Bug#1098997: apt: Apt claims held broken packages - but none are held.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 08:01:00PM -0700, Troy Telford wrote:
> Package: apt
> Version: 2.9.30
> Severity: normal
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> * What led up to the situation?
>
> Standard system upgrade; `apt upgrade` isn't working
>
> * What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
> ineffective)?
>
> `apt upgrade` (specifically) fails
>
> * What was the outcome of this action?
>
> I realize this probalby looks boring and like user error - Bear with
> me a bit; I've been a `sid` user for 25+ years, so there's more to
> it than appears.
>
> > $ apt upgrade
>
> > Calculating upgrade... Error!
> > Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
> > requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
> > distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
> > or been moved out of Incoming.
> > The following information may help to resolve the situation:
>
> > Unsatisfied dependencies:
> > libmarblewidget-qt6-28 : Depends: libastro1 (= 4:24.12.2-3) but
> > 4:22.12.3-2.1 is to be installed
> > marble-plugins : Depends: libastro1 (= 4:24.12.2-3) but
> > 4:22.12.3-2.1 is to be installed
> > Error: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
>
> NORMALLY, as a `sid` user, I'd just wait a day or so and everything
> sorts itself out. However, after "a long enough time" I start to
> think that it's less a problem with package- upstream, and the
> problem lies elsewhere, and start debugging...
>
> - Noteworthy is that `apt-mark showhold` returns _nothing_ as I'm not
> holding any packages.
To be fair *apt upgrade* is holding all packages that don't have
upgrades, i.e. it's not allowed to remove them.
APT's terminology isn't clear; keep, hold, protected all have double
meanings, and sometimes they mean the same thing. Like in dist-upgrade,
"held packages" refers to packages that were marked protected, but that
includes any command-line arguments, the properly held packages, and
even some random decisions the solver made it sometimes calls Protect()
on.
> - `apt-get upgrade` (ie. a slightly different commandline) has
> absolutely no issues whatsoever.
> - If I `apt install marble-plugins`, `apt` was immediately able to
> install/upgrade `marble-plugins.`
>
> * What outcome did you expect instead?
>
> I expected the usual apt ugprade experience.
>
>
> Now then: I run ZFS on my Root filesystem - which means I've
> snapshots of my full filesystem both pre- and post- upgrade, in spite of
> the fact I've moved past the but I'm reporting.
>
> So, if you want to puruse this issue, and obtain anything out of my bag
> of holding (within the next 90 days of the filing of this bug), please
> let me know.
Please run apt upgrade -o Dir::Log::Solver=/tmp/bug-1098997.edsp or
similar and attach the file. This will generate a full dump of the
solver request, installed packages, and configured sources, such that
it can be piped into /usr/lib/apt/solvers/apt for reproducing.
--
debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
ubuntu core developer i speak de, en
Reply to: