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

Re: Plasma 5.21.1 in Experimental



Hi Martin

My answer below depends on the starting point at your PC.

I retrieved the list of installed plasma related packages using something like:

dpkg -l | fgrep 5.2xy  | awk '{ print $2 }' > toupgrade
[As my PC was on 5.21.0 I could use 5.21.0  in the fgrep, if you're at 5.20 you should use that of course.]

and then

apt install -t experimental `cat toupgrade`

Regards,

Luc

Op vr 26 feb. 2021 om 12:30 schreef Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de>:
Hi Luc,

Luc Castermans - 26.02.21, 12:12:48 CET:
> Upstream Plasma 5.21.1 was released Feb 23, yesterday I installed it
> from Experimental.    A big wow and even a bigger thanks to all who
> made this possible. I am tempted to mention names, don´t do that in
> order not to disappoint people. Thank you community!

Thanks for letting us know.

What exact command did you use?

I already installed KDE Frameworks 5.79 from Experimental on top of
Devuan Ceres – which is basically very similar to Debian Sid, just
without Systemd by default without having to deal with some…
uncooperative Debian maintainers (none from the Debian Qt/KDE team, midn
you).

However… I am certainly do not like to use the approach Sedat used
initially, which is:

RELEASE="experimental" ; LC_ALL=C apt-get dist-upgrade -V -t $RELEASE

Cause it would upgrade too much.

I instead did so with meta packages for Plasma, yet it still pulled
libglib from experimental and things did not work as expected, maybe due
to a partial upgrade of Plasma packages. Back then I downgraded
everything to 5.20 again and reverted all the other package upgrades to
Debian experimental as well.

So I would like to just install Plasma 5.21.1 from experimental, but
that complete, without upgrading unrelated packages to experimental as
well.

Any aptitude / apt foo magic recommendation? Otherwise I try to come up
with something myself.

Best,
--
Martin




--
Luc Castermans
mailto:luc.castermans@gmail.com

Reply to: