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

Re: To dselect or aptitude, that is the question



In article <[🔎] 408BDED4.9050503@weavers-web.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
>>them?
>> 
> 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
status is:

1) No package as installed on my system is broken.

2) I don't require any upgrades.

However,

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.



Reply to: