Re: aptitude cli undocumented behaviour [was: aptitude cli options vs. apt-get ...]
Michael Lange wrote on 10/05/16 20:42:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 11:19:52 +0200
> Michael Lange <klappnase@freenet.de> wrote:
>
> (...)
>> So my question is: is there a way to include updates to packages put on
>> hold to the output of "aptitude full-upgrade" as in apt-get, that I have
>> been missing, or is this simply not possible?
>
> I looked again at man aptitude and according to the paragraphs about
> "safe-upgrade" and "full-upgrade":
>
> "If no <package>s are listed on the command line, aptitude will attempt
> to upgrade every package that can be upgraded. Otherwise, aptitude will
> attempt to upgrade only the packages which it is instructed to
> upgrade."
>
> I would have expected, that passing the packages put on hold as
> arguments, as in
>
> aptitude full-upgrade `aptitude -q=2 -F %p search ~U`
>
> would only try to upgrade these. However when I tried a dry-run on my
> almost-up-to-date Jessie box here, with a few holds (hplip and friends) I
> got the following surprising result (command lines wrapped by sylpheed):
>
> The list of package holds:
>
> # aptitude -q=2 -F %p search ~ahold
> hplip
> hplip-data
> hplip-gui
> libhpmud0
> libsane-hpaio
> printer-driver-hpcups
>
> Available updates that would be installed by default:
>
> # aptitude -y -v -s full-upgrade | /bin/grep ^Inst | /usr/bin/cut -d\
> -f2 | /usr/bin/sort
> libdatetime-timezone-perl
> tzdata
> tzdata-java
>
> # aptitude -y -v -s full-upgrade `aptitude -q=2 -F %p search ~U`
> | /bin/grep ^Inst | /usr/bin/cut -d\ -f2 | /usr/bin/sort
> hplip
> hplip-data
> hplip-gui
> libdatetime-timezone-perl
> libhpmud0
> libsane-hpaio
> printer-driver-hpcups
> tzdata
> tzdata-java
>
> tzdata and friends obviously don't have anything to do with hplip, so it
> looks like the man page isn't telling the truth.
> Can anyone confirm this behaviour, did I misinterpret the manpage, or why
> does this happen?
> Right now this looks like it is exactly what I have been asking for in
> the first post, but the manpage seems to contradict...
>
You used '~U' in the first and the last command, not '~ahold'.
This last command could also be written shorter:
aptitude -y -v -s full-upgrade '~U' | ...
There's also the switch '--remove-user-tag':
aptitude -y -v -s --remove-tag hold full-upgrade | ...
Does this what you want?
Regards,
jvp.
Reply to: