Re: WARNING! New Perl/Perl-base upgrade removes 141 Sid/Unstable packages
On 9/24/16, Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> wrote:
> Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Good morning! Just a heads up that upgrading the following two
>> packages attempts to remove 141 unrelated packages in Sid/Unstable
>> this morning:
>
>> perl 5.24.1~rc3-2
>> perl-base 5.24.1~rc3-2
>
>> I grab AMD64 packages in case that makes a difference AND I have other
>> larger packages still waiting to be upgraded, as well.A total of
>> almost 400MB the last couple days! Am on dialup and have to be
>> selective about the order in which packages are upgraded in between
>> taking the opportunity to actually participate online.
>
>> Yes, a bug has been filed, just minutes ago, and only against Perl at this
>> time.
>
> Why would you think this is a bug? This is just a normal Perl-API
> transition, the packages need to be rebuild against the new perl to be
> compatible.
>
> This _is_ Unstable after all, things like this happen all the time.
YES, I know this is Unstable. That's why I specifically made that
declaration in the email's subject line and other (i.e. "the bug
report", grin). I'm one of the ones who issues that statement herself
on regular occasion.
I'm actually looking around at various distributions/releases because
Unstable is so constantly changing right now. There's 400MB+ needing
upgraded again, potentially almost 500MB since that 400MB+ number is
courtesy "apt-get upgrade", GRIN.
YES, that is Unstable's *expected* business as usual and opens the
door to consider the *_CHOICE_* of potentially better using that much
download time plus server wear-and-tear to make a new start somehow.
> Just use only "apt upgrade" for a few days until the transition is over.
>
> See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=838760#10 as well.
This email's very wholesome purpose was to serve as a notice to
newbies (and people like me with cognitive disabilities) who
could/would miss that they need to pay wide open attention today.
"apt-get install"..... It *does* stop and give you that advisement
that you're about to remove a bunch of packages. It's then the user's
*_CHOICE_* to select yes or no regarding continuing the operation.
It *would be nice* if there was an even more visual... a more "stern",
stimulating trigger...... of some kind. Just this second, I don't know
what would help newer users AND keep seasoned users happy at the same
time.
I saw this as a bug because 141 packages were being not only disabled
but removed. Along the lines of my thoughts about apt-get's advisement
in more extreme situations like this, perhaps a nice wishlist item for
reportbug would be that it... I don't know.... guides the user based
on its finding of the Sid/Unstable declaration (variable), as well,
e.g. that part where reportbug picks up and reports this:
"Debian Release: stretch/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')"
What you're saying about the use of "apt-get upgrade", that's just
what I was saying the other day about the difference in how "apt-get
install" and "apt-get upgrade" reacts...
Except that...
In the case I was saying the other day, it wasn't like this.
Libreoffice was installing fine via "apt-get install". There were no
glitches, no potentially negative advisements, to be seen in the
"install" action towards upgrade. BUT if I performed a wide open,
generic "apt-get upgrade" (purely on a whim), many libreoffice
packages (including libreoffice itself) were then held back.
Just tested it again and am still receiving the following (regarding
libreoffice only via "apt-get upgrade"):
"The following packages have been kept back:
libreoffice libreoffice-avmedia-backend-gstreamer libreoffice-base
libreoffice-base-core libreoffice-base-drivers libreoffice-calc
libreoffice-core libreoffice-draw libreoffice-impress libreoffice-math
libreoffice-report-builder-bin libreoffice-sdbc-firebird
libreoffice-sdbc-hsqldb libreoffice-writer"
Per your suggestion, perl and perl-base are, YES, additionally now
included in what's being reported as being held back for that same
"apt-get upgrade" just now. :)
PS There are a couple other packages in there that have been in there
for a VERY. LONG. TIME. Won't mention any names publicly here....
mostly because I'm not 100% sure why they're there.
One's a possibly much lesser known but the other is something touched
on with the most basic of installs via debootstrap. I think that one's
ok to let have its head with package deletion via "apt-get install",
but I need to *cognitively* understand first before following through.
The one most basic of packages wants to remove openjdk-7-jre and
openjdk-7-jre-headless. By doing things as manually as I have to do, I
experience the nice advantage of knowing that openjdk-8-jre and
openjdk-8-jre-headless are installed as the wave of the Future. I just
don't want to a-sume it's ok to let the prior ones being automatically
deleted until I read someone with authority saying that's the next
step up, especially since "apt-get upgrade" considers it a situation
that needs held back. :)
Cindy :)
--
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA
* runs with duct tape *
Reply to: