Re: debian 10 security firefox-esr upgrade failing
138% sudo apt-get upgrade
[sudo] password for jr:
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
firefox-esr-l10n-ar firefox-esr-l10n-ast firefox-esr-l10n-be
firefox-esr-l10n-bg firefox-esr-l10n-bn firefox-esr-l10n-bs
firefox-esr-l10n-ca firefox-esr-l10n-cs firefox-esr-l10n-cy
firefox-esr-l10n-da firefox-esr-l10n-de firefox-esr-l10n-el
firefox-esr-l10n-en-gb firefox-esr-l10n-eo firefox-esr-l10n-es-ar
firefox-esr-l10n-es-cl firefox-esr-l10n-es-es firefox-esr-l10n-es-mx
firefox-esr-l10n-et firefox-esr-l10n-eu firefox-esr-l10n-fa
firefox-esr-l10n-fi firefox-esr-l10n-fr firefox-esr-l10n-ga-ie
firefox-esr-l10n-gl firefox-esr-l10n-gu-in firefox-esr-l10n-he
firefox-esr-l10n-hi-in firefox-esr-l10n-hr firefox-esr-l10n-hu
firefox-esr-l10n-id firefox-esr-l10n-is firefox-esr-l10n-it
firefox-esr-l10n-ja firefox-esr-l10n-kk firefox-esr-l10n-km
firefox-esr-l10n-kn firefox-esr-l10n-ko firefox-esr-l10n-lt
firefox-esr-l10n-lv firefox-esr-l10n-mk firefox-esr-l10n-mr
firefox-esr-l10n-nb-no firefox-esr-l10n-ne-np firefox-esr-l10n-nl
firefox-esr-l10n-nn-no firefox-esr-l10n-pa-in firefox-esr-l10n-pl
firefox-esr-l10n-pt-br firefox-esr-l10n-pt-pt firefox-esr-l10n-ro
firefox-esr-l10n-ru firefox-esr-l10n-si firefox-esr-l10n-sk
firefox-esr-l10n-sl firefox-esr-l10n-sq firefox-esr-l10n-sr
firefox-esr-l10n-sv-se firefox-esr-l10n-ta firefox-esr-l10n-te
firefox-esr-l10n-th firefox-esr-l10n-tr firefox-esr-l10n-uk
firefox-esr-l10n-vi firefox-esr-l10n-zh-cn firefox-esr-l10n-zh-tw
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 66 not upgraded.
-Thanks, Jim
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 08:49:27 -0500
Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 10:35:55PM -0500, Jim Rosenberg wrote:
> > Wow, thanks for the lightning quick response!!
> >
> > > When reporting problems like this it is really quite important to
> > > include complete output.
> >
> > 127% apt-cache policy firefox-esr
> > firefox-esr:
> > Installed: 115.6.0esr-1~deb10u1
> > Candidate: 115.6.0esr-1~deb10u1
> > Version table:
> > *** 115.6.0esr-1~deb10u1 500
> > 500 http://security.debian.org buster/updates/main amd64
> > Packages 500 http://security.debian.org/debian-security
> > buster/updates/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> > 91.12.0esr-1~deb10u1 500
> > 500 http://deb.debian.org/debian buster/main amd64 Packages
> >
> > 128% sudo apt update
> > [sudo] password for jr:
> > Hit:1 http://deb.debian.org/debian buster InRelease
> > Hit:2 http://security.debian.org buster/updates InRelease
> > Hit:3 http://security.debian.org/debian-security buster/updates
> > InRelease Hit:4 http://deb.debian.org/debian buster-updates
> > InRelease Hit:5 https://dbeaver.io/debs/dbeaver-ce InRelease
> > Reading package lists... Done
> > Building dependency tree
> > Reading state information... Done
> > 66 packages can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see them.
> >
> > 130% apt-get -s upgrade | grep upgraded
> > 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 66 not upgraded.
> >
> > 131% apt-get -s --with-new-pkgs upgrade | grep upgraded
> > 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
> >
>
> Your system doesn't seem to know anything of an unavailable firefox-esr
> package (it seems to think that the candidate is 115.6.0esr-1~deb10u1).
>
> I'll repeat what I said in my last message:
>
> > > When reporting problems like this it is really quite important to
> > > include complete output.
>
> You have chosen to run the output of 'apt-get -s upgrade' through 'grep'
> so that it is not possible to tell what problem apt-get may have
> encountered or what choice it made in deciding the viable upgrade
> path(s). By sending the output through 'grep' you have only allowed us
> to determine that 'apt-get' decided it could not upgrade 66 packages,
> but it is not possible to determine how or why apt reached that
> conclusion.
>
> Also, note that you have a third-party source in the mix (dbeaver.io)
> and since you didn't provide the output of 'apt-get -s upgrade' it isn't
> clear what influence (if any) the presence of that source is having on
> the situation.
>
> Please provide the full output so that we can help you determine what is
> going on.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Roberto
> --
> Roberto C. Sánchez
Reply to: