Re: The following packages have been kept back

2003-10-16 Thread David Z Maze
"D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Haven't you ever done a dselect update and then a apt-get -u upgrade > and found that you have 30 or some large number of packages that are > not going to be installed? Not really; apt-get isn't intended to be used that way. See the first paragraph of apt-get(8

Re: The following packages have been kept back

2003-10-16 Thread Paul Johnson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 06:32:49AM -0700, D. wrote: > Haven't you ever done a dselect update and then a > apt-get -u upgrade and found that you have 30 or some > large number of packages that are not going to be > installed? Ah, in that case, it's nor

Re: The following packages have been kept back

2003-10-16 Thread D.
--- Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > - From what to what? > Haven't you ever done a dselect update and then a apt-get -u upgrade and found that you have 30 or some large number of packages that are not going to be installed? When that ha

Re: The following packages have been kept back

2003-10-16 Thread Colin Watson
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 01:59:23AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 09:24:06PM +1300, Paul William wrote: > > On Thu, 2003-10-16 at 17:26, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 09:57:59AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote: > > > > Fellows, it's time for a dist-upgrade, but >

Re: The following packages have been kept back

2003-10-16 Thread Paul Johnson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 09:24:06PM +1300, Paul William wrote: > On Thu, 2003-10-16 at 17:26, Paul Johnson wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 09:57:59AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote: > > > Fellows,

Re: The following packages have been kept back

2003-10-16 Thread Paul William
On Thu, 2003-10-16 at 17:26, Paul Johnson wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 09:57:59AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote: > > Fellows, it's time for a dist-upgrade, but > > - From what to what? dist-upgrade is just an upgrade that resolves the more comp

Re: The following packages have been kept back

2003-10-15 Thread Paul Johnson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 09:57:59AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote: > Fellows, it's time for a dist-upgrade, but - From what to what? - -- .''`. Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian - when y

Re: the following packages have been kept back?

2002-02-06 Thread Dimitri Maziuk
* Rachel Andrew ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: > > > "apt-get dist-upgrade" should do the trick. > > Hi, that did work but when unpacking this happens: > > Unpacking replacement konqueror ... > Preparing to replace libkonq3 4:2.2.1.0-6 (using > .../libkonq3_4%3a2.2.2-13_i386.deb) ... > Unpac

Re: the following packages have been kept back?

2002-02-06 Thread Ron Johnson
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:12:20 + Rachel Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi > > I tried to do apt-get upgrade of my Woody system today and got the following > message: > > The following packages have been kept back: > base-config console-data kate kchart kdebase kdebase-libs kdm kfocus kivio

Re: the following packages have been kept back?

2002-02-06 Thread Rachel Andrew
> "apt-get dist-upgrade" should do the trick. Hi, that did work but when unpacking this happens: Unpacking replacement konqueror ... Preparing to replace libkonq3 4:2.2.1.0-6 (using .../libkonq3_4%3a2.2.2-13_i386.deb) ... Unpacking replacement libkonq3 ... Preparing to replace kdebase-libs 4:2.

Re: the following packages have been kept back?

2002-02-06 Thread Paul Hampson
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 07:59:06AM -0500, Bill Benedetto wrote: > >>> Rachel Andrew writes: > > Rachel> I tried to do apt-get upgrade of my Woody system today > Rachel> and got the following message: > Rachel> > Rachel> The following packages have been kept back: > Rachel> base-config co

Re: the following packages have been kept back?

2002-02-06 Thread Bill Benedetto
>>> Rachel Andrew writes: Rachel> I tried to do apt-get upgrade of my Woody system today Rachel> and got the following message: Rachel> Rachel> The following packages have been kept back: Rachel> base-config console-data kate kchart kdebase Rachel> kdebase-libs kdm kfocus kivio kmid ko

Re: "The following packages have been kept back"

2001-05-28 Thread matlads
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 01:30:41PM -0500, Dave Sherohman wrote: > On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 06:53:16PM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies: > > aalib1: Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.2-2) but 2.1.3-18 is to be installed > >

Re: "The following packages have been kept back"

2001-05-27 Thread Dave Sherohman
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 08:55:40PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote: > On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 01:30:41PM -0500, Dave Sherohman wrote: > > On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 06:53:16PM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > How do I get it to upgrade my libc6? > > > > For some reason, apt doesn't want to upgrade lib

Re: "The following packages have been kept back"

2001-05-27 Thread Bart Martens
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 01:30:41PM -0500, Dave Sherohman wrote: > On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 06:53:16PM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies: > > aalib1: Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.2-2) but 2.1.3-18 is to be installed > >

Re: "The following packages have been kept back"

2001-05-27 Thread Dave Sherohman
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 06:53:16PM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies: > aalib1: Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.2-2) but 2.1.3-18 is to be installed > > Depends: xlibs (>= 4.0.1-11) but i

Re: "The following packages have been kept back"

2001-05-27 Thread matlads
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 10:16:45AM -0500, Dave Sherohman wrote: > On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 03:16:55PM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > What is going on, and why can't apt-get upgrade the remaining 62 packages? > > How do I get it to upgrade them? > > It doesn't want to automatically process them

Re: "The following packages have been kept back"

2001-05-27 Thread Dave Sherohman
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 03:16:55PM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What is going on, and why can't apt-get upgrade the remaining 62 packages? > How do I get it to upgrade them? It doesn't want to automatically process them for some reason. Explicitly telling it to upgrade each package with `apt