Re: aptitude is dangerous - any replacement?
On 2017-03-21 08:00:52 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Note: I still want to keep experimental in my sources.list for the
> > cases where I *explicitly* request experimental packages.
>
> I keep these extra thingies commented out in my sources.list and
> whenever I want to explicitly request some package from them,
> I uncomment the line, redo the `update` and then the install, after
> which I try not to forget to comment it out again,
But then, you cannot know when a package from experimental is
upgradeable. This was the whole point here, because I have a
cron script that does:
apt-show-versions -u | grep manually
so that I know when I may need to upgrade a package that was installed
from experimental.
Now... After a closer look, I've found that aptitude was not the
culprit here. Even though I got:
libreoffice-common:all/experimental *manually* upgradeable from 1:5.2.6-1 to 1:5.3.1-1
libreoffice-java-common:all/experimental *manually* upgradeable from 1:5.2.6-1 to 1:5.3.1-1
[...]
version 1:5.2.6-1 was never in experimental. It just comes from
unstable, so that aptitude was OK. The bug is in apt-show-versions,
which I've just reported:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=858337
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
Reply to: