Dear David, Thank you for your witty response, and your work on APT. I mean it. I am quite sure you get a lot of diverging requests and then one like mine, without version numbers, logs, but CAPITAL LETTERS instead. While your points are spot-on, and I especially liked "this is a proposal, not a EULA", I've been using APT since one of its first versions, and I think "upgrade" has existed from the early days with precisely the promise that, unlike "dist-upgrade", it would not modify the set of installed packages, either way. Thence stems my habit to run "apt-get upgrade" without reading the "proposal", unlike when I run "dist-upgrade" or "install"/"remove"/"purge" instead. So I hope you understand that the confusion when I saw what had happened. Fortunately, the damage wasn't so bad, but just imagine this had happened via an SSH connection on a machine without console access… Now for your input: > I am not opposed to the possibility of bugs in apt in general, but > the amount of "upgrade with removal"-bugs which all turned out to > be either scrollback-confusion, aliases or wrapper scripts is > astonishing, so triple-double-check this first. I sixtuple-checked as per your instructions and can confirm that the apt-get I invoked was /usr/bin/apt-get from apt==1.0.9.8.4 and there were no aliases or wrapper scripts involved. I checked this, but I also purposely never have any of those when logged in as root. I am not sure what you mean with scrollback-confusion. I mean, APT told me it'd remove the packages, which I didn't see, and so when I agreed, it removed them. And I recovered, and that's not a big deal, but it shouldn't have put the packages up for removal in the first place. And I cannot come up with a case where it should have done that. > have run and which solutions were applied due to it. That also > includes dates, so you might be able to fish > a /var/lib/dpkg/status file from before the "bad" interaction in > /var/backups/dpkg.status.*. I'm now taking this to a bug report: http://bugs.debian.org/855891 > in general: native tools are offtopic (by thread popularity) on > d-d@ … > > … but let me help you to get the thread some replies: I don't have > ifupdown installed anymore. systemd-networkd + wpa_supplicant FTW. > (also: RC bugs for all node packages failing a cat-picture test!) Oh, the cynicism… ;) Don't worry, I won't take your bait. This is a headless madchine in a remote datacentre running 24/7. There's KVM access, fortunately. I just need it to come up with its static IPs on every boot and ifupdown has been doing a fantastic job for years with that. > Oh, and of course the standard reply: You know, apt does print > a proposal not an EULA – so you don't have to press 'yes' without > reading. This still made my day. ♥ -- .''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@d.o> @martinkrafft : :' : proud Debian developer `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems echo Prpv a\'rfg cnf har cvcr | tr Pacfghnrvp Cnpstuaeic
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital GPG signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)