On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 14:51:17 +
Joe wrote:
>
> > On 2/6/25 8:20 AM, Charles Curley wrote:
> > >
> > > And for those who are wondering, this is going on in trixie.
[...]
> The quick fix in sources.list for debian is to add signed-by into
> existing lines after deb or deb-src:
>
> deb \
> [
On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 08:53:49AM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 10:42:27 -0500
Michael Stone wrote:
>...except that, per the rest of the discussion in that bug, it almost
>certainly won't be able to predict which signer to apply for each
>sources.list entry. That you'll prob
Also, there is https://wiki.debian.org/SourcesList .
Regards,
Jörg.
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 08:27:54AM -0500, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Charles Curley wrote:
> > Another option would be to retain all comments, and let the user
> > manually convert commented out entries. Simple, easy to do, and only a
> > little obnoxious for the user.
> >
> > And for those who are
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 08:53:49 -0700
Charles Curley wrote:
> However, it is not in the man page for apt or apt-get.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1094784
--
Does anybody read signatures any more?
https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:30:02 +
Joe wrote:
> Why in the world bother making your own scripts when you can just do
>
> # apt modernize-sources
> The following files need modernizing:
> - /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome-beta.list
> - /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-earth-pro.list
> -
Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 01:51:49AM -0500, songbird wrote:
>> when doing the upgrade you do have the option of doing
>> a test run to see what changes are made or not making the
>> changes at that time.
>>
>> when going through this process the comments in
>> sources
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 10:42:27 -0500
Michael Stone wrote:
> >...except that, per the rest of the discussion in that bug, it almost
> >certainly won't be able to predict which signer to apply for each
> >sources.list entry. That you'll probably have to add on your own.
>
> It even tells you that!
On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 10:22:17AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
I haven't seen this hit yet (though I probably will next time I
dist-upgrade against testing), but a comment in bug #1094263 leads me to
suspect that there is now supposed to be an 'apt modernize-sources'
sub-command, which looks like
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 08:09:37 -0700
Charles Curley wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 14:51:17 +
> Joe wrote:
>
> > The long-term fix is a file standard.sources root:root 644 in
> > /etc/sources.list.d containing:
>
> Is there anything that tells one how to make this conversion? Better
> yet, a s
On 2025-02-06 at 10:09, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 14:51:17 + Joe wrote:
>
>> The long-term fix is a file standard.sources root:root 644 in
>> /etc/sources.list.d containing:
>
> Is there anything that tells one how to make this conversion? Better
> yet, a script or two to d
On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 08:09:37AM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
Is there anything that tells one how to make this conversion? Better
yet, a script or two to do it for us? There will be a lot of people
scrambling to convert at the last minute.
Yes, current version prompts on what to do.
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 14:51:17 +
Joe wrote:
> The long-term fix is a file standard.sources root:root 644 in
> /etc/sources.list.d containing:
Is there anything that tells one how to make this conversion? Better
yet, a script or two to do it for us? There will be a lot of people
scrambling to co
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 08:54:28 -0500
Frank McCormick wrote:
> On 2/6/25 8:20 AM, Charles Curley wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 07:53:07 +
> > Andy Smith wrote:
> >
> >> Having said that, I am not sure how the complaint could be
> >> addressed since from what I understand you are basically ask
On Feb 06, 2025, Frank McCormick wrote:
>
>
> On 2/6/25 8:20 AM, Charles Curley wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 07:53:07 +
> > Andy Smith wrote:
> >
> > > Having said that, I am not sure how the complaint could be addressed
> > > since from what I understand you are basically asking for other
On 2/6/25 8:20 AM, Charles Curley wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 07:53:07 +
Andy Smith wrote:
Having said that, I am not sure how the complaint could be addressed
since from what I understand you are basically asking for otherwise
valid but commented-out sources.list lines to be converted in
Charles Curley wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 07:53:07 +
> Andy Smith wrote:
>
> > Having said that, I am not sure how the complaint could be addressed
> > since from what I understand you are basically asking for otherwise
> > valid but commented-out sources.list lines to be converted into
> >
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 07:53:07 +
Andy Smith wrote:
> Having said that, I am not sure how the complaint could be addressed
> since from what I understand you are basically asking for otherwise
> valid but commented-out sources.list lines to be converted into
> inactive deb822 files, which seems l
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 01:51:49AM -0500, songbird wrote:
> when doing the upgrade you do have the option of doing
> a test run to see what changes are made or not making the
> changes at that time.
>
> when going through this process the comments in
> sources.list were discarded.
I thin
when doing the upgrade you do have the option of doing
a test run to see what changes are made or not making the
changes at that time.
when going through this process the comments in
sources.list were discarded.
i don't know about other people or what they put in
sources.list, but i normall
would say then 'replacing') of such cases?
User can be alerted more easily during apt upgrade that some packages with a
same version could be replaced by the Debian archive ones.
apt list --replaceable
apt upgrade --no-replaceable
:-)
Note that it could be replacement from configured alt
On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 12:04:42PM +, Tim Woodall wrote:
> That's what I do too.
>
> +~tjw12r1
> if I've patched the current version.
> ~tjw12r1 if I've backported a higher version.
>
> I scan for newer versions in debian and auto-rebase my changes (unless
> the rebase fails) so I'm rarely mo
packages for testing
at the same version as in the archive, I am surprised that apt upgrade
will reinstall any of those installed by the one from the archive. I
did not remember such a "feature" in the past, unless my memory plays
tricks on me:-).
I think you should change the package version
Patrice Duroux writes:
> But could it be the a nice feature for apt to have a list apart on the
> upgrading
> (I would say then 'replacing') of such cases?
> User can be alerted more easily during apt upgrade that some packages with a
> same version could be replaced b
e feature for apt to have a list apart on the
> upgrading
> (I would say then 'replacing') of such cases?
> User can be alerted more easily during apt upgrade that some packages with a
> same version could be replaced by the Debian archive ones.
> apt list --replaceable
>
27;) of such cases?
User can be alerted more easily during apt upgrade that some packages with a
same version could be replaced by the Debian archive ones.
apt list --replaceable
apt upgrade --no-replaceable
:-)
Note that it could be replacement from configured alternative source archives.
Regards,
Patrice
r testing
> > > at the same version as in the archive, I am surprised that apt upgrade
> > > will reinstall any of those installed by the one from the archive. I
> > > did not remember such a "feature" in the past, unless my memory plays
> > > tricks on me
On Sat 16 Nov 2024 at 15:54:17 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 03:11:37PM +0100, Patrice Duroux wrote:
> >
> > On Sid, building and installing locally modified packages for testing
> > at the same version as in the archive, I am surprised that
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 03:11:37PM +0100, Patrice Duroux wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sid, building and installing locally modified packages for testing
> at the same version as in the archive, I am surprised that apt upgrade
> will reinstall any of those installed by the one from the archi
Hi,
On Sid, building and installing locally modified packages for testing
at the same version as in the archive, I am surprised that apt upgrade
will reinstall any of those installed by the one from the archive. I
did not remember such a "feature" in the past, unless my memory plays
tr
On 23 Dec 2023 09:22 -0500, from s.mol...@sbcglobal.net (Stephen P. Molnar):
>> If you don't want to run VirtualBox going forward, the easiest way
>> might be to just `apt purge virtualbox-7.0`.
> (base) comp@AbNormal:~$ sudo apt purge virtualbox-7.0
> [sudo] password for comp:
> Reading package li
... Done
Reading state information... Done
All packages are up to date.
W: https://repo.skype.com/deb/dists/stable/InRelease: Key is stored in
legacy trusted.gpg keyring (/etc/apt/trusted.gpg), see the DEPRECATION
section in apt-key(8) for details.
(base) comp@AbNormal:~$ sudo apt upgrade
Reading
one
> All packages are up to date.
> W: https://repo.skype.com/deb/dists/stable/InRelease: Key is stored in
> legacy trusted.gpg keyring (/etc/apt/trusted.gpg), see the DEPRECATION
> section in apt-key(8) for details.
> (base) comp@AbNormal:~$ sudo apt upgrade
> Reading packa
ldstable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html
because if you have, then I do not understand why you aren't
following the documented steps, which are in part:
# apt update
# apt upgrade --without-new-pkgs
# apt full-upgrade
Cheers,
Andy
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:35:49 -0700
Scott Edwards wrote:
> https://paste.debian.net/1286823/
>
> I just want to upgrade to stable, but I'm stuck here
Stuck where? What instructions did you follow. Did you modify
/etc/apt/sources.list? Did you run "apt update" before
On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 4:36 PM Scott Edwards wrote:
>
> https://paste.debian.net/1286823/
>
> I just want to upgrade to stable, but I'm stuck here
Run 'apt-get update' first, and then 'apt-get upgrade'.
If Apt-get fails, then try Aptitude. Aptitude has a better solver, and
can often come up wit
https://paste.debian.net/1286823/
I just want to upgrade to stable, but I'm stuck here
On Sat 03 Dec 2022 at 08:19:48 (+0100), Loïc Grenié wrote:
> On Sat Dec, 3, 2022 at 04:03, David Wright wrote:
> > Yes, hence my comment on potential interactions between different
> > packages. The OP mentioned udev, but in their OP they talked about
> > manually restarting systemd services. I wa
On Sat Dec, 3, 2022 at 04:03, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 02 Dec 2022 at 21:33:45 (-0500), The Wanderer wrote:
> >
> > FWIW:
> >
> > $ apt-cache policy udev
> > udev:
> > Installed: 252.1-1
> > Candidate: 252.1-1
> > Version table:
> > *** 252.1-1 900
> > 900 http://ftp.us.debian.o
On Fri 02 Dec 2022 at 21:33:45 (-0500), The Wanderer wrote:
>
> FWIW:
>
> $ apt-cache policy udev
> udev:
> Installed: 252.1-1
> Candidate: 252.1-1
> Version table:
> *** 252.1-1 900
> 900 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian testing/main amd64 Packages
> 100 /var/lib/dpkg/statu
On 2022-12-02 at 21:04, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 02 Dec 2022 at 09:04:35 (+0100), Loïc Grenié wrote:
>
>> On Fri Dec 2 2022 at 04:31, David Wright wrote:
>>> AFAICT udev was upgraded from 247.3-7 to 247.3-7+deb11u1 in early
>>> September, so which distribution are /you/ running?
>>
>> % lsb_
On Fri 02 Dec 2022 at 09:04:35 (+0100), Loïc Grenié wrote:
> On Fri Dec 2 2022 at 04:31, David Wright wrote:
> > On Wed 30 Nov 2022 at 14:25:19 (+0100), Loïc Grenié wrote:
> > > Happened once again. This time I think the culprit was udev (but I
> > > cannot
> > > be too sure). Among the upda
On Fri Dec 2 2022 at 04:31, David Wright wrote:
> On Wed 30 Nov 2022 at 14:25:19 (+0100), Loïc Grenié wrote:
> > Happened once again. This time I think the culprit was udev (but I
> > cannot
> > be too sure). Among the updated package nothing should have killed X:
> > beyond udev there wa
On Wed 30 Nov 2022 at 14:25:19 (+0100), Loïc Grenié wrote:
> Happened once again. This time I think the culprit was udev (but I
> cannot
> be too sure). Among the updated package nothing should have killed X:
> beyond udev there was a bunch of libreoffice and related (not using right
> n
On Thu 01 Dec 2022 at 17:45:25 (-0700), Tom Dial wrote:
> On 11/29/22 15:35, Loïc Grenié wrote:
> > Dear Debian users,
> >
> > when I apt upgrade my system, I often (one every three, more
> > or less) find myself brutally logged out of the window system,
&
Loïc Grenié wrote:
Dear Debian users,
when I apt upgrade my system, I often (one every three, more
or less) find myself brutally logged out of the window system,
with systemd services painfully restarting (or failing to restart).
The only way I can recover is usually to
On 11/29/22 15:35, Loïc Grenié wrote:
Dear Debian users,
when I apt upgrade my system, I often (one every three, more
or less) find myself brutally logged out of the window system,
with systemd services painfully restarting (or failing to restart).
The only way I can
On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 12:34:35AM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> The one application I do avoid upgrading while it's running is
> >> Firefox, but that's mainly because it occasionally gives a new
> >> startup screen after an upgrade, and I want to read what it says.
> >
> > I take the risk and
>> The one application I do avoid upgrading while it's running is
>> Firefox, but that's mainly because it occasionally gives a new
>> startup screen after an upgrade, and I want to read what it says.
>
> I take the risk and watch the thing going down in flames. I
> admit that it gives me a strange
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 02:36:57PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
[...]
> The only reasons I'd close down X are (a) a dist-upgrade from
> oldstable to stable (and the like),
That I do, too.
> and (b) dpkg-reconfigure
> console-setup and keyboard-configuration after I've been
> t
On Wed 30 Nov 2022 at 08:42:41 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:36:43AM -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
>
> > I learned many many moons ago to not trust any update/upgrade process to not
> > interfere with a running X session. I usually close apps I don't want data
> > lost
a very rare while, upgrade will stall until I say yes or no
when it asks if I want to restart exim and a second program that I
can't remember.
> Still, it never happened to me, and I dist-upgrade roughly once
> a week.
I run "apt-get upgrade". It will take me a few days to remembe
Happened once again. This time I think the culprit was udev (but I
cannot
be too sure). Among the updated package nothing should have killed X:
beyond udev there was a bunch of libreoffice and related (not using right
now), zathura (not using), not much more, at the very least, nothing t
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 06:16:04AM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> FWIW it never happened to me. But: I'm on a pretty minimal system by
> today's standards (X, Fvwm). The only application behaving strangely
> after a dist-upgrade is... the browser, Firefix: "Ohmigod, something
> funny happened, I'
On 11/30/22, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:44:49AM +0100, DdB wrote:
>> Am 29.11.2022 um 23:35 schrieb Loïc Grenié:
>> > when I apt upgrade my system, I often (one every three, more
>> > or less) find myself brutally logged out of the
Jeffrey Walton writes:
> KDE works as expected.
Yep.
> God bless those who have stuck with GNOME after the change to GNOME3.
> They have the tolerance of saints.
I have to agree. I did get Gnome 3 to somewhere I kinda liked but when
an updated wiped my customizations, it was time to say good b
Thanks Tomas, and thanks to all those responded,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 06:16, Tomas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:44:49AM +0100, DdB wrote:
> > Am 29.11.2022 um 23:35 schrieb Loïc Grenié:
> > > when I apt upgrade my system, I often (one every three, more
>
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:36:43AM -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
[...]
> What I have noticed in Debian that I do not at all like, is when I boot to
> multi-user.target for the specific purpose of apt or apt-get upgrading, even
> when
> systemctl get-default returns multi-user.target, that if the DM
Loïc Grenié composed on 2022-11-29 23:35 (UTC+0100):
> when I apt upgrade my system, I often (one every three, more
> or less) find myself brutally logged out of the window system,
> with systemd services painfully restarting (or failing to restart).
> The only way I ca
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:16 AM wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:44:49AM +0100, DdB wrote:
> > Am 29.11.2022 um 23:35 schrieb Loïc Grenié:
> > > when I apt upgrade my system, I often (one every three, more
> > > or less) find myself brutally l
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:44:49AM +0100, DdB wrote:
> Am 29.11.2022 um 23:35 schrieb Loïc Grenié:
> > when I apt upgrade my system, I often (one every three, more
> > or less) find myself brutally logged out of the window system,
> > with systemd services painfully r
Am 29.11.2022 um 23:35 schrieb Loïc Grenié:
> when I apt upgrade my system, I often (one every three, more
> or less) find myself brutally logged out of the window system,
> with systemd services painfully restarting (or failing to restart).
> The only way I can recover i
Dear Debian users,
when I apt upgrade my system, I often (one every three, more
or less) find myself brutally logged out of the window system,
with systemd services painfully restarting (or failing to restart).
The only way I can recover is usually to reboot. I've tri
On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 09:56:21AM +, jindam, vani wrote:
> i have only deb http://deb.debian.org/debian bullseye main contrib non-free
> in my sources.list.
>
> does apt upgrade & full-upgrade packages from Security Updates (Debian
> Security Advisories (DSA))?
> N
On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 09:56:21AM +, jindam, vani wrote:
> i have only deb http://deb.debian.org/debian bullseye main contrib non-free
> in my sources.list.
>
> does apt upgrade & full-upgrade packages from Security Updates (Debian
> Security Advisories (DSA))?
No,
i have only deb http://deb.debian.org/debian bullseye main contrib non-free in
my sources.list.
does apt upgrade & full-upgrade packages from Security Updates (Debian Security
Advisories (DSA))?
which is correct?
deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security bullseye-security main con
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 23:44:00 +0100
Mark Fletcher wrote:
> "apt list --upgradable" shows a new version of the Amazon Workspaces
> client, version 4.3.0.1766. It also shows that there is one more
> version available.
This may be a silly question, but have you checked with Amazon customer
support?
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 23:44:00 +0100 Mark Fletcher wrote:
> After "sudo apt update", the system informs me there is 1 package that can
> be upgraded.
>
> "sudo apt upgrade" reports nothing to do, 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly
> installed, 0 to remove and 0 n
On Sun 16 Oct 2022 at 23:44:00 (+0100), Mark Fletcher wrote:
>
> Tonight I am seeing a behaviour pattern in my Debian Bullseye system that I
> have not seen before.
>
> After "sudo apt update", the system informs me there is 1 package that can
> be upgraded.
>
Hi
Tonight I am seeing a behaviour pattern in my Debian Bullseye system that I
have not seen before.
After "sudo apt update", the system informs me there is 1 package that can
be upgraded.
"sudo apt upgrade" reports nothing to do, 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly
installed, 0
ps: sorry, on a Debian Sid system for sure.
Le lun. 14 mars 2022 à 19:41, Patrice Duroux a
écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> Since some versions ago, apt/dpkg(?) is stopping its process (upgrade
> here) whatever the packaging trouble it is facing. But in some cases, it
> may leave the system more broken than
Hi,
Since some versions ago, apt/dpkg(?) is stopping its process (upgrade here)
whatever the packaging trouble it is facing. But in some cases, it may
leave the system more broken than it would become just by 'skipping' the
troubling package.
For instance, in the upgrading transaction list were so
Hello,
On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 02:25:35PM -0500, Lee wrote:
> Apparently the syslog message
> systemd[1]: Starting Daily apt upgrade and clean activities...
> is caused by systemd / apt-daily.timer - correct?
No, that one is from apt-daily-upgrade.timer:
$ grep -r "upgrade a
have the latest news, and an
'apt upgrade' if necessary (that's where I find out just what's available), and
everything's already there -- at least I think it is; the updating's real fast.
Even when it's updating Firefox or the kernel.
I do the same via
On Tue 08 Feb 2022 at 14:25:35 (-0500), Lee wrote:
> Apparently the syslog message
> systemd[1]: Starting Daily apt upgrade and clean activities...
> is caused by systemd / apt-daily.timer - correct?
>
> # sudo systemctl status apt-daily.timer
> ● apt-daily.timer - Daily apt d
Lee wrote:
> Apparently the syslog message
> systemd[1]: Starting Daily apt upgrade and clean activities...
> is caused by systemd / apt-daily.timer - correct?
>
> # sudo systemctl status apt-daily.timer
> ● apt-daily.timer - Daily apt download activities
> Loaded:
On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 02:25:35PM -0500, Lee wrote:
> Apparently the syslog message
> systemd[1]: Starting Daily apt upgrade and clean activities...
> is caused by systemd / apt-daily.timer - correct?
>
> # sudo systemctl status apt-daily.timer
> ● apt-daily.timer -
Apparently the syslog message
systemd[1]: Starting Daily apt upgrade and clean activities...
is caused by systemd / apt-daily.timer - correct?
# sudo systemctl status apt-daily.timer
● apt-daily.timer - Daily apt download activities
Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/apt-daily.timer
On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 21:53 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 10 aug 21, 13:32:09, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> > How can I determine what the "1 not upgraded" package might be?
> >
> >
> > ~$ apt-get update
> > Hit:1 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian bullseye InRelease
> > Hit:2 http://security.deb
On Ma, 10 aug 21, 13:32:09, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> How can I determine what the "1 not upgraded" package might be?
>
>
> ~$ apt-get update
> Hit:1 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian bullseye InRelease
> Hit:2 http://security.debian.org bullseye-security InRelease
> Hit:3 http://ftp.us.debian.org/de
On 8/10/21, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-08-10 at 18:59 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>>
>> The OP claimed they have nothing pinned, but presented no evidence to
>> support this claim. Perhaps they thought that because they didn't
>> explicitly *pin* anything themselves, there must not be an
On Tue 10 Aug 2021 at 14:09:27 (-0400), Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-08-10 at 14:00 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 01:57:13PM -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> > > ~$ apt-get -sV full-upgrade
> > > Reading package lists... Done
> > > Building dependency tree... Done
> >
On Tue, 2021-08-10 at 18:59 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 08:27:03AM +1000, David wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 03:32, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> >
> > > apt-upgrade (Bullseye) shows 1 pkg not upgraded
> >
> > > How can I determine
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 08:27:03AM +1000, David wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 03:32, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>
> > apt-upgrade (Bullseye) shows 1 pkg not upgraded
>
> > How can I determine what the "1 not upgraded" package might be?
>
> Hi, I dunno if thi
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 03:32, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> apt-upgrade (Bullseye) shows 1 pkg not upgraded
> How can I determine what the "1 not upgraded" package might be?
Hi, I dunno if this message will be of any use, because other
suggestions indicate that this might be due to
Hello,
If for example you have set up unattended-upgrades and installed apt-
listbugs, then when unattended-upgrades runs, apt-listbugs
automatically pins (-3) upgradable packages that are affected by
bugs in order for them to be hold until a fix. They are automatically
de-pinned when bugs are
On Tue, 2021-08-10 at 20:03 +0200, john doe wrote:
> On 8/10/2021 7:57 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> > On Tue, 2021-08-10 at 19:49 +0200, john doe wrote:
> > > On 8/10/2021 7:32 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> > > > How can I determine what the "1 not upgraded" package might be?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ~
On Tue, 2021-08-10 at 14:00 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 01:57:13PM -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> > ~$ apt-get -sV full-upgrade
> > Reading package lists... Done
> > Building dependency tree... Done
> > Calculating upgrade... Done
> > 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to rem
On 8/10/2021 7:57 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Tue, 2021-08-10 at 19:49 +0200, john doe wrote:
On 8/10/2021 7:32 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
How can I determine what the "1 not upgraded" package might be?
~$ apt-get update
Hit:1 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian bullseye InRelease
Hit:2 http://secu
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 01:57:13PM -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> ~$ apt-get -sV full-upgrade
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree... Done
> Calculating upgrade... Done
> 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
Have you tried Google yet?
https://unix.st
On Tue, 2021-08-10 at 19:49 +0200, john doe wrote:
> On 8/10/2021 7:32 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> > How can I determine what the "1 not upgraded" package might be?
> >
> >
> > ~$ apt-get update
> > Hit:1 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian bullseye InRelease
> > Hit:2 http://security.debian.org bulls
On 8/10/2021 7:32 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
How can I determine what the "1 not upgraded" package might be?
~$ apt-get update
Hit:1 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian bullseye InRelease
Hit:2 http://security.debian.org bullseye-security InRelease
Hit:3 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian bullseye-updat
On Tue, 2021-08-10 at 12:37 -0500, Lance Simmons wrote:
> apt list --upgradeable
:(
~$ apt list --upgradeable
Listing... Done
Thanks for suggesting that though.
-Jim P.
apt list --upgradeable
On Aug 10 2021, at 12:32 pm, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> How can I determine what the "1 not upgraded" package might be?
>
>
> ~$ apt-get update
> Hit:1 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian bullseye InRelease
> Hit:2 http://security.debian.org bullseye-security InRelease
> Hit:3
How can I determine what the "1 not upgraded" package might be?
~$ apt-get update
Hit:1 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian bullseye InRelease
Hit:2 http://security.debian.org bullseye-security InRelease
Hit:3 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian bullseye-updates InRelease
Reading package lists... Done
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 01:47:22PM -0600, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 10:46:06 -0500
> Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
>
> > If I wait for a few months to perform an "apt upgrade", many packages
> > get upgraded.
>
> ...
>
> > Is there somet
On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 10:46:06 -0500
Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
> If I wait for a few months to perform an "apt upgrade", many packages
> get upgraded.
...
> Is there something more elegant?
As Dan Ritter already mentioned, you can
configure a failover DHCP server, usually a goo
On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 10:46:06 -0500
Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> Scenario:
>
> I have a Sid desktop computer that acts as a router for my home
> network.
>
> If I wait for a few months to perform an "apt upgrade", many packages
> get upgraded.
>
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:46:06AM -0500, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> Scenario:
>
> I have a Sid desktop computer that acts as a router for my home network.
>
> If I wait for a few months to perform an "apt upgrade", many packages get
> upgr
Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
> I have a Sid desktop computer that acts as a router for my home network.
I have a Stable mini-ITX "desktop" computer that acts as a
router for my home network.
> If I wait for a few months to perform an "apt upgrade", many packages get
>
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
