Re: To dselect or aptitude, that is the question
In article <408BDED4.firstname.lastname@example.org>, on Sun, 25 Apr 2004
23:52:52 +0800, Katipo wrote:
Thank you for your comments. I'm can see I've not been very clear in my
previous messages. I'll try again.
> Jules Dubois wrote:
>>If I can find some combination of installable or upgradable packages
>>which removes a "broken" condition, can I just go ahead and install
> I think the immediate requirement is to go into your sources list and
> comment out all those unwanted lines. The thing that woke me up was the
> packet managers' advice concerning an 'inconsistant variation', or
> something to that effect.
I've had non-upgradable packages in the past, when I was running
'testing', such as when updated packages from big suites like KDE began
appearing there. I can't discern any ill effects from the situation.
> First thing:- stabilise your system.
My system is stable (i.e., working as expected). Nothing that's actually
installed on my system is broken (i.e., marked by Aptitude, Synaptic, or
apt-get as having dependency problems).
> Comment out snapshot and experimental as well.
I think I will do this.
> Next I would remove the Libranet adminmenu upgrade package, and place
> adminmenu itself on hold.
Why do I want to keep either package? I don't use them.
> Keep the Libranet entries, along with the stable and sarge,
What's wrong with unstable? I know I've read several convincing messages
saying the best choices are 'stable' and 'unstable' but, as usual, I
remember the conclusion and not the rationale.
> Then I would start removing broken packages and reinstalling them.
(I can see the lack of clarity in my previous messages.) My system's
1) No package as installed on my system is broken.
2) I don't require any upgrades.
1) Some packages which I've installed are listed as 'upgradable'.
I have older versions and newer versions are available.
2) The new versions of these packages have dependencies which conflict
with the dependencies of some other packages I have installed.
3) Aptitude labels these packages, if I remove the 'hold', as 'broken'.
It seems to consider brokenness to apply to the upgrades, not my system
as it currently stands. I find this to be reasonable behavior.
4) Synaptic doesn't list these packages as broken but it won't allow me to
upgrade them. I find this to be reasonable behavior.
However, this means I have to
(a) wait for someone else to resolve these conflicts, giving me a
consistent set of upgrades; or
(b) resolve those conflicts, manually, to the extent I'm able to do so; or
(c) both of the above.
I really don't have any problems. I'm just seeking some advice on how to
proceed, probably sticking with 'unstable'.
"[Linux kernel v2.6 has] enterprise-level performance: you see 32-way
multiprocessor SMP configurations, 128-way NUMA configurations, high
degrees of reliability."
-- Darl McBride. CEO, The SCO Group. Harvard University lecture. 2/2/2004.