Bug#1071519: apt: "--solver 3.0" does not want to upgrade some packages
On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 11:47:13AM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> If you can do so, please use -o Dir::Log::Solver=<absolute path to file.edsp>
> to specify a file to dump the solver request to, and then compress and
> attach it to the bug report (it might need --solver internal if you
> default to 3.0, I need to check and eventually fix solver logging for
> 3.0 still).
I've, tried that, but no luck (different package this time):
# apt install -t unstable --mark-auto --solver 3.0 -o Dir::Log::Solver=/tmp/solver.edsp cd-paranoia
Summary:
Upgrading: 0, Installing: 0, Removing: 0, Not Upgrading: 124
# ls -l /tmp/solver.edsp
ls: cannot access '/tmp/solver.edsp': No such file or directory
The good news is, --mark-auto really seems to be the trigger.
> It could also be that the reason is the --mark-auto. This marks the
> request to install that specific version as automatic presumably,
Well, that's what the documentation says, but that's not how it works
according to my experience. In real life, what "--mark-auto" appears to
mean is "do not touch the auto/manual status of the package, leave it as
it was before". And that's _EXACTLY_ what I want 90% of the time when I
run "apt install", so I tend to always use this flag. I rarely install
new packages which I would also want to keep, but I do install versions
of random packages from unstable on a daily basis to see what's coming -
and I don't want those to be marked as manually installed.
Actually, if I mess up the command (e.g. I forgot the "-t unsable")
option and apt finds that the package is already up to date, then apt
still marks the package as manually installed even if "--mark-auto" was
used - now that is annoying.
There really should be a better way to say "if a package is already
installed and I just want to upgrade it, then under no circumstances
change it from auto-installed to manual or vice versa". Otherwise,
eveything gets marked as manually installed over time, and "apt
autoremove" becomes pretty much useless.
Regards,
Gabor
Reply to: