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

Re: update messages

On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 09:33:10PM +0000, Digby Tarvin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 01:02:25PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > 
> > and then follow up with 
> > 
> > aptitude dist-upgrade
> Is that last line what is needed to get aptitude back into
> sync? If not, how is that achieved?

no, it won't. there are a variety of ways to do this. I prefer the
method below where you watch for problems and fix them as they
appear. There are several threads on this int he recent archives that
detail other methods of solving this problem (I think they essentially
mark *everything* as manual).

> > > Then I can try running aptitude and hopefully it will have stopped
> > > crashing and can tell me what else it thinks is left to be done....
> > 
> > I missed the bit about it crashing. what's happening?
> It only started happening after I had tried an 'apt-get install aptitude'
> to upgrade to the latest version (and co-incidentally after I had done
> the 'apt-get install' of the pgp keyring - so I am not certain which
> was responsible).
> What happens now is that after any attempt to issue a 'u' command in
> aptitude, I get an abort leaving me back in the command line (with a
> garbled display) and the error message:
>  aptitude: symbol lookup error: aptitude: undefined symbol: _ZN9pkgPolicyD2Ev

yuck. that sounds like a bug. does it do the same from command line?

aptitude update

> > > One of the things that bothered me about what aptitude wanted to do
> > > was that it included several packages it threatened to remove because
> > > they were 'no longer used'. I don't know how it decided this, as the
> > > list included packages like 'xv' and 'xearth' which I explicitly
> > > installed and definately use quite regularly....
> > 
> > run aptitude in interactive mode and manually mark those packages:
> > 
> > aptitude
> > 
> > then 'u' to update, 'U' to mark for upgrade, then 'g' to see what it
> > want to do. scroll through and mark 'm' on those you want to keep,
> > which should mark them as manually installed. you may need to '+'
> > them as well, to keep them around. I have not been using aptitude long
> > (having used apt-get exclusively before), but am learning that you can
> > actually get it to do what *you* want with a little fiddling. Then it
> > will generally respect what you want...
> So this behaviour could be the result of my having installed some
> applications using 'apt-get install' rather than aptitude, leaving
> aptitude unaware of them being manual rather than automatic
> installs? That would explain things.

absolutely correct. 

keep on pluggin' away


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: