Re: What's the best package manager for single-package upgrades?
Hi,
Please, stop complaining, and do your research
Joe Rhett <jrhett@isite.net> writes:
> > HOWEVER, both of these commands are starting from the goal of upgrading
> > to newer versions of packages you _already_ have installed. It gives
> > you no idea what _else_ might be included in sarge.
>
> That's exactly what I want.
>
> Can you clarify the above -- is there a way to get a list of what you have
> that has new versions but don't meet dependancies?
[...]
if you make an
$ apt-get update
$ apt-get upgrade
(or dist-upgrade) it will tell you "XXX packages have been held back."
These packages have new versions, but for some reason or another (maybe
dependencies problems) can not be upgraded without manual intervention.
[...]
> > > Perhaps my product selections are biased: I really could care less about
> > > the latest and greatest desktop. They are pretty. But a browser that
> > > actually works is required to do my job, for example.
> >
> > Fist off, you've already had the suggestion offered of using a backport
> > for this. Before you get too carried away with complaining that the
> > entire Debian process is useless, why don't you try the solution that
> > works for so many people.
> > Apt-get.org is your friend.
>
> The backports DO NOT fit into the debian framework. I can't use app-get to
> manage their dependancies. (unless there is some way to do this that isn't
> documented on the site)
>
Most backport sites offer the possibility to add a line to your
sources.list, so after you "apt-get update" their information is in the
apt database, and dependencies are properly handled.
For an excellent browser, try galen 1.2 (e.g. from
http://www.fs.tum.de/~bunk/packages/woody/bunk-1.html )
> > Oh, and on browsers: I've personally been extremely happy with Firebird
> > (from the Mozilla folks). It isn't packaged as a deb anywhere I've
> > seen, but just unpacking the tarball in /usr/local/bin and running it
> > has worked fine for me.
>
$ apt-cache policy mozilla-firebird
mozilla-firebird:
Installed: 0.6.1-8
Candidate: 0.6.1-8
Version Table:
*** 0.6.1-8 0
105 http://ftp.de.debian.org unstable/main Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
0.6.1-7 0
500 http://ftp.de.debian.org testing/main Packages
> I didn't say "useless", but I did say (and it does appear) that having the
> unified application/dependancy management system doesn't help here. I
> might as well run another Linux or Solarix x86, because apt-get isn't doing
> anything for me here. A given downloaded package (like firebird) might
> require something, and I'll have to manage all those dependancies myself.
>
Please, see above.
> Oh, and no -- there is no modern Mozilla backports. The most modern
> backport is 1.4b4. That's nearly 9 months old.
>
Wrong:
http://source.backports.org/debian/dists/woody/mozilla/binary-i386/
has mozilla 1.5. Aside, mozilla 1.5 was released some 2-3 weeks ago, you
need to leave some time for the people to do the packaging, right?
> > > Updates to the
> > > wireless drivers to improve device support would be useful. Stuff that has
> > > been safe and stable within Sid for over a year now (according to the
> > > package pages) still isn't appearing in testing.
Please, which stuff? Yes testing has its problems (like an old
Mozilla), by looking at http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/oldest.html I see
363 packages older that 60 days (2 months).
unstable has more than 12000 packages in main:
$ grep ^Package: /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.de.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-i386_Packages |wc
12753 25506 274210
therefore, less than a 3% of the packages in unstable but not in testing
are older than 2 months. Other packages have release critical BUGS
which are being worked on.
We can cook more numbers:
$ grep-dctrl -n -s Package,Version -e ".*" \
/var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.de.debian.org_debian_dists_testing_main_binary-i386_Packages \
|paste -sd " \n" > testing
(same for stable, unstable)
$ wc testing unstable stable
11927 23854 263672 testing
12753 25506 288123 unstable
8292 16584 177600 stable
32972 65944 729395 total
$ diff --suppress-common-lines --side-by-side stable testing |wc
10972 46946 537768
$ diff --suppress-common-lines --side-by-side testing unstable |wc
3392 14688 179604
(The way to cook this numbers has high inacuracies, but they can serve
some purpose)
So, we have nearly 12000 packages in testing. Of that lot, nearly 11000
have suffered some change since woody was released. On the other hand,
3000 packages are newer in unstable than in testing.
[...]
> Again, I'm still not seeing anything in testing. Neither the Mozilla nor
> the Konqueror or any other browser that I can see in testing has been
> updated in the last 2 years, and all of them contain unworkable flaws that
> prevent their use in any production environment.
>
Your are right for Mozilla, but ...
$ apt-cache policy konqueror
konqueror:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 4:2.2.2-14.7
Version Table:
4:3.1.3-1 0
105 http://ftp.de.debian.org unstable/main Packages
500 http://ftp.de.debian.org testing/main Packages
4:2.2.2-14.7 0
990 http://security.debian.org stable/updates/main Packages
4:2.2.2-14 0
990 http://ftp.de.debian.org stable/main Packages
I don't think konqueror 3.1.3 is 2 years old ..., and mozilla-firebird
is in testing (see above).
[...]
Please, check your sources.
Regards,
Jaume
--
Please answer to the group/list. Don't CC me.
Reply to: