Bug#312351: marked as done (woody -> sarge: package on hold upgraded anyway)
Your message dated Tue, 14 Jun 2005 20:47:42 +0200
with message-id <200506142047.51069.aragorn@tiscali.nl>
and subject line Bug#312351: woody -> sarge: package on hold upgraded anyway
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 7 Jun 2005 16:02:58 +0000
>From paul@droflet.net Tue Jun 07 09:02:58 2005
Return-path: <paul@droflet.net>
Received: from 020.127-30-64.ftth.swbr.surewest.net (pez.droflet.net) [64.30.127.20]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DfgXY-00086v-00; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 09:02:58 -0700
Received: from paul by pez.droflet.net with local (Exim 4.50)
id 1DfgX1-0000Nc-6a
for submit@bugs.debian.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 09:02:23 -0700
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 09:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Paul Telford <pxt@debian.org>
X-X-Sender: paul@pez.droflet.net
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: woody -> sarge: package on hold upgraded anyway
Message-ID: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.58.0506070853550.1262@pez.droflet.net>
X-GPG-FINGERPRINT: 1024D/431B38BA C903 0E85 9AF5 1B80 6A5F F169 D7E9 4363 431B 38BA
X-Lucky-Number: 42
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: paul@droflet.net
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on pez.droflet.net); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Package: upgrade-reports
Archive date: Sun Jun 5 20:00:01 UTC 2005
Upgrade date: Monday June 6
uname -a: Linux zaphod 2.4.27-pa4 #2 Wed Nov 3 08:18:42 PST 2004 parisc GNU/Linux
Method: aptitude
Upgrade sequence:
- updated sources.list
- dpkg --get-selections | grep hold
# Noted that one package, 'mantis', was intentionally on hold
- apt-get install aptitude
- aptitude -f --with-recommends dist-upgrade
# Watch as mantis gets upgraded anyway
- dpkg --get-selections | grep hold
# Mantis still marked as on hold
The release notes state:
If you changed and recompiled a package locally, and didn't rename it or
put an epoch in the version, you must put it on hold to prevent it from
being upgraded.
I expected that my package and any dependencies would not be upgraded, or
that aptitude would give me an error message if this somehow caused an
unresolvable situation. Unfortunately, it upgraded the package anyway,
wiping out some local changes. Not catastrophic in this case, but
contrary to the information in the release notes at least.
Paul.
--
Paul Telford | 1024D/431B38BA | pxt@debian.org | paul@droflet.net
C903 0E85 9AF5 1B80 6A5F F169 D7E9 4363 431B 38BA
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 312351-done) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Jun 2005 18:47:42 +0000
>From aragorn@tiscali.nl Tue Jun 14 11:47:42 2005
Return-path: <aragorn@tiscali.nl>
Received: from smtp-out3.tiscali.nl [195.241.79.178]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DiGRp-0005ml-00; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:47:42 -0700
Received: from strider.fjphome.nl (195-240-184-66-mx.xdsl.tiscali.nl [195.240.184.66])
by smtp-out3.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E8328011066
for <312351-done@bugs.debian.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 20:47:41 +0200 (CEST)
From: Frans Pop <aragorn@tiscali.nl>
To: 312351-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#312351: woody -> sarge: package on hold upgraded anyway
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 20:47:42 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2
References: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.58.0506070853550.1262@pez.droflet.net>
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.58.0506070853550.1262@pez.droflet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="nextPart3036341.GSPx0ODsdI";
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200506142047.51069.aragorn@tiscali.nl>
Delivered-To: 312351-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
--nextPart3036341.GSPx0ODsdI
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 18:02, Paul Telford wrote:
> I expected that my package and any dependencies would not be upgraded,
> or that aptitude would give me an error message if this somehow caused
> an unresolvable situation. Unfortunately, it upgraded the package
> anyway, wiping out some local changes. Not catastrophic in this case,
> but contrary to the information in the release notes at least.
It turns out that the method used by aptitude to register a package as=20
being on hold is different from apt-get and dselect.
I believe this is now properly documented.
=46or archs that do have aptitude in Woody:
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.ht=
ml#s4.2.2
=46or archs that do not have aptitude in Woody:
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/hppa/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.ht=
ml#s4.2.2
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/hppa/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.ht=
ml#s-upgrading_aptitude
Thanks for alerting us to this issue.
Cheers,
=46JP
--nextPart3036341.GSPx0ODsdI
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBCryZXgm/Kwh6ICoQRArnUAKCCymxEFd61yfPd0+JPxo62/1qbtACePxs8
aR0NBboI0fUkrMt+HnuRWXQ=
=CK1e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart3036341.GSPx0ODsdI--
Reply to: