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 03-25-2012, 03:08 PM
Osamu Aoki
 
Default upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:01:38AM +0100, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> hi,
> I wanted to upgrade from Squeeze to Wheezy, and as I saw in several places
> that aptitude should be preferred to apt-get, I first tried with it.
> I started with only 1 line in sources.list:
> deb http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free
> and tried several times "aptitude safe-upgrade"
> Each time, aptitude stayed indefinitely on "resolving dependencies" and did
> nothing else.
> I then issued: "apt-get dist-upgrade", and all worked perfectly, in less
> than 30 minutes.

So your experience is that apt-get is better for such case :-)

The release note "4.4.6. Upgrading the system" has:
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#upgrading-full
The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude
for the upgrade. This tool is not recommended for upgrades from lenny to
squeeze.

> My question: is it better to also revert to apt-get for package management,
> or is the problem specific to the upgrade to a new release?
That was the consensus among DDs when releasing squeeze :-)

The rational for this is experience such as yours.

"Almost same" is not exactly "the same" between apt-get/aptitude.

http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html#_literal_apt_get_literal_literal_apt_ cache_literal_vs_literal_aptitude_literal

Maybe, I should put more warning since aptitude dependency behaviour
seems to be changing a bitfor command line.

Osamu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120325150858.GA701@localhost">http://lists.debian.org/20120325150858.GA701@localhost
 
Old 03-26-2012, 07:21 PM
Martin Steigerwald
 
Default upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude

Am Mittwoch, 21. März 2012 schrieb Pierre Frenkiel:
> hi,
> I wanted to upgrade from Squeeze to Wheezy, and as I saw in several
> places that aptitude should be preferred to apt-get, I first tried
> with it. I started with only 1 line in sources.list:
> deb http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free
> and tried several times "aptitude safe-upgrade"
> Each time, aptitude stayed indefinitely on "resolving dependencies" and
> did nothing else.
> I then issued: "apt-get dist-upgrade", and all worked perfectly, in
> less than 30 minutes.
>
> My question: is it better to also revert to apt-get for package
> management, or is the problem specific to the upgrade to a new
> release?

Sven Hartge said on debian-user-german that aptitude is currently having
issues with multiarch. Maybe that has hit you somehow or maybe not I don´t
know.

I´d suggest apt-get for the time being.

--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201203262121.31590.Martin@lichtvoll.de">http://lists.debian.org/201203262121.31590.Martin@lichtvoll.de
 
Old 03-28-2012, 08:56 AM
Pierre Frenkiel
 
Default upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, Osamu Aoki wrote:


So your experience is that apt-get is better for such case :-)


cf below



The release note "4.4.6. Upgrading the system" has:
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#upgrading-full
The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude
for the upgrade. This tool is not recommended for upgrades from lenny to
squeeze.


hi,
In a perfect world, this information would be enough to know what to do.
Alas, it is not, and the documentation found at different (official) places is
not always consistent. In the debian faq, I read:

Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and is
the preferred program for package management from console to perform
system installation and major system upgrades for its robustness.

aptitude is recommended for daily package management from console.

--
Pierre


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

Archive: alpine.DEB.2.00.1203281041550.9141@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net">http://lists.debian.org/alpine.DEB.2.00.1203281041550.9141@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
 
Old 03-28-2012, 12:22 PM
Andrei POPESCU
 
Default upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude

On Mi, 28 mar 12, 10:56:49, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> >The release note "4.4.6. Upgrading the system" has:
> >http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#upgrading-full
> >The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude
> >for the upgrade. This tool is not recommended for upgrades from lenny to
> >squeeze.
>
> hi,
> In a perfect world, this information would be enough to know what to do.
> Alas, it is not, and the documentation found at different (official) places is
> not always consistent.

Please feel free to report bugs for such inconsistencies, but the
Release Notes are the canonical documentation for upgrading from one
Debian stable release to another.

> In the debian faq, I read:
>
> Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and is
> the preferred program for package management from console to perform
> system installation and major system upgrades for its robustness.
>
> aptitude is recommended for daily package management from console.

How exactly does this contradict the Release Notes?

Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
 
Old 03-28-2012, 01:55 PM
Pierre Frenkiel
 
Default upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote:


How exactly does this contradict the Release Notes?



1/ The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude
for the upgrade.

This is in chapter 4: Upgrades from Lenny, so seems to actually apply to major system upgrades.

2/ apt-get ... and is the preferred program for package management from console to perform
system installation and major system upgrades

Do you mean that 1/ does not contradict 2/ ?
If so, I have to go back to school to better understand English...

--
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.2.00.1203281543080.22702@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net">http://lists.debian.org/alpine.DEB.2.00.1203281543080.22702@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
 
Old 03-28-2012, 02:21 PM
Andrei POPESCU
 
Default upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude

On Mi, 28 mar 12, 15:55:20, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> >How exactly does this contradict the Release Notes?
>
>
> 1/ The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude
> for the upgrade.

"recommended" (past tense)

> This is in chapter 4: Upgrades from Lenny, so seems to actually apply to major system upgrades.
>
> 2/ apt-get ... and is the preferred program for package management from console to perform
> system installation and major system upgrades

"is" (present)

> Do you mean that 1/ does not contradict 2/ ?
> If so, I have to go back to school to better understand English...

Or me

Please feel free to suggest improvements in the wording. A patch would
be even better, but I'd be willing to do that on your behalf (with your
permission and proper credit, of course).

Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
 
Old 03-28-2012, 03:49 PM
Lisi
 
Default upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude

On Wednesday 28 March 2012 14:55:20 Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > How exactly does this contradict the Release Notes?
>
> 1/ The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude
> for the upgrade.
>
> This is in chapter 4: Upgrades from Lenny, so seems to actually apply to
> major system upgrades.
>
> 2/ apt-get ... and is the preferred program for package management from
> console to perform system installation and major system upgrades
>
> Do you mean that 1/ does not contradict 2/ ?

That is correct.

> If so, I have to go back to school to better understand English...

Tenses are often very difficult for non-native speakers of English to
understand. The past tense and the present tense are clearly distinguished,
so 1) which is in the past tense, does not contradict and is not contradicted
by 2) which is in the present tense.

Lisi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201203281649.19536.lisi.reisz@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/201203281649.19536.lisi.reisz@gmail.com
 
Old 04-01-2012, 06:45 PM
Pierre Frenkiel
 
Default upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Lisi wrote:


Tenses are often very difficult for non-native speakers of English to
understand.


It's funny. Do you really think that the the meaning of the past tense
is different in other languages!?
IMO, your interpretation of the past tense is wrong: The fact that
a statement was written in the past never implied, in any language, that

it is no more valid. Example:

"Pasteur recommended to wash hands frequently"

If the old statement is no more valid, that needs to be specified
explicitly, preferably in the same sentence or the next one,

as in the following (half-imaginary) example:

: "Pasteur recommended to boil water before drinking it, but this is no more
needed in most modern countries"

So, to come back to Debian upgrade, in the following sentence

The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude
for the upgrade.

the past tense is obviously used because this recommendation was written
in the past, but it is nowhere writen that it is no more valid, except for

upgrades from Debian 5.0 to Debian 6.0. For example, reading that,
I would still use aptitude to upgrade from Debian 4.0 to Debian 5.0
If you want an other proof that I am right, look at section 4.2

Please follow the instructions in the Release Notes for Debian GNU/Linux
5.0 to upgrade to 5.0 first.

Please note that "follow" is not at the past tense!

On the contrary, reading:

apt-get is the preferred program for package management from
console to perform system installation and major system upgrades

I would use apt-get to upgrade to 5.0
Please note the plural, and that there is not a single restriction

for the concerned realeases

So, I persist to say that the 2 sentences are contradictory. I'll
propose a slight modification to remove this contradiction:

1/ in 4.4.6, replace

The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of
aptitude for the upgrade. This tool is not recommended for upgrades
from lenny to squeeze.

by

The recommended tool for system upgrade from Lenny to Squeeze
is apt-get. For upgrades to previous releases, it is aptitude

2/ in the Debian faq, replace

Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and is
the preferred program for package management from console to perform
system installation and major system upgrades for its robustness.

by

Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and is,
for its robustness, the preferred program for package management from
console to perform system installation and major system upgrades to
releases posterior to Lenny.


--
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.2.00.1204011920140.20898@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net">http://lists.debian.org/alpine.DEB.2.00.1204011920140.20898@pfr2.frenkiel-hure.net
 
Old 04-01-2012, 10:16 PM
Lisi
 
Default upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude

On Sunday 01 April 2012 19:45:02 Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Lisi wrote:
> > Tenses are often very difficult for non-native speakers of English to
> > understand.
>
> It's funny. Do you really think that the the meaning of the past tense
> is different in other languages!?

Yes, particularly in French. The passé simple and the English preterite
appear the same, but in fact are quite different. The passé composé appears
the same as teh English perfect tense, but in fact is quite different.I could
give you numerous other examples.

> IMO, your interpretation of the past tense is wrong: The fact that
> a statement was written in the past never implied, in any language, that
> it is no more valid. Example:
>
> "Pasteur recommended to wash hands frequently"
>
I give you: "Pasteur used to recommend that people should wash their hands
frequently" is a use of the past tense that clearly says that that statement
is no longer true. In your words, it clearly implies that it is no longer
valid. Etc. You are quite wrong in the case you are arguing. Your English
is extremely good for a Frenchman, but one needs the rider. English tenses
and French tenses differ both in usage and in meaning, and there are more of
them in English. It is clear that you have not fully grasped the correct
usage in English.

> If the old statement is no more valid, that needs to be specified
> explicitly, preferably in the same sentence or the next one,

No, it doesn't.

There is no point in carrying on with this. You would obviously be prepared
to insist that the world is flat rather than admit that you might have made a
mistake.

Lisi
> as in the following (half-imaginary) example:
> : "Pasteur recommended to boil water before drinking it, but this is no
> : more
>
> needed in most modern countries"
>
> So, to come back to Debian upgrade, in the following sentence
>
> The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude
> for the upgrade.
>
> the past tense is obviously used because this recommendation was written
> in the past, but it is nowhere writen that it is no more valid, except for
> upgrades from Debian 5.0 to Debian 6.0. For example, reading that,
> I would still use aptitude to upgrade from Debian 4.0 to Debian 5.0
> If you want an other proof that I am right, look at section 4.2
>
> Please follow the instructions in the Release Notes for Debian
> GNU/Linux 5.0 to upgrade to 5.0 first.
>
> Please note that "follow" is not at the past tense!
>
> On the contrary, reading:
>
> apt-get is the preferred program for package management from
> console to perform system installation and major system upgrades
>
> I would use apt-get to upgrade to 5.0
> Please note the plural, and that there is not a single restriction
> for the concerned realeases
>
> So, I persist to say that the 2 sentences are contradictory. I'll
> propose a slight modification to remove this contradiction:
>
> 1/ in 4.4.6, replace
>
> The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of
> aptitude for the upgrade. This tool is not recommended for upgrades
> from lenny to squeeze.
>
> by
>
> The recommended tool for system upgrade from Lenny to Squeeze
> is apt-get. For upgrades to previous releases, it is aptitude
>
> 2/ in the Debian faq, replace
>
> Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and is
> the preferred program for package management from console to perform
> system installation and major system upgrades for its robustness.
>
> by
>
> Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and
> is, for its robustness, the preferred program for package management from
> console to perform system installation and major system upgrades to
> releases posterior to Lenny.
>
>
> --
> Pierre Frenkiel



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201204012316.44915.lisi.reisz@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/201204012316.44915.lisi.reisz@gmail.com
 
Old 04-01-2012, 11:49 PM
Paul E Condon
 
Default upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude

On 20120401_204502, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Lisi wrote:
>
> >Tenses are often very difficult for non-native speakers of English to
> >understand.
>
> It's funny. Do you really think that the the meaning of the past
> tense is different in other languages!?
> IMO, your interpretation of the past tense is wrong: The fact that a
> statement was written in the past never implied, in any language,
> that
> it is no more valid. Example:
>
> "Pasteur recommended to wash hands frequently"
>
> If the old statement is no more valid, that needs to be specified
> explicitly, preferably in the same sentence or the next one,
> as in the following (half-imaginary) example:
>
> : "Pasteur recommended to boil water before drinking it, but this is no more
> needed in most modern countries"
>
> So, to come back to Debian upgrade, in the following sentence
>
> The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude
> for the upgrade.
>
> the past tense is obviously used because this recommendation was
> written in the past, but it is nowhere writen that it is no more
> valid, except for
> upgrades from Debian 5.0 to Debian 6.0. For example, reading that,
> I would still use aptitude to upgrade from Debian 4.0 to Debian 5.0
> If you want an other proof that I am right, look at section 4.2
>
> Please follow the instructions in the Release Notes for Debian GNU/Linux
> 5.0 to upgrade to 5.0 first.
>
> Please note that "follow" is not at the past tense!
>
> On the contrary, reading:
>
> apt-get is the preferred program for package management from
> console to perform system installation and major system upgrades
>
> I would use apt-get to upgrade to 5.0 Please note the plural, and
> that there is not a single restriction
> for the concerned realeases
>
> So, I persist to say that the 2 sentences are contradictory. I'll
> propose a slight modification to remove this contradiction:
>
> 1/ in 4.4.6, replace
>
> The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of
> aptitude for the upgrade. This tool is not recommended for upgrades
> from lenny to squeeze.
>
> by
>
> The recommended tool for system upgrade from Lenny to Squeeze
> is apt-get. For upgrades to previous releases, it is aptitude
>
> 2/ in the Debian faq, replace
>
> Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and is
> the preferred program for package management from console to perform
> system installation and major system upgrades for its robustness.
>
> by
>
> Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and is,
> for its robustness, the preferred program for package management from
> console to perform system installation and major system upgrades to
> releases posterior to Lenny.
^^^^^^^^^

The better English word to use here is 'prior', which means earlier in
time rather than the backside of, I think. American English is my
first language and the only natural language in which I have any
facility, but Debian is international with much of the documentation
available only in English. That documentation should be understandable
to persons who only understand English with the continual help of an
English to language X dictionary or with the help of a friend who speaks
English but has no understanding of computers.

Please do sweat the details of wording.
--
Paul E Condon
pecondon@mesanetworks.net


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120401234947.GK3637@big.lan.gnu">http://lists.debian.org/20120401234947.GK3637@big.lan.gnu
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:27 AM.

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