On Thu, 10 Apr 2014, Frank McCormick wrote: > On 10/04/14 04:56 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Apr 2014, Frank McCormick wrote: > > > >> On 10/04/14 11:50 AM, Patrick Bartek wrote: > >>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2014, Frank McCormick wrote: > >>> > >>>> Had a strange problem this morning for the second time recently: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> root@frank-debian:/home/frank# apt-get upgrade > >>>> Reading package lists... Done > >>>> Building dependency tree > >>>> Reading state information... Done > >>>> Calculating upgrade... Done > >>>> The following package was automatically installed and is no > >>>> longer required: python-gtksourceview2 > >>>> Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove it. > >>>> The following packages have been kept back: > >>>> eom-common mate-panel mate-panel-common > >>>> The following packages will be upgraded: > >>>> base-passwd cups cups-bsd cups-client cups-common > >>>> cups-core-drivers cups-daemon > >>>> cups-ppdc cups-server-common dnsmasq-base geoip-database > >>>> libcups2 libcupscgi1 > >>>> libcupsimage2 libcupsmime1 libcupsppdc1 man-db pluma > >>>> pluma-common ruby 20 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and > >>>> 3 not upgraded. Need to get 7,645 kB of archives. > >>>> After this operation, 4,731 kB disk space will be freed. > >>>> Do you want to continue? [Y/n] > >>>> > >>>> Apt-get then did what it said it would upgrading everything > >>>> except mate-panel, mate-panel-commong and eom > >>> > >>> This is the proper behavior for "upgrade." To "upgrade" the > >>> held-back files use "dist-upgrade" instead. The apt-get man > >>> explains the difference between the two, and why it is done that > >>> way. > >>> > >>> > >>> B > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> As I told another poster here, dist-upgrade wanted to remove > >> half of Mate. > > > > Dist-upgrade installs the NEWER version of a file(s) and its > > dependencies, and removes the OLD version. That is, v1.0 to v2.0. > > Upgrade does v1.0 to v1.1 as well a security and bug fixes. Check > > the versions of what was going to be installed against what was > > initially installed. Also, check the held-back files against what > > dist-upgrade would have installed. Any match up namewise? > > > > I admit apt-get and aptitude can be a pain to use sometimes. That's > > why someone created Synaptic. ;-) > > > >> Synaptic was the only one that offered to replace the old > >> mate-applets file with the new one, Neither apt-get, nor aptitude > >> in any of my attempts mentioned anything about the applets file. > > > > Did you try "upgrading" those old mate-applets specifically by name? > > What were the version numbers of the old and new applets? If they > > differed by major version numbers, upgrade won't upgrade them. > > That's not what it does. > > > > B > > > > > > Well I wasn't aware of them at the time.
How do you think I learned about apt-get's and aptitude's quirks? > But synaptic was. This is from the apt log. > > Start-Date: 2014-04-10 11:00:36 > Commandline: synaptic > Install: libmate-panel-applet-4-1:i386 (1.8.0+dfsg1-1, automatic) > Upgrade: mate-panel:i386 (1.6.0-2.1+8.jessie, 1.8.0+dfsg1-1), > mate-panel-common:i386 (1.6.0-2.1+8.jessie, 1.8.0+dfsg1-1) > Remove: libmatepanelapplet:i386 (1.6.0-2.1+8.jessie) > End-Date: 2014-04-10 11:00:51 > > It may have been because of the difference in names...the new one > has -4-1 at the end...the old one is just called libmatepanelapplet. > > But if synaptic knew about it...why didn't aptitude or apt-get ? Maybe, "they" fixed the problem with synaptic. Made it more "intelligent." > I ran aptitude with full-upgrade and apt-get with dist-upgrade, > but hit 'N' when they wanted to pull out half of Mate. So I don't have > a record of what they proposed as it was not logged. No problem. I was just curious. FWIW, when I initially installed Wheezy 64-bit on this system, it was Testing Beta heading toward Stable. Took about 3 months. I used apt-get dist-upgrade to "upgrade" it to the most current versions of everything installed. This was recommended by Debian. After it went Stable, I used just upgrade -- for the most part. So there would be no major changes. This also recommended by Debian. Now, if "they" could come up with an efficient and effective way to uninstall/purge stuff installed via a metapackage. Or maybe there is and I just haven't found it. ;-) B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140410210421.0ab93...@debian7.boseck208.net
