Re: wheezy, message log being spammed by segfaults from apt_check.py
On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 21:37:49 -0500
Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote:
>On Thursday 14 January 2016 21:04:32 Charlie Kravetz wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 00:27:19 +0000
>>
>> Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Thursday 14 January 2016 23:49:03 Gene Heskett wrote:
>> >> On Thursday 14 January 2016 17:39:59 Johann Klammer wrote:
>> >> > On 01/14/2016 10:50 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> >> > > On Thursday 14 January 2016 16:18:08 Johann Klammer wrote:
>> >> > >> Synaptic runs on your box?
>> >> > >> Years ago, when I tried it, it would always crash right on
>> >> > >> startup.... use aptitude. It seems a lot more stable...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Back on list where it belongs.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I just ran it, and its obvious it doesn't reference the same
>> >> > > database of installed files that apt and synaptic use. It just
>> >> > > now wanted
>> >> >
>> >> > AFAIK, It does use the same database. Your system seems hosed...
>> >> > Are you running it on the box that the OS is installed on, or on
>> >> > some (boot... ,whatever) client?
>> >>
>> >> Directly on the os and box connected to this keyboard, no vpn's or
>> >> anything else involved.
>> >>
>> >> > > to "upgrade" or sidegrade, 292 packages. Refreshing the list
>> >> > > didn't help but it reminded me of the 4 color screens we had on
>> >> > > the amiga's back in the amigados-1.3 days. Positively an
>> >> > > assault on the eyeballs.
>> >> >
>> >> > press u to update.
>> >>
>> >> I did, didn't affect its faulty judgement a bit. It still wanted to
>> >> update nearly 300 packages.
>> >>
>> >> > > But when an uptodate system is said to have 292 old or
>> >> > > defective packages on it, I'm not sure I want it mucking around
>> >> > > in MY used car lot.
>> >> >
>> >> > what kind of defective? broken? that means the dependencies are
>> >> > not met... Press e to start the interactive resolver.
>> >> > a and r to accept or reject.
>> >>
>> >> I'd have no clue what its doing in the background when I do that.
>> >> FWIW, I had it hose the system on my laptop about 4 years ago with
>> >> exactly this sort of a starting point. I'll pass as its 99.99%
>> >> working right now.
>> >>
>> >> > > For what its worth, as root, an apt-get update, followed by an
>> >> > > apt-get upgrade reports 0 package to upgrade.
>>
>> The answer may be in the above sentence. What does apt-get update,
>> followed by apt-get dist-upgrade show? upgrade on its own does not
>> upgrade all packages. It skips kernel and some other stuff. Perhaps
>> that accounts for the differences?
>
>Will that not update me to Jessie? I'd rather not take that step until a
>fresh spin is available from linuxcnc.org, not too long after 16.04 LTS
>is out.
It will only upgrade if you add or change the /etc/apt/sources.list to
include jessie or stable. As long as the sources.list is referring to
wheezy only, it will simply upgrade all the packages to the highest
level in wheezy. Without it, a bunch of packages will not upgrade, ever.
Let's see if anyone else can shed more light on this. I have always
used dist-upgrade, because I always wanted all the packages up-to-date.
If it is never used, running debian, the kernel has never upgraded and
could cause another batch of monkeys running really bad.
>
>> >> > > From that it would appear aptitude is confused at best, broken
>> >> > > at worst.
>> >>
>> >> No comment? Seems like the above report does warrant some sort of
>> >> a reply.
>> >
>> >Gene, it isn't worthy of a response, so Johann wisely ignored it.
>> > Johann - Gene has wheezy-backports fully enabled in his
>> > sources.list, with, so far as I can tell, the same pinning as the
>> > other sources. Synaptic used it to upgrade over 300 packages. It
>> > is probably some kind of kludge, resulting from this,that Aptitude
>> > is trying to sort out.
>> >
>> >Gene enjoys breaking his system and then seeing if he can make it run
>> > again. Genuinely. I believe. If it actually ran smoothly he would
>> > probably be bored, and immediately deliberately break it again. He
>> > wants to write all his own scripts, and is frustrated that he is not
>> > as good at it as when he was younger (I can empathise there!!), but
>> > uses a GUI package manager which isn't as good at sorting out
>> > problems, and shies away from the CLI. :-/
>> >
>> >But, as I say, Aptitude is probably unhappy with a system fully
>> > upgraded to Backports.
>> >
>> >> > > All of these tools are, AFAIK, supposed to be using the same
>> >> > > sources.list, and the same installed list. update-manager does
>> >> > > but Obviously aptitude is not.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I believe I'll stick to using synaptic.
>> >>
>> >> +10
>> >
>> >Glad you still wholeheartedly agree with yourself, Gene. ;-)
>> >
>> >Lisi
>
>
>Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
Charlie Kravetz
Linux Registered User Number 425914
[http://linuxcounter.net/user/425914.html]
Never let anyone steal your DREAM. [http://keepingdreams.com]
Reply to: