Hi Charles,
Do you mean that it should/could happen that, at a certain point, the
"kept-back" packages will be upgraded by just using "apt upgrade"?
Best,
Livio
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 5:48 AM Charles Kroeger wrote:
> This is probably related to needful dependencies not yet available, or
> ava
This is probably related to needful dependencies not yet available, or
available somewhere else.
This problem is always sorted out by the passing of time. How much you want
to wait is subjective to you I would think.
Time is the revelator.
--
C.
s, the situation has improved a lot, but I am still worried
that upgrading Nvidia software can make my GPUs/Tensorflow images not
working. Is there any piece of advice/common practice in this scenario?
What would be the command to upgrade all the packages "kept back"?
Best,
Livio
On 2023-03-27 15:17:45 +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
> Dan Ritter (12023-03-27):
> > changing 33 to 30 will get you black. ANSI color escapes are on
> > the web in many places.
>
> Also, decent terminal emulators let users tweak the colors, and making
> sure all main colors are readable on the defa
On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 davidson wrote:
Replying to myself.
According to [console_codes(4), under section ECMA-48 Set Graphics
Rendition], [this value] sets "blink off"
# apt -o "APT::Color::Highlight=^[[25m" search nethack
For me, this produces text in the default style (no highlights, no
colors
On 3/28/23 01:02, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 02:02:43PM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
On 3/27/23 11:31, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 10:00:48AM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
[...]
Would it be practical to put a filter in the path cups put things headed to
a
On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 gene heskett wrote:
On 3/27/23 09:18, Nicolas George wrote:
Dan Ritter (12023-03-27):
changing 33 to 30 will get you black. ANSI color escapes are on
the web in many places.
Also, decent terminal emulators let users tweak the colors, and making
sure all main colors are rea
On 2023-03-28 10:56, davidson wrote:
On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 Jesper Dybdal wrote:
On 2023-03-27 10:59, davidson wrote:
It baffles me that the number of packages suggested for autoremoval is
different, between guile-2.2-libs and w3m.
Me too.
The two packages depend on different collections of sup
Jesper Dybdal writes:
> On 2023-03-26 23:12, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 5:16 AM Jesper Dybdal
>> wrote:
>>> Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
>> For completeness, here is the Debian procedure for a release upgrade:
>> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUpgrade .
> Thank
On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 Jesper Dybdal wrote:
On 2023-03-27 10:59, davidson wrote:
It baffles me that the number of packages suggested for autoremoval is
different, between guile-2.2-libs and w3m.
Me too.
The two packages depend on different collections of supporting
packages.
And so, depending o
On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 08:52:10AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
Greg Wooledge wrote:
3) apt uses a horrible yellow color that is nigh-unreadable on a white
background. (This is not configurable.)
I use exclusively apt-hyphenated commands (apt-{get,cach
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 02:02:43PM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
> On 3/27/23 11:31, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 10:00:48AM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Would it be practical to put a filter in the path cups put things headed
> > > to
> > > a printer th
On 3/27/23 11:31, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 10:00:48AM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
[...]
Would it be practical to put a filter in the path cups put things headed to
a printer thru, to change just that esc sequence to make those boxes and
their text content into something m
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 10:00:48AM -0400, gene heskett wrote:
[...]
> Would it be practical to put a filter in the path cups put things headed to
> a printer thru, to change just that esc sequence to make those boxes and
> their text content into something more readable.
If they are actually PNG
On Mon 27 Mar 2023 at 07:49:13 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 01:20:32PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2023-03-27 00:21:18 +0200, Jesper Dybdal wrote:
> > > On 2023-03-26 23:12, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 5:16 AM Jesper Dybdal
> > > > wro
On 2023-03-27 10:59, davidson wrote:
apt list says:
guile-2.2-libs/stable 2.2.7+1-6 amd64 [upgradable from:
2.2.4+1-2+deb10u1]
guile-2.2-libs/now 2.2.4+1-2+deb10u1 amd64 [installed,upgradable
to: 2.2.7+1-6]
w3m/stable 0.5.3+git20210102-6 amd64 [upgradable from: 0.5.3-37]
w3m/now 0.5.3-37
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 08:52:10AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > 3) apt uses a horrible yellow color that is nigh-unreadable on a white
> >background. (This is not configurable.)
>
> It appears that it is, just badly documented.
>
> In /etc/apt/apt.conf, you can specif
On 3/27/23 09:18, Nicolas George wrote:
Dan Ritter (12023-03-27):
changing 33 to 30 will get you black. ANSI color escapes are on
the web in many places.
Also, decent terminal emulators let users tweak the colors, and making
sure all main colors are readable on the default background would
pro
Dan Ritter (12023-03-27):
> changing 33 to 30 will get you black. ANSI color escapes are on
> the web in many places.
Also, decent terminal emulators let users tweak the colors, and making
sure all main colors are readable on the default background would
probably be a good use of that ability.
Re
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >From an end user's point of view, the three main differences between
> "apt-get" and "apt" are:
>
> 3) apt uses a horrible yellow color that is nigh-unreadable on a white
>background. (This is not configurable.)
It appears that it is, just badly documented.
In /etc/
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 02:17:11PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> FYI, I prefer to do the upgrades of my Debian/unstable machines with
> aptitude
aptitude is VERY different from apt/apt-get. It uses an entirely
different pacakge conflict resolution.
Using aptitude for release upgrades (in place
On 2023-03-27 07:49:13 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> 2) "apt-get upgrade" does not install new packages unless you supply the
>--with-new-pkgs option. "apt upgrade" acts as if you had supplied it.
>(This is configurable.)
FYI, I prefer to do the upgrades of my Debian/unstable machines wit
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 01:20:32PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2023-03-27 00:21:18 +0200, Jesper Dybdal wrote:
> > On 2023-03-26 23:12, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 5:16 AM Jesper Dybdal
> > > wrote:
> > > > Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
> > > For complet
On 2023-03-27 00:21:18 +0200, Jesper Dybdal wrote:
> On 2023-03-26 23:12, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 5:16 AM Jesper Dybdal
> > wrote:
> > > Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
> > For completeness, here is the Debian procedure for a release upgrade:
> > https://wiki.d
On 2023-03-27 10:59, davidson wrote:
By the way, does your sources.list really have no line for security
updates? Nothing like this one?
deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security bullseye-security
main non-free
Yes, it does: https://www.dybdal.dk/bullseye/sources.list
I currently do
On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 Jesper Dybdal wrote:
Thanks a lot for the responses.
It is a confusing mystery!
I'm still in doubt as to what to do.
I notice that according to your posted output from the commands,
apt-get -Vs remove {w3m,guile-2.2-libs}
that both packages now appear to be up-to-dat
On 2023-03-26 20:15, David Wright wrote:
On Sun 26 Mar 2023 at 11:16:21 (+0200), Jesper Dybdal wrote:
Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
This morning, I got a mail from unattended-upgrades, which said:
Packages with upgradable origin but kept back:
Debian stable:
guile-2.2-libs
On 2023-03-26 23:12, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 5:16 AM Jesper Dybdal wrote:
Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
For completeness, here is the Debian procedure for a release upgrade:
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUpgrade .
Thanks. Interesting that the Wiki recommen
On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 5:16 AM Jesper Dybdal wrote:
>
> Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
For completeness, here is the Debian procedure for a release upgrade:
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUpgrade .
Jeff
On Sun 26 Mar 2023 at 11:16:21 (+0200), Jesper Dybdal wrote:
> Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
>
> This morning, I got a mail from unattended-upgrades, which said:
>
> > Packages with upgradable origin but kept back:
> > Debian stable:
> >guile-2.2-libs w3m
>
> and
> > Package gu
On 2023-03-26 17:37, Cindy Sue Causey wrote:
On 3/26/23, Jesper Dybdal wrote:
Packages with upgradable origin but kept back:
Debian stable:
guile-2.2-libs w3m
DISCLAIMER: The subject line indicates a distribution upgrade, but it
looks like your sources.list is only Bullseye. My respo
On 3/26/23, Jesper Dybdal wrote:
> Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
>
> This morning, I got a mail from unattended-upgrades, which said:
>
>> Packages with upgradable origin but kept back:
>> Debian stable:
>>guile-2.2-libs w3m
>
> and
>> Package guile-2.2-libs is kept back because
Thanks a lot for the responses. I'm still in doubt as to what to do.
One thing I forgot to mention yesterday, but which I now think may be
correlated with this problem, is that yesterday's upgrade mysteriously
removed roundcube. I have no idea why, and I want it back, but that is
not particu
On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 Jesper Dybdal wrote:
Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
Release notes for Debian 11 (bullseye)
Upgrades from Debian 10 (buster) :: section 4.8 Obsolete Packages
https://www.debian.org/releases/bullseye/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#obsolete
This mo
On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 5:16 AM Jesper Dybdal wrote:
>
> Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
>
> This morning, I got a mail from unattended-upgrades, which said:
>
> > Packages with upgradable origin but kept back:
> > Debian stable:
> >guile-2.2-libs w3m
>
> and
> > Package guile-2.2-
Yesterday, I upgraded Buster => Bullseye.
This morning, I got a mail from unattended-upgrades, which said:
Packages with upgradable origin but kept back:
Debian stable:
guile-2.2-libs w3m
and
Package guile-2.2-libs is kept back because a related package is kept back or
due to local apt
L Dimov wrote:
As you and I both install the generic kernel linux-image-amd64, we
would expect to have to use apt-get dist-upgrade whenever there's
a new kernel version (because a version number is included in the
package name, so it's a "new" package).
apt upgrade will install new packages
On Thu 24 Feb 2022 at 18:32:47 (+), L Dimov wrote:
> On Thursday, February 24, 2022, 01:12:48 PM EST, David Wright
> wrote:
> > On Thu 24 Feb 2022 at 17:50:28 (+), L Dimov wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 24, 2022, 12:39:27 PM EST, Greg Wooledge
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb
On 2022-02-24 19:32 UTC+0100, L Dimov wrote:
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
> libabsl20200923 libopengl0 linux-image-5.10.0-11-amd64
These are legitimate Debian packages which are also installed on my
Bullseye system. Apparently, some dependencies have changed.
--
http://www.
On Thu 24 Feb 2022 at 17:50:28 (+), L Dimov wrote:
> On Thursday, February 24, 2022, 12:39:27 PM EST, Greg Wooledge
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 05:32:45PM +, L Dimov wrote:
> > > Is it normal that for a while now, maybe 2 or so weeks, these 17 packages
> > > are continuing to
On 2022-02-24 18:50 UTC+0100, L Dimov wrote:
> I do indeed use apt-get update and apt-get upgrade, and I am aware that
> there are ways I can force them to upgrade, but should I?
At least it will help you to analyze the situation, you still can cancel
the operation.
IMO this is not a normal si
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 05:32:45PM +, L Dimov wrote:
> Is it normal that for a while now, maybe 2 or so weeks, these 17 packages are
> continuing to be kept back? I am on Debian 11 Bullseye stable with only main
> repositories.
>
> The following packages have been kept back:
> gir1.2-javas
Alec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What does it mean "the following packages have been kept back"?
>
> When I do apt-get upgrade, I get:
>
> The following packages have been kept back
> libglib1.2 libglib1.2-dev
>
> What's the meaning of this? They could not be upgraded for some reason?
>
What does it mean "the following packages have been kept back"?
When I do apt-get upgrade, I get:
The following packages have been kept back
libglib1.2 libglib1.2-dev
What's the meaning of this? They could not be upgraded for some reason?
Alec
___
ial task-sgml task-tex
> wmaker
> 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 10
> not upgraded.
>
> Why are those packages "kept back?" Is it because upgrading
> them would break something else or what? And is this normal
> or a sign of something miscon
aded.
Why are those packages "kept back?" Is it because upgrading
them would break something else or what? And is this normal
or a sign of something misconfigured on my system?
Thanks in advance,
Dan
That works out great then, because I'm leaving town for a few days for
Thanksgiving. Thanks for the info!
Casey
--
Casey Henderson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cs.umaine.edu/~hender97/
On 21-Nov-2000 Casey Henderson wrote:
> Thanks for the info. The reason I ask is that I've been running KDE 2
> for a couple of weeks now, and I've been doing dist-upgrades nightly
> without any problems whatsoever, and all of a sudden I got this message
> about packages being kept back. It also
Thanks for the info. The reason I ask is that I've been running KDE 2
for a couple of weeks now, and I've been doing dist-upgrades nightly
without any problems whatsoever, and all of a sudden I got this message
about packages being kept back. It also said that kdebase is going to
be removed. I'm
On 21-Nov-2000 Casey Henderson wrote:
> Hello,
> Today I did an "apt-get -du dist-upgrade" on my woody box to get the
> most recent upgrades, and it said "The following packages have been
> kept back" and it spit out a big list of packages (mostly kde
> packages). Why would these be kept back?
Hello,
Today I did an "apt-get -du dist-upgrade" on my woody box to get the
most recent upgrades, and it said "The following packages have been
kept back" and it spit out a big list of packages (mostly kde
packages). Why would these be kept back? How can I do a complete
upgrade of the system? I
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 11:00:03AM -0700, kmself@ix.netcom.com
(kmself@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> I'm trying to clear some holds I've had on a number of packages, which
> currently result in 113 packages being kept back by apt-get. The
> packages I'd held were: apache, ecpg, libpgtcl, php3, and php
I'm trying to clear some holds I've had on a number of packages, which
currently result in 113 packages being kept back by apt-get. The
packages I'd held were: apache, ecpg, libpgtcl, php3, and php3-mysql.
The packages being kept back are listed below.
I've cleared the "hold" flags on the five p
53 matches
Mail list logo
