FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-21-2012, 02:30 PM
Camaleón
 
Default apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:08:29 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:45:51PM +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:10:07 +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>>
>> > Camaleón:
>>
>> (...)
>>
>> >> Did you first update the packages database?
>> >>
>> >> apt-get update
>> >> aptitude update
>> >
>> > apt-get and aptitude both use the same package database. Running the
>> > 'udpate' for both of them is not required.
>>
>> I just run "apt-get upgrade" and said there was nothing to do while
>> running "aptitude upgrade" wanted to do very (I mean *very*) weird
>> things, such as removing a bunch of packages. After updating aptitude
>> database all went smooth...
>
> And you had already done an "apt-get update" before this happened?

Nope. Neither did it for "aptitude".

> Remember, Aptitude's "resolver system" is different to apt-get's

That's why I prefer to refresh both "separately". apt-get was happy with
the current db state while aptitude wasn't.

> P.S. I don't use aptitude but use apt-get whereas Jochen AFAIR use
> aptitude.

I neither use aptitude unless something goes wrong. Aptitude seems very
powerful an capable but for me, it provides too many options that I
barely use or pay attention to.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: jkcs6v$lch$6@dough.gmane.org">http://lists.debian.org/jkcs6v$lch$6@dough.gmane.org
 
Old 03-21-2012, 02:54 PM
Jochen Spieker
 
Default apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

Camaleón:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:08:29 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
>> Remember, Aptitude's "resolver system" is different to apt-get's
>
> That's why I prefer to refresh both "separately". apt-get was happy with
> the current db state while aptitude wasn't.

From what I know, I have trouble understanding why 'aptitude update'
fixed anything for you. But we probably need a developer to clear things
up.

>> P.S. I don't use aptitude but use apt-get whereas Jochen AFAIR use
>> aptitude.
>
> I neither use aptitude unless something goes wrong. Aptitude seems very
> powerful an capable but for me, it provides too many options that I
> barely use or pay attention to.

JFTR, I use apt-get nowadays as well. At least most of the time. The
simple reason is that it performs a few things faster than aptitude
(update, upgrade without upgradeable packages).

Sometimes aptitude's TUI is really useful. Like yesterday, when I
down-pinned debian-multimedia.org and wanted to replace all packages
from there with their official Debian counterparts (if possible).

Probably the most useful command for aptitude is 'keep-all'. It clears
any additional status concerning installations and removals that
aptitude keeps (and apt-get doesn't know about).

J.
--
In idle moments I remember former lovers with sentimental tenderness.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
 
Old 03-21-2012, 03:01 PM
Alberto Fuentes
 
Default apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

On 21/03/12 07:08, Chris Bannister wrote:

Remember, Aptitude's "resolver system" is different to apt-get's


I think the problem is not the the resolver (apt-get and aptitude should
get dependences about the same if not problem found, and therefore
"aptitude full-upgrade" should do the same as "apt-get dist-upgrade"
thats it, bring all packages up to date following the pinning system and
install and remove packaged when needed.


Im not sure (nor im sure how to check it if thats the case) but I think
it may have to do with the database of how packages where installed. If
you install some packages with aptitude and others with apt-get and then
remove a third one with aptitude again, MAYBE the auto and manual
installation flag in some packages goes crazy as they are handled in
separate db (AAFAIK)


my 2 cents...

greets
aL


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 4F69FB75.8050702@qindel.com">http://lists.debian.org/4F69FB75.8050702@qindel.com
 
Old 03-22-2012, 11:27 AM
Chris Bannister
 
Default apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 04:54:39PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>
> Sometimes aptitude's TUI is really useful. Like yesterday, when I
> down-pinned debian-multimedia.org and wanted to replace all packages
> from there with their official Debian counterparts (if possible).

Mmmm, interesting. I've just removed debian-multimedia.org from my
sources list completely. I'm now running completely packages from the
main Debian repository. Admittedly that is just mplayer2 and ffmpeg.

root@tal:~# apt-cache policy libavformat-extra-53
libavformat-extra-53:
Installed: 4:0.8.0.1+b1
Candidate: 4:0.8.0.1+b1
Version table:
*** 4:0.8.0.1+b1 0
500 http://ftp.nz.debian.org/debian/ wheezy/main i386 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

root@tal:~# apt-cache policy libavformat53
libavformat53:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 4:0.8-2
Version table:
4:0.8-2 0
500 http://ftp.nz.debian.org/debian/ wheezy/main i386 Packages

Admittedly, you probably still need libdvdcss2 etc.

See:
http://wiki.debian.org/MultimediaCodecs

--
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120322122737.GB2006@tal">http://lists.debian.org/20120322122737.GB2006@tal
 
Old 03-22-2012, 12:10 PM
Jochen Spieker
 
Default apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

Chris Bannister:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 04:54:39PM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>>
>> Sometimes aptitude's TUI is really useful. Like yesterday, when I
>> down-pinned debian-multimedia.org and wanted to replace all packages
>> from there with their official Debian counterparts (if possible).
>
> Mmmm, interesting. I've just removed debian-multimedia.org from my
> sources list completely.

That was an intermediate step I took. That way, I could just look at
aptitude's list of "Obsolete and Locally Created Packages" in order to
identify d-m.org packages. And during that process I got rid of several
hundred MB of other obsolete packages as well.

> I'm now running completely packages from the
> main Debian repository. Admittedly that is just mplayer2 and ffmpeg.

I reaklly like handbrake-cli, that's why I had to keep d-m.org in the
end. BTW, if anyone is interested in an appropriate pinning section
(took me a few tries):

/etc/apt/preferences.d/00multimedia:

Package: *
Pin: release o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages
Pin-Priority: 1

And BTW2: For stable, ffmpeg from backports is currently *newer* than
ffmpeg from d-m.org:

# apt-cache policy ffmpeg
ffmpeg:
Installed: 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1
Candidate: 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1
Version table:
5:0.7.11-0.1 0
1 http://ftp.uni-kl.de/debian-multimedia/ squeeze/main amd64 Packages
*** 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 0
100 http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-backports/ squeeze-backports/main amd64 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
4:0.7.2-1~bpo60+1 0
100 http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-backports/ squeeze-backports/main amd64 Packages
4:0.5.6-3 0
500 http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/ squeeze/main amd64 Packages
500 http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates/main amd64 Packages

It's just the epoch that makes Marillat's version look more current.

J.
--
I am on the payroll of a company to whom I owe my undying gratitude.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
 
Old 03-22-2012, 01:25 PM
Pierre Frenkiel
 
Default apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote:



/etc/apt/preferences.d/00multimedia:

Package: *
Pin: release o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages
Pin-Priority: 1


I tried that, but then, apt-get dist-upgrade proposed to upgrade
8 packages, but not ffmpeg, although I have:

==> apt-cache policy ffmpeg

ffmpeg:
Installed: 5:0.7.11-0.1
Candidate: 5:0.7.11-0.1
Version table:
*** 5:0.7.11-0.1 0
1 http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ squeeze/main i386 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 0
100 http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports/ squeeze-backports/main i386 Packages
4:0.7.2-1~bpo60+1 0
100 http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports/ squeeze-backports/main i386 Packages
4:0.5.6-3 0
500 http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ squeeze/main i386 Packages
500 http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates/main i386 Packages

So, it seems that apt-get is not aware that 4:0.8 is newer than 5:0.7
idem with "aptitude full-upgrade"

--
Pierre Frenkiel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: alpine.DEB.2.00.1203221511130.15075@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net">http://lists.debian.org/alpine.DEB.2.00.1203221511130.15075@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
 
Old 03-22-2012, 01:49 PM
Jochen Spieker
 
Default apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

Pierre Frenkiel:
>
> ffmpeg:
> Installed: 5:0.7.11-0.1
> Candidate: 5:0.7.11-0.1
> Version table:
> *** 5:0.7.11-0.1 0
> 1 http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ squeeze/main i386 Packages
> 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 0
> 100 http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports/ squeeze-backports/main i386 Packages
> 4:0.7.2-1~bpo60+1 0
> 100 http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports/ squeeze-backports/main i386 Packages
> 4:0.5.6-3 0
> 500 http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ squeeze/main i386 Packages
> 500 http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates/main i386 Packages
>
> So, it seems that apt-get is not aware that 4:0.8 is newer than 5:0.7
> idem with "aptitude full-upgrade"

The "epoch" (the version number prefix, before the ':') is used to
explicitly enforce this. 4:x is always older than 5:y. Christian
Marillat does this on purpose. I don't know his reasons.

In order to "downgrade" from 5:0.7.11-0.1 to 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 you need to
tun 'apt-get install ffmpeg=4:0.8-2~bpo60+1'.

J.
--
I wish I could achieve a 'just stepped out of the salon' look more
often. Or at least once.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
 
Old 03-22-2012, 02:16 PM
Pierre Frenkiel
 
Default apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote:


idem with "aptitude full-upgrade"


The "epoch" (the version number prefix, before the ':') is used to
explicitly enforce this. 4:x is always older than 5:y. Christian
Marillat does this on purpose. I don't know his reasons.

In order to "downgrade" from 5:0.7.11-0.1 to 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 you need to
tun 'apt-get install ffmpeg=4:0.8-2~bpo60+1'.


this is an example where aptitude is superior to apt-get:
with apt-get install (or dist-install), I went into some kind of
infinite loop of dependencies, while "aptitude install ffmpeg=4:0.8-2~bpo60+1'
worked.
But then, what is the use of pinning to 1 the Unofficial Multimedia Packages ?
It seems that if Marillat cheats about the version number, the solution is to get rid of
the debian-multimedia.org repo.

--
Pierre Frenkiel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: alpine.DEB.2.00.1203221607520.21979@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net">http://lists.debian.org/alpine.DEB.2.00.1203221607520.21979@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
 
Old 03-22-2012, 02:22 PM
Brad Rogers
 
Default apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:49:42 +0100
Jochen Spieker <ml@well-adjusted.de> wrote:

Hello Jochen,

> The "epoch" (the version number prefix, before the ':') is used to
> explicitly enforce this. 4:x is always older than 5:y. Christian
> Marillat does this on purpose. I don't know his reasons.

Some of the software in his repos is also available from the normal
Debian streams. There can be differences between them. DMO uses the
epoch number to ensure preference is given to the DMO repos to avoid
potential problems.

At least, that's my understanding of it.

--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"
It's becoming an obsession
Teenage Depression - Eddie & The Hot Rods
 
Old 03-22-2012, 02:50 PM
Jochen Spieker
 
Default apt-get will upgrade aptitude will not

Pierre Frenkiel:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>
>> In order to "downgrade" from 5:0.7.11-0.1 to 4:0.8-2~bpo60+1 you need to
>> tun 'apt-get install ffmpeg=4:0.8-2~bpo60+1'.
>
> this is an example where aptitude is superior to apt-get:
> with apt-get install (or dist-install), I went into some kind of
> infinite loop of dependencies, while "aptitude install ffmpeg=4:0.8-2~bpo60+1'
> worked.

I didn't have that problem. Is it reproducible?

> But then, what is the use of pinning to 1 the Unofficial Multimedia Packages ?
> It seems that if Marillat cheats about the version number, the solution is to get rid of
> the debian-multimedia.org repo.

Sure, if you only use packages from there that are available from
Debian, too. But I use other packages as well. Whether Marillat's use of
the epoch qualifies as cheating is a question I cannot answer.

J.
--
I worry about people thinking I have lost direction.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:39 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org