Re: Jessie --> Stretch upgrade, apt question
On Thu 29 Jun 2017 at 07:31:35 (+0000), Curt wrote:
> On 2017-06-28, David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> 'apt-get install <package>' will tell you why a package is being held
> >> back (or, as discussed in another thread, will ask your permission to
> >> install an extra package--or packages--in order to meet its dependencies).
> >
> > It's less risky to add the -s switch and just be a user, thus:
>
> I wasn't aware of that.
>
> > $ apt-get -s install <package>
>
> However:
>
> curty@einstein:~$ apt-get -s install bzflag
> NOTE: This is only a simulation!
> apt-get needs root privileges for real execution.
> Keep also in mind that locking is deactivated,
> so don't depend on the relevance to the real current
> situation!
>
> I suppose 'locking is deactivated, so don't depend on the relevance to the
> real current situation!" might mean on a multi-user system on which the
> administrator is fiddling with a package manager concurrently, the
> output of your command might or might not reflect reality.
Yes, that's the meaning of the disclaimer, but I've always assumed
that almost everyone here is an administrator for their system(s).
However, some are very timorous when it comes to running the apt*
package managers, particularly as root.
> >>>> [Re: apt-get upgrade problem] >>> What?
>
> > Attached…
>
> So you were facetiously applying my query to the Woolf signature quote
> (which I don't see and didn't think anybody was seeing and assumed was
> being snipped by the list master along with all the other conformingly
> formatted signatures).
I can't see the point of using a signature that can't be seen.
My mutt client displays them (coloured when conforming), both
when composing messages (which allows for tweaking) and when
reading them. I also see them in the list archives.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: