switch to Thunderbird from Firefox through no
direct action by me, wh
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
ries.
> All of the tools have a 'safe' mode which is guaranteed not to remove
> packages. However, many upgrades do require the removal of some
> packages, so the safe mode will only get you so far in these cases.
>
> If you are using Stable, there should never be any re
libcdio19, which apt-get won't do with
the "apt-get upgrade" command.
I believe that most likely the root of the problem is, that no
apt-pinning rule is defined for the deb-multimedia repo.
To resolve this, you might consider to create a file
like e.g. /etc/apt/preferences.d/multi
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...
* rhkra...@gmail.com [2018-12-25 09:21 -0500]:
[...]
> But now I'm at this point:
>
> root@s31:~# apt-get upgrade
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> Calculating upgrade... Done
> The following
On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 09:21:39 -0500
rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> [snip]
>
> But now I'm at this point:
>
> root@s31:~# apt-get upgrade
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> Calculating upgrade... Done
&g
On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 09:21:39AM -0500, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks for the reply, it helped a lot -- I seem to have one problem remaining
> (below).
[...]
> df told me that /var was at 100%, and /boot was at 98%.
"apt-get autoclean" or its more drastic sibling "apt-get clean" might be
and it
became apparent that I had deleted some essential directories and files,
but the error messages told me what they were so I recreated them.
Aside: I should increase the size of /var and maybe /boot -- they both (of
similar size) seem very adequate in my Wheezy system (still in service).
2018-12-24 18:10 -0500]:
> > On my Jessie system, for something like the last 2 to 3 months, I've been
> > getting an error like the following whenever I do an apt-get update /
> > apt-get upgrade cycle.
>
> [...]
>
> > Ok, it looks like I have the r8169 as I
* rh kramer [2018-12-24 18:10 -0500]:
> On my Jessie system, for something like the last 2 to 3 months, I've been
> getting an error like the following whenever I do an apt-get update /
> apt-get upgrade cycle.
[...]
> Ok, it looks like I have the r8169 as I see
On my Jessie system, for something like the last 2 to 3 months, I've been
getting an error like the following whenever I do an apt-get update /
apt-get upgrade cycle.
I've been ignoring it, hoping it would go away with some future update, but
so far it hasn't.
The (edited) error m
On 2018-11-21 10:25 -0500, Kenneth Parker wrote:
> I saw that message scroll by, during the processing of the Upgrade.
>
> I guess my question is, where did that come from, and why?
Previous versions of systemd used to create it, a mistake that has just
been corrected:
,
| systemd (239-12) u
I saw that message scroll by, during the processing of the Upgrade.
I guess my question is, where did that come from, and why?
(I thought that "Nobody" was set up, to give "little or no" Privileges to
something "Automagic").
Thank you!
Kenneth Parker
Hello all,
After running 'apt-get install upgrade' the system reported the data below.
How can I overcome this issue?
Is it just a matter of loading a proper dkms.conf file, perhaps from another
Stretch installation, or is there an official dkms.conf file that I can
download somewhere, or is i
get 68.5 MB of archives.> After this operation, 242 MB of
>> > additional disk space will be used.
>> > Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
>> > Abort.
>>
>> > $ sudo apt-get upgrade
>> ...
>> > 25 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remov
On Fri 21 Jul 2017 at 00:43:08 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
> Joe Pfeiffer composed on 2017-07-20 15:38 (UTC-0600):
>
> > David Wright wrote:
>
> >> On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 14:57:50 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
>
> >>> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?
>
> >> I did. Where d
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:48:17 +0200 Dejan Jocic
wrote:
> On 20-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:48:17 +0200 Dejan Jocic
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > If you have minimal install, why do you suspect that something is
> > > wrong, rather to suppose that all is fine and that si
On 20-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:48:17 +0200 Dejan Jocic
> wrote:
>
> >
> > If you have minimal install, why do you suspect that something is
> > wrong, rather to suppose that all is fine and that simply there was
> > no security updates for your install? It is stable
On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:55:15 + (UTC) david...@freevolt.org wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>
> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install
> > apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I
> &
20:14:28 +0200 Dejan Jocic
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > > >>> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can
> > > >>> install apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update
>
Joe Pfeiffer composed on 2017-07-20 15:38 (UTC-0600):
> David Wright wrote:
>> On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 14:57:50 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
>>> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?
>> I did. Where does it say that?
> The closest thing to that statement I've encountered is i
17 20:14:28 +0200 Dejan Jocic
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> >>>>> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can
> >>>>> install apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update
&
David Wright writes:
> On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 14:57:50 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
>> Patrick Bartek composed on 2017-07-19 10:29 (UTC-0700):
>>
>> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install apps,
>> > etc., but get no security or str
> Op 20-07-17 om 18:58 schreef Fungi4All:
>> Does it matter what we all think, even if agree or it matters what
>> the manual of the package says. In my installation this is manual
>> I found, it says apt all over the place, meanwhile there is apt-get
>> package to install. /usr/share/man/man8/apt-
Op 20-07-17 om 18:58 schreef Fungi4All:
Does it matter what we all think, even if agree or it matters what
the manual of the package says. In my installation this is manual
I found, it says apt all over the place, meanwhile there is apt-get
package to install. /usr/share/man/man8/apt-get.8.gz
> From: deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Agreed. I was beginning to despair of this list while reading through
> this thread. But we seem to live in times when evidence matters less
> and less, and assertion more and more.
> Sorry about the politics. Anyway, AFAICT acco
On Thu 20 Jul 2017 at 21:21:08 (+1000), Erik Christiansen wrote:
> On 20.07.17 03:27, Felix Miata wrote:
> > David Wright composed on 2017-07-19 23:33 (UTC-0500):
> >
> > > On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 14:57:50 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
> >
> > >> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-g
On 20.07.17 03:27, Felix Miata wrote:
> David Wright composed on 2017-07-19 23:33 (UTC-0500):
>
> > On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 14:57:50 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
>
> >> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?
>
> > I did. Where does it say that?
>
> It was a long time ago that I
David Wright composed on 2017-07-19 23:33 (UTC-0500):
> On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 14:57:50 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
>> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?
> I did. Where does it say that?
It was a long time ago that I first encountered it, and don't remember where it
was. I
Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > >>> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install
> > >>> apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I
> > >>> find this unusual. Did a mail list archive search f
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Patrick Bartek wrote:
Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install apps,
etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I find
this unusual.
And so, understandably, you feel prompted to seek confirmation that
there have, in fac
On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 14:57:50 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
> Patrick Bartek composed on 2017-07-19 10:29 (UTC-0700):
>
> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install apps,
> > etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I find
&
On 07/19/2017 07:05 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:47:27 -0700 Jimmy Johnson
wrote:
On 07/19/2017 01:35 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:14:28 +0200 Dejan Jocic
wrote:
On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:13:06 -0400 Fungi4All
wrote:
> From: nemomm...@gmail.com
>
> > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:32:04 -0400 Dan Ritter
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:29:02AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> >> > Getting no results from ap
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:47:27 -0700 Jimmy Johnson
wrote:
> On 07/19/2017 01:35 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:14:28 +0200 Dejan Jocic
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> >>> Getting no results from apt-get upg
...
> > 27 upgraded, 3 newly installed, 0 to remove and 2 not upgraded.
> > Need to get 68.5 MB of archives.> After this operation, 242 MB of
> > additional disk space will be used.
> > Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
> > Abort.
>
> > $ sudo apt-
of archives.> After this operation, 242 MB of additional
> disk space will be used.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
> Abort.
> $ sudo apt-get upgrade
...
> 25 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 4 not upgraded.
> Need to get 21.1 MB of archives.
> After this op
a-libs
27 upgraded, 3 newly installed, 0 to remove and 2 not upgraded.
Need to get 68.5 MB of archives.
After this operation, 242 MB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
Abort.
$ sudo apt-get upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Read
> From: a...@cityscape.co.uk
> On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 16:20:21 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> One picture is worth a thousand words:
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n]
n
> Which should be trusted more. apt-get or apt?
I've always liked apt. It is four keystrokes shorter
From: nemomm...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:32:04 -0400 Dan Ritter
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:29:02AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install
>> > apps, etc., but get no security or
ll. All I
> can
> say is I have a bunch of Stretch installations, and there were several
> occasions
> where, in order to see if differences were possible, after an 'apt-get update;
> apt-get upgrade' I immediately followed up with 'apt update; apt upgrade' and
>
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:57:50 -0400 Felix Miata
wrote:
> Patrick Bartek composed on 2017-07-19 10:29 (UTC-0700):
>
> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install
> > apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I
> > f
On 07/19/2017 01:35 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:14:28 +0200 Dejan Jocic
wrote:
On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install
apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I
find this unu
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:32:04 -0400 Dan Ritter
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:29:02AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install
> > apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I
> >
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:14:28 +0200 Dejan Jocic
wrote:
> On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install
> > apps, etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I
> > find this unusual. Did a ma
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 20:54:28 +0100
Brian wrote:
Hello Brian,
>Those sort of statements are begging for an example of the diferences
>with an upgrade or package installation. Will we see it?
I seem to recall there have been several examples over the past year or
so on this very list. A search
ore the previous state so as to be able to actually have a chance to find
what happened to cause it and subsequently be able to repeat at will. All I can
say is I have a bunch of Stretch installations, and there were several occasions
where, in order to see if differences were possible, after an '
x User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
> Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
This is on sid:
I know a static picture from a system already upgraded is no indicator but
I run 4 commands out of curiocity and got identical 4 responses about
removing some no longer needed pkgs which I do not all want to be
On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 15:49:47 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> Fungi4All composed on 2017-07-19 15:18 (UTC-0400):
>
> >> mrma...@earthlink.net composed:
> ...
> >> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?
>
> > But will there be different results with apt upgrade than with apt-get?
Fungi4All composed on 2017-07-19 15:18 (UTC-0400):
>> mrma...@earthlink.net composed:
...
>> Did you miss that in Stretch apt is preferred to apt-get?
> But will there be different results with apt upgrade than with apt-get?
Will: I have no idea.
Can:Yes.
Apt and apt-get are not identica
On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 15:18:20 -0400, Fungi4All wrote:
> > From: mrma...@earthlink.net
> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> > Patrick Bartek composed on 2017-07-19 10:29 (UTC-0700):
> >> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install apps,
> &
> From: mrma...@earthlink.net
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Patrick Bartek composed on 2017-07-19 10:29 (UTC-0700):
>> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install apps,
>> etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I find
&
On 19-07-17, Felix Miata wrote:
> Patrick Bartek composed on 2017-07-19 10:29 (UTC-0700):
>
> > Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install apps,
> > etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I find
> > this unusual. Did a
Patrick Bartek composed on 2017-07-19 10:29 (UTC-0700):
> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install apps,
> etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I find
> this unusual. Did a mail list archive search for this, but didn't find
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:29:02AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install apps,
> etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I find
> this unusual. Did a mail list archive search for this, but did
On 19-07-17, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install apps,
> etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I find
> this unusual. Did a mail list archive search for this, but didn't find
> anything
Getting no results from apt-get upgrade after a week. Can install apps,
etc., but get no security or stretch-update "fixes," etc. I find
this unusual. Did a mail list archive search for this, but didn't find
anything specific. Or did I miss the solution?
My Test Setup:
Stretc
On 2017-06-26, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 09:01:30AM +, Curt wrote:
>> Because of the pedagogical interest of the thing, for those who come
>> after us, for posterity's sake, I wanted the OP to give us a complete
>> description of what occurred, rather than a misleading one
dering why FF was held back in the first place, if an 'apt-get
> install' simply "went ahead and installed it."
In stretch, the upgrade from firefox-esr 45.x to 52.x requires a
new Depends: package, named libjsoncpp1.
If you are on stretch with firefox-esr 45.x and you do &
On 2017-06-25, David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 22 Jun 2017 at 19:44:27 (+), Curt wrote:
>> On 2017-06-22, Mike McClain wrote:
>> >
>> > Rather than telling me why FF was held back it just went ahead and
>> > installed it.
>> >
>>
>> Is that the complete description of what you observed? You're
On Thu 22 Jun 2017 at 19:44:27 (+), Curt wrote:
> On 2017-06-22, Mike McClain wrote:
> >
> > Rather than telling me why FF was held back it just went ahead and
> > installed it.
> >
>
> Is that the complete description of what you observed? You're not
> leaving anything out, are you?
>
> --
On 2017-06-22, Mike McClain wrote:
>
> Rather than telling me why FF was held back it just went ahead and
> installed it.
>
Is that the complete description of what you observed? You're not
leaving anything out, are you?
--
"It might be a vision--of a shell, of a wheelbarrow, of a fairy kingdo
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 07:40:59PM -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
> On 06/21/2017 04:56 PM, Mike McClain wrote:
> >Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade iceweasel?
> >
> Have you tried typing "apt-get install firefox-esr"? It should tell
> you why it's held back.
Duh, I'm an id
On 2017-06-21, Carl Fink wrote:
> On 06/21/2017 04:56 PM, Mike McClain wrote:
>> When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
>> The following packages have been kept back:
>>firefox-esr
>> and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
>&g
Mike McClain wrote:
> When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
> The following packages have been kept back:
> firefox-esr
> and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
> Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade
> ic
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Mike McClain wrote:
When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
The following packages have been kept back:
firefox-esr
and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade
iceweasel?
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:56:45 -0700 Mike McClain
wrote:
> When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
> The following packages have been kept back:
> firefox-esr
> and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
> Can someone point me at where to look t
On 06/21/2017 04:56 PM, Mike McClain wrote:
When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
The following packages have been kept back:
firefox-esr
and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade icewe
When I do 'apt-get upgrade', I get the following:
The following packages have been kept back:
firefox-esr
and firefox/iceweasel is what I was hoping to upgrade.
Can someone point me at where to look to see why I can't upgrade iceweasel?
Thanks,
Mike
--
As Andy Capp's wif
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 02:44:10 + (UTC)
John DeVito wrote:
> I ran into an issue today where X is not working after andupgrade of
> Stretch. The pervasive errorI am seeing is related to dbus-core.
> Xorg.0.log says ... Failed to connect to
> socket /var/run/dbus/system_bus_socket. Manual attem
Sven Joachim writes:
> On 2015-10-09 22:24 +0200, James Richardson wrote:
>
>> I just did an apt-get upgrade, rebooted, then X would start but without
>> any keyboard or mouse.
>>
[snip]
>
> Actually, if you were running systemd, logind would grant access to the
&
I've seen recently is:
apt-get upgrade --with-new-pkgs
So, e.g. to make upgrading easier:
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade
apt-get upgrade --with-new-pkgs
apt-get dist-upgrade
It allows a finer control on the upgrade process, and therefore, IMHO,
less chance for something to go wrong, but
On 10/9/15, Joe wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 16:24:31 -0400
> James Richardson wrote:
>
>> I just did an apt-get upgrade, rebooted, then X would start but
>> without any keyboard or mouse.
>
> This has a serious bug (798097) linked to logind, which may be also
>
Am 09.10.2015 um 23:48 schrieb Sven Joachim:
> Actually, if you were running systemd, logind would grant access to the
> input devices. Since this is apparently not what you want, your best
> bet is probably to install the xserver-xorg-legacy package which now
> contains the setuid wrapper.
Right
On 2015-10-09 22:24 +0200, James Richardson wrote:
> I just did an apt-get upgrade, rebooted, then X would start but without
> any keyboard or mouse.
>
> I am writing this to perhaps help the next person that runs into this. I
> am also open to suggestions for action items
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 16:24:31 -0400
James Richardson wrote:
> I just did an apt-get upgrade, rebooted, then X would start but
> without any keyboard or mouse.
>
This has a serious bug (798097) linked to logind, which may be also
responsible for your problem:
> [44.668] xorg-ser
I just did an apt-get upgrade, rebooted, then X would start but without
any keyboard or mouse.
I am writing this to perhaps help the next person that runs into this. I
am also open to suggestions for action items to take away to possible
raise a bug report.
I may have missed a changelog, but
Ok, I figured it out: lines containing md5sums of index files must start
with a blank character.
Stefano
hical structure (dists/my-dist/my-component/binary-my-arch), a
dists/Release file and its gpg dists/Release.gpg signature.
On the client side I added a .list file to /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ with
just one line:
deb uri-of-my-repo my-dist my-component
When I launch `sudo apt-get upgrade`, the Releas
ave you tried an "apt-get dist-upgrade"?
Some packages won't be upgraded by the "apt-get upgrade" operation. Please try
the first and tell us the results. Thanks!
Cheers,
Patrick
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:26 AM, ML mail wrote:
Hi,
>
>I was wondering why an &qu
a good reason
> for having upgrade and dist-upgrade.
>
> Regards
> ML
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:39 AM, Patrick Weiden
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> have you tried an "apt-get dist-upgrade"?
> Some packages won't be upgraded by the
t;apt-get dist-upgrade"?
Some packages won't be upgraded by the "apt-get upgrade" operation. Please try
the first and tell us the results. Thanks!
Cheers,
Patrick
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:26 AM, ML mail wrote:
Hi,
>
>I was wondering why an "apt-get upgrade&q
Hi,
have you tried an "apt-get dist-upgrade"?
Some packages won't be upgraded by the "apt-get upgrade" operation. Please
try the first and tell us the results. Thanks!
Cheers,
Patrick
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:26 AM, ML mail wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wonde
Hi,
I was wondering why an "apt-get upgrade"on my Debian wheezy box does not want
to update the OpenJDK packages as you can see below:
shell$ apt-get upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages have been
the purged packages
> > as "hold" and doing a "--set-selections",
> > but it has side effects (all mysql dependent
> > packages get uninstalled in the apt-get upgrade)
>
> A simpler way then using --get and --set selections is
>
> apt-mark hold|unhold
mi-fix of getting a
> "--get-selections", adding the purged packages
> as "hold" and doing a "--set-selections",
> but it has side effects (all mysql dependent
> packages get uninstalled in the apt-get upgrade)
>
> So, is there a way to for "a
1 - 100 of 973 matches
Mail list logo
