Re: dist-upgrade wants to deinstall lots of packages?
On Fri 18 Sep 2020 at 10:33:39 (+0100), Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 11:01:49AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > It's difficult to understand your OP, and your difficulty with
> > pasting. However, to take one example,
>
> Indeed without OP's terminal output we can only guess as to why the
> packages are being removed from their system,
From:
$ cat /etc/debian_version
10.5
$ apt-get -s full-upgrade
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!
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
$
I assume the OP is running or intending to run an unreleased suite.
> > [wicd] news
> >
> > [2020-08-22] Removed 1.7.4+tb2-6 from unstable (Debian FTP Masters)
> > [2019-12-06] Accepted wicd 1.7.4+tb2+2019.09.18git2e0ba579-1 (source all)
> > into experimental, experimental (Axel Beckert)
> > [2019-10-23] wicd REMOVED from testing (Debian testing watch)
>
> wicd has been removed from the archive (because it is unmaintained) but
> it should not be automatically removed from people's systems as a
> consequence. There must be another explanation for OP's situation.
Yes, I suppose that some conflicting dependency might be introduced
as new versions of libraries etc arrive in unstable. In a sense, that
ought to happen as the suite evolves, and it's partly down to chance
when it doesn't. (For example, I still install xtoolwait from squeeze.)
> That said OP would be wise to look for an alternative to wicd now.
Absolutely. I started to do that last month, when it was mentioned
that wicd was in danger of disappearing, as a casualty of python2.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/08/msg00782.html
Currently I'm reading the files in connman-doc, having seen that
advocated here.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: