Re: To dselect or aptitude, that is the question
Hello Jules,
Jules Dubois wrote:
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?
Yes.
Sometimes you are better of removing a broken package, and then
reinstalling it.
My impression was that you were looking at a potentially broken system,
and thought that the appropriate response was damage control.
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.
Because you say you need a stable system for the next three weeks, and
if you start to play, you might not have that.
It all depends on your definition of the terminology 'need', I suppose.
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.
Nothing wrong with unstable.
It's where I'm heading.
But it's too late to shut the stable door, once the horse has bolted.
How important are the next three weeks?
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.
Comment out all unwanted apt/ sources.list entries before you do so.
2) The new versions of these packages have dependencies which conflict
with the dependencies of some other packages I have installed.
In some circumstances this will not be a problem. Your package manager
will simply remove the old dependencies, replacing them with the new
equivalents.
In other circumstances, where you have a number of different release
entries open in your sources list, this will turn you into somebody who
works in the night time entertainment industry.
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.
Yes.
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'.
Make the process gradual.
Get yourself a full Sarge system first, and after that go to Sid.
Regards,
David.
Reply to: