[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#977477: marked as done (release-notes: Update apt upgrade guidance)

Your message dated Thu, 18 Mar 2021 21:28:12 +0100
with message-id <e02725dd-f2b9-d34a-a094-42c1ec7efc1d@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#977477: release-notes: Update apt upgrade guidance (Was: Re: Bug#977477: apt: Adding progression indication to apt-get output)
has caused the Debian Bug report #977477,
regarding release-notes: Update apt upgrade guidance
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
977477: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=977477
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: apt
Version: 2.1.12
Severity: normal

Hello,

The release notes tell people that they should basically use

apt-get upgrade
apt-get dist-upgrade

But people tend to rather use

apt upgrade
apt dist-upgrade

I guess essentially because apt provides progression indication.

The problem is that these are not equivalent: apt upgrade will attempt
to install additional packages required by newer versions of existing
packages. That can lead to conflicts/breaks with other existing
packages, and thus get into all the complexity that using apt-get
upgrade first avoids.

The problem is then that actual users end up in *other* situations than
what would typically be tested according to the release notes.

We can try to insist on making people use apt-get upgrade instead of apt
upgrade, but I believe that can only work if apt-get provides at least
*some* progress indication, especially for distribution upgrades, whose
duration are quite unknown before doing them.

Alternatively, we could fix apt into behaving really like apt-get, to
avoid that discrepancy between what debian developers actually test and
what users actually use.

Samuel

-- System Information:
Debian Release: bullseye/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'testing-debug'), (500, 'stable-debug'), (500, 'proposed-updates-debug'), (500, 'proposed-updates'), (500, 'oldoldstable'), (500, 'buildd-unstable'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (500, 'oldstable'), (1, 'experimental-debug'), (1, 'buildd-experimental'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 5.9.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU threads)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_WARN, TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Versions of packages apt depends on:
ii  adduser                 3.118
ii  debian-archive-keyring  2019.1
ii  gpgv                    2.2.20-1
ii  gpgv1                   1.4.23-1+b1
ii  libapt-pkg6.0           2.1.12
ii  libc6                   2.31-5
ii  libgcc-s1               10.2.1-1
ii  libgnutls30             3.6.15-4
ii  libseccomp2             2.5.0-3+b1
ii  libstdc++6              10.2.1-1
ii  libsystemd0             247.1-3

Versions of packages apt recommends:
ii  ca-certificates  20200601

Versions of packages apt suggests:
pn  apt-doc         <none>
ii  aptitude        0.8.13-2+b1
ii  dpkg-dev        1.20.5
ii  gnupg           2.2.20-1
ii  gnupg1          1.4.23-1+b1
ii  gnupg2          2.2.20-1
ii  powermgmt-base  1.36
ii  synaptic        0.90.2

-- no debconf information

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi Samuel,

On 18-03-2021 12:04, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Paul Gevers, le jeu. 18 mars 2021 12:01:33 +0100, a ecrit:
>> On 17-03-2021 19:40, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>> Paul Gevers, le mer. 17 mars 2021 19:38:16 +0100, a ecrit:
>>>>> "apt upgrade --without-new-pkgs"
>>>>
>>>> Looking into history, I see we did this because of
>>>> https://bugs.debian.org/931637. I guess your suggestion is a better
>>>> alternative?
>>>
>>> It would probably fill both the objective of upgrading without new
>>> packages, and letting users have a progression bar, yes.
>>
>> Sanity check, does the attached patch do what you mean?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> Samuel

Committed, thanks.

Paul

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: