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

Re: holding back buggy packages

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:27:57 -0400, Celejar wrote:
> Hi,
> A common use case with aptitude (interactive mode ) / apt-listbugs is:
> a) order an upgrade
> b) aptitude downloads packages
> c) apt-listbugs reports some serious bug in a package
> d) I decide not to install / upgrade the problematic package, after
> reading the short bug description, or looking it up in the BTS
> e) hit 'n' to abort the installation / upgrade
> f) search for the package via something like
> '^first-few-letters-of-package', and keep looking until I find the
> right one.
> g) hold with '='
> h) reorder the upgrade
> Is there any way to automate / consolidate steps e-h?  IOW, I'd like
> some simple way to just tell aptitude: "Okay, don't install the buggy
> package, so just redo the upgrade / installation without it"?

This is not a dramatic improvement, but a bit quicker, I think:

a)-e) as above
f) hit 'g' to see the actions preview again
g) Scroll to the buggy packages in the actions preview, where they are
   easy to find, and use 'F' to forbid upgrades to the buggy versions.
   (You can also use '=' to hold if you prefer; I like forbid-version
   better because it means that I do not have to remember to remove the
   hold once a newer, hopefully fixed, version is available.)
h) press 'g' again to go ahead with the upgrade of all other packages

I am not even sure if I would like an automatic hold of all buggy
packages, because many of the serious/critical bugs reported by
apt-listbugs are irrelevant to me in practice (e.g. a package fails to
build on an architecture that I do not use, a policy violation that has
no effect on me, a file overwrite conflict that I can easily fix myself,
etc.). As for the packages that I actually do want to hold back, I can
normally change their settings very quickly just by scrolling through
the actions preview and hitting 'F' where appropriate.

Regards,            |
          Florian   |

Reply to: