Bug#138721: marked as done (Pin entries in /etc/apt/preferences cause `apt-get dist-upgrade` to newly install seemingly totally unrelated packages)
Your message dated Sun, 17 Mar 2002 13:02:11 -0700 (MST)
with message-id <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.96.1020317130056.16701B-100000@wakko.debian.net>
and subject line Bug#138721: Pin entries in /etc/apt/preferences cause `apt-get dist-upgrade` to newly install seemingly totally unrelated packages
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Mar 2002 09:30:30 +0000
>From julian@mehnle.net Sun Mar 17 03:30:30 2002
Return-path: <julian@mehnle.net>
Received: from moutng1.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 16mWzl-00017o-00; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 03:30:30 -0600
Received: from [212.227.126.160] (helo=mrelayng0.kundenserver.de)
by moutng1.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #2)
id 16mWzk-0007QP-00
for submit@bugs.debian.org; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 10:30:28 +0100
Received: from [217.228.253.136] (helo=nova)
by mrelayng0.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.22 #2)
id 16mWzk-0001qc-00
for submit@bugs.debian.org; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 10:30:28 +0100
From: "Julian Mehnle" <julian@mehnle.net>
To: <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: Pin entries in /etc/apt/preferences cause `apt-get dist-upgrade` to newly install seemingly totally unrelated packages
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 10:31:12 +0100
Message-ID: <[🔎] EHEOIEJMBFBKCKMPHFJKKEDDCKAA.julian@mehnle.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Package: apt
Version: 0.5.4
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On a system, I'm running Debian Linux Testing (AKA Woody). I also have
some IPv6-enabled packages installed via some additional lines in my
/etc/apt/sources.list, which is:
| # Main Debian Sources:
| deb http://ftp2.de.debian.org/debian/ testing main non-free contrib
| deb http://ftp2.de.debian.org/debian-non-US/ testing/non-US main
contrib non-free
| deb http://security.debian.org/ stable/updates main contrib non-free
|
| # IPv6 Sources:
| deb http://www14.u-page.so-net.ne.jp/db3/h-yamamo/ipv6/debian/ woody/
| deb http://people.debian.org/~kitame/ipv6/ ipv6 unstable
|
| # Source Package Sources:
| deb-src http://ftp2.de.debian.org/debian/ testing main non-free contrib
| deb-src http://ftp2.de.debian.org/debian-non-US/ testing/non-US main
contrib non-free
Now, I recently ran into some weird apt-get behavior that I'm unable
to explain.
Initially, I had installed an IPv6-enabled "apache" package with the
version number "1.3.22-ipv6.20011017.2". Everything worked fine.
Then, a new, non-IPv6-enabled "apache" package with the version number
"1.3.23-1" was released. To keep apt-get from replacing my (older)
IPv6-enabled Apache 1.3.22-ipv6.20011017.2 by the (newer) non-IPv6-
enabled Apache 1.3.23-1, I created a /etc/apt/preferences file with
the following contents:
| Package: *
| Pin: release o=h-yamamo-IPv6-Debian
| Pin-Priority: 989
|
| Package: apache
| Pin: version 1.3.22-ipv6.20011017.2
|
| Package: apache-common
| Pin: version 1.3.22-ipv6.20011017.2
|
| Package: apache-doc
| Pin: version 1.3.22-ipv6.20011017.2
So, apt-get correctly desisted from replacing my IPv6-enabled Apache.
Everyting worked fine.
A few days ago, my routine `apt-get dist-upgrade` suddenly said:
| The following NEW packages will be installed:
| libdevel-symdump-perl libdigest-md5-perl libhtml-parser-perl
| libhtml-tagset-perl libhtml-tree-perl libmime-base64-perl
| libnet-perl liburi-perl libwww-perl
| The following packages have been kept back
| libapache-mod-ssl
| The following packages will be upgraded
| doc-linux-text host libfreetype6 librecode0 makedev modconf
| recode recode-doc reportbug whois zlib1g
| 11 packages upgraded, 9 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not
| upgraded.
apt-get wanted to install 9 *new*, (AFAICT) totally unrelated packages.
I checked the reverse dependencies of these 9 packages, and the
forward dependencies of the held-back and to-be-upgraded packages,
but nothing pointed at any one of the 9 to-be-newly-installed packages!
Then, I found out that an IPv6-enabled 1.3.23 Apache had also been
released ("1.3.23-ipv6.20011123.1"), so the three Apache-related Pin
entries in /etc/apt/preferences had become obsolete. So, I changed
/etc/apt/preferences to:
| Package: *
| Pin: release o=h-yamamo-IPv6-Debian
| Pin-Priority: 989
and re-ran `apt-get dist-upgrade`:
| The following packages will be upgraded
| apache apache-common apache-doc doc-linux-text host
| libapache-mod-ssl libfreetype6 librecode0 makedev modconf recode
| recode-doc reportbug whois zlib1g
| 15 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not
| upgraded.
Now, apt-get no longer tried to install the 9 new packages mentioned
above. I think that *this* is the correct behavior.
But *what* in the world made apt-get wanting to install these 9
packages in the first place? I think this is a bug!
Regards,
Julian Mehnle.
PS: As suggested on the Debian Bug Tracking Instruction page, I include
some information about my kernel and libc as well:
| io:~> uname -a
| Linux io 2.4.17-ipv6 #2 Sun Dec 23 03:42:20 CET 2001 i586 unknown
| io:~> dpkg -s libc6 | grep ^Version
| Version: 2.2.5-3
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
Comment: Get my PGP public key at <http://www.mehnle.net/about>.
iQA/AwUBPJRUOsC+zypQWVo7EQJeIgCgggxmC9WMx/4+ynELPX+CZexYl5YAoJzF
hVP9TpgufhAfZ4mRN9baw021
=//vZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 138721-done) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Mar 2002 20:02:13 +0000
>From jgg@debian.org Sun Mar 17 14:02:13 2002
Return-path: <jgg@debian.org>
Received: from crack-ext.ab.videon.ca [206.75.216.33]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 16mgr6-0003uX-00; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 14:02:12 -0600
Received: (qmail 7108 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2002 20:02:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO wakko.debian.net) ([24.86.210.128]) (envelope-sender <jgg@debian.org>)
by crack-ext.ab.videon.ca (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
for <julian@mehnle.net>; 17 Mar 2002 20:02:11 -0000
Received: from localhost
([127.0.0.1] helo=wakko.debian.net ident=jgg)
by wakko.debian.net with smtp (Exim 3.16 #1 (Debian))
id 16mgr5-0007rS-00; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 13:02:11 -0700
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 13:02:11 -0700 (MST)
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@debian.org>
X-Sender: jgg@wakko.debian.net
To: Julian Mehnle <julian@mehnle.net>, 138721-done@bugs.debian.org
cc: APT Development Team <deity@lists.debian.org>, apt@packages.qa.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#138721: Pin entries in /etc/apt/preferences cause `apt-get dist-upgrade` to newly install seemingly totally unrelated packages
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] EHEOIEJMBFBKCKMPHFJKKEDDCKAA.julian@mehnle.net>
Message-ID: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.96.1020317130056.16701B-100000@wakko.debian.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Delivered-To: 138721-done@bugs.debian.org
On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> apt-get wanted to install 9 *new*, (AFAICT) totally unrelated packages.
> I checked the reverse dependencies of these 9 packages, and the
> forward dependencies of the held-back and to-be-upgraded packages,
> but nothing pointed at any one of the 9 to-be-newly-installed packages!
Use the -o debug::pkgproblemresolver=true option which will help you
determine why those packages were selected. Something on your system does
depend on them somehow or they would never have been selected.
Jason
Reply to: