On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 13:24:29 -0400 Antoine Beaupre wrote:
> The release notes, in sections 4.2.2 and 4.8, actually suggest *three*
> *different* ways of finding what are essential orphaned packages:
>
> aptitude search '~o'
> aptitude search '?narrow(?installed, ?not(?origin(Debian)))'
>
On 19/12/2022 08:10, Paul Gevers wrote:
Hi
On 15-04-2021 19:39, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
I actually forgot that bullseye itself introduces yet another one:
apt list ~obsolete
But (I'm running bookworm):
paul@mulciber ~/release-team/release-notes $ apt list ~obsolete
Listing... Error!
Hi
On 15-04-2021 19:39, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
I actually forgot that bullseye itself introduces yet another one:
apt list ~obsolete
But (I'm running bookworm):
paul@mulciber ~/release-team/release-notes $ apt list ~obsolete
Listing... Error!
E: input:2-9: error: Expected end of file
On Ma, 20 apr 21, 11:36:30, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>
> I am not sure we should tell people to "remove any non-Debian package"
> before the upgrade. They might have legitimate reasons to have
> third-party package repositories...?
A dist-upgrade is difficult enough, reducing complexity introduced
On 2021-04-16 09:19:35, Justin B Rye wrote:
> Antoine Beaupré wrote
[...]
aptitude search '?narrow(?installed, ?not(?origin(Debian)))'
>>>
>>> This one (apparently an improvement on the '~i(!~ODebian)' search that
>>> was recommended for buster, though the logic is too subtle for me to
Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 09:19:35AM +0100, Justin B Rye wrote:
>> # Please note that neither of them are 100% accurate (e.g. the
>> # aptitude example will list packages that were once provided by
>> # Debian but no longer are, such as old kernel packages).
>>
>> Now that you
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 09:19:35AM +0100, Justin B Rye wrote:
>
> # 4.2.2. Remove non-Debian packages
> #
> # Below there are two methods for finding installed packages that did
> # not come from Debian, using either aptitude or apt-forktracer.
> # Please note that neither of them are 100% accura
Antoine Beaupré wrote
>>> aptitude search '~o'
>>
>> This is nice and simple, but frankly as an aptitude user I wouldn't
>> bother. Instead I'd do what the text just above mentions - launch
>> aptitude, notice that there was a category for "Obsolete and Locally
>> Created Packages" (which woul
On 2021-04-15 21:08:27, Justin B Rye wrote:
> Antoine Beaupre wrote:
>> The release notes, in sections 4.2.2 and 4.8, actually suggest *three*
>> *different* ways of finding what are essential orphaned packages:
>
> I don't think you mean "orphan" in either of the senses known to
> "https://wiki.de
Antoine Beaupre wrote:
> The release notes, in sections 4.2.2 and 4.8, actually suggest *three*
> *different* ways of finding what are essential orphaned packages:
I don't think you mean "orphan" in either of the senses known to
"https://wiki.debian.org/Glossary#orphan";.
> aptitude search '
I actually forgot that bullseye itself introduces yet another one:
apt list ~obsolete
Apparently, those are also a thing:
comm -23 <(dpkg-query -W -f '${db:Status-Abbrev}\t${Package}\n' | grep
'^.[^nc]' | cut -f2 | sort) <(apt-cache dumpavail | sed -rn 's/^Package:
(.*)/\1/p' | sort -
Package: release-notes
Severity: minor
The release notes, in sections 4.2.2 and 4.8, actually suggest *three*
*different* ways of finding what are essential orphaned packages:
aptitude search '~o'
aptitude search '?narrow(?installed, ?not(?origin(Debian)))'
apt-forktracer | sort
Then
12 matches
Mail list logo
