Subject: /usr/bin/apt-get: --no-upgrade should apply to more than just install
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 12:52:58 +0800
Package: apt
Version: 0.5.8
Severity: normal
File: /usr/bin/apt-get
man says: --no-upgrade
Do not upgrade packages; When used in conjunction with install no-upgrade will
prevent packages listed from being upgraded if they are already installed.
# apt-get --purge remove libg2c0
The following extra packages will be installed:
libc6 libc6-dev locales
Recommended packages:
c-compiler
The following packages will be REMOVED:
atlas2-3dnow* libg2c0* pdl* r-base* r-base-core* r-base-html* r-base-latex*
3 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 7 to remove and 257 not upgraded.
Need to get 9960kB of archives.
After unpacking 55.1MB disk space will be freed.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
It intends to helpfully update 3 packages I already have installed. I
don't want to do this at this time due to only having a modem.
# apt-get --purge remove libg2c0 --no-upgrade
Skipping libg2c0, it is already installed and upgrade is not set.
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 265 not upgraded.
Because --no-upgrade expects the only case it will be used is
installs, it fails to do what is needed. No other option will allow
the user to just remove the 7 packages without upgrading the 3.
A slight apt-get update made something that was ok to do yesterday now
impossible.
Wait,
# apt-get remove --purge libg2c0 r-base-core
The following packages will be REMOVED:
atlas2-3dnow* libg2c0* pdl* r-base* r-base-core* r-base-html* r-base-latex*
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 7 to remove and 260 not upgraded.
Need to get 0B of archives.
After unpacking 56.1MB disk space will be freed.
Contrast this with my first example. This shows that you are
unnecessarily computing what to upgrade before making the final total
of what to delete... so if you fixed that, then you wouldn't need to
tamper with --no-upgrade afterall...
Subject: Re: Bug#204780: /usr/bin/apt-get: --no-upgrade should apply to more than just install
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 02:45:29 -0400
tags 204780 moreinfo
retitle 204780 unwanted upgrades during removal
thanks
On Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 12:52:58PM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> man says: --no-upgrade
> Do not upgrade packages; When used in conjunction with install no-upgrade will
> prevent packages listed from being upgraded if they are already installed.
Exactly. "When used in conjunction with install". So why are you filing a
bug saying that it does not do something you want with remove?
> # apt-get --purge remove libg2c0
> The following extra packages will be installed:
> libc6 libc6-dev locales
> Recommended packages:
> c-compiler
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
> atlas2-3dnow* libg2c0* pdl* r-base* r-base-core* r-base-html* r-base-latex*
> 3 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 7 to remove and 257 not upgraded.
> Need to get 9960kB of archives.
> After unpacking 55.1MB disk space will be freed.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
You may have noticed that when you used reportbug to submit this bug report,
the program asked you whether it was OK to include a copy of apt's
configuration files. It defaults to yes. Why did you refuse? This
information is requested because it is important in diagnosing the problem.
Send copies of your /etc/apt/apt.conf, /etc/apt/preferences and
/etc/apt/sources.list.
I have explained to you before about filing good bug reports, as I'm sure
others have as well. You file a LOT of frivolous bug reports and feature
requests, and on the rare occasion that you report an actual bug, you don't
make any attempt to provide enough information for it to be fixed.
#164225 is another example of similar behavior (not that you ever bother to
look before filing a new bug), but the submitter did not respond to a
request for more information. Are you going to provide a more complete bug
report, or should I close this one as well?
If you can still reproduce this bug on your system, send the output of:
apt-get -o Debug::pkgProblemResolver=true remove libg2c0
apt-get -o Debug::pkgProblemResolver=true remove libg2c0 r-base-core
--
- mdz
Subject: Re: Bug#204780: /usr/bin/apt-get: --no-upgrade should apply to more
than just install
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 16:52:14 +0800
M> You may have noticed that when you used reportbug to submit this bug report,
M> the program asked you whether it was OK to include a copy of apt's
M> configuration files. It defaults to yes. Why did you refuse?
Sorry, I thought my mostly default setup would make my reports even
more wasteful.
-- Package-specific info:
-- apt-config dump --
APT "";
APT::Architecture "i386";
APT::Build-Essential "";
APT::Build-Essential:: "build-essential";
APT::Get "";
APT::Get::List-Cleanup "false";
APT::Cache-Limit "16777216";
Dir "/";
Dir::State "var/lib/apt/";
Dir::State::lists "lists/";
Dir::State::cdroms "cdroms.list";
Dir::State::userstatus "status.user";
Dir::State::status "/var/lib/dpkg/status";
Dir::Cache "var/cache/apt/";
Dir::Cache::archives "archives/";
Dir::Cache::srcpkgcache "srcpkgcache.bin";
Dir::Cache::pkgcache "pkgcache.bin";
Dir::Etc "etc/apt/";
Dir::Etc::sourcelist "sources.list";
Dir::Etc::vendorlist "vendors.list";
Dir::Etc::vendorparts "vendors.list.d";
Dir::Etc::main "apt.conf";
Dir::Etc::parts "apt.conf.d";
Dir::Etc::preferences "preferences";
Dir::Bin "";
Dir::Bin::methods "/usr/lib/apt/methods";
Dir::Bin::dpkg "/usr/bin/dpkg";
DPkg "";
DPkg::Pre-Install-Pkgs "";
DPkg::Pre-Install-Pkgs:: "/usr/bin/apt-listchanges --apt || test $? -ne 10";
DPkg::Pre-Install-Pkgs:: "/usr/sbin/dpkg-preconfigure --apt || true";
DPkg::Tools "";
DPkg::Tools::Options "";
DPkg::Tools::Options::/usr/bin/apt-listchanges "";
DPkg::Tools::Options::/usr/bin/apt-listchanges::Version "2";
-- /etc/apt/sources.list --
deb http://debian.linux.org.tw/debian sid main contrib non-free
deb http://debian.linux.org.tw/debian-non-US sid/non-US main contrib non-free
deb http://marillat.free.fr/ unstable main
M> If you can still reproduce this bug on your system, send the output of:
Unfortunately I already removed all 7 of them. Idea: If you can't reproduce
the bug, then try installing all the relevant packages but no later versions
than last week's, and do apt-get update.
Subject: Re: Bug#204780: /usr/bin/apt-get: --no-upgrade should apply to more than just install
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:35:38 -0400
On Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 04:52:14PM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> M> You may have noticed that when you used reportbug to submit this bug report,
> M> the program asked you whether it was OK to include a copy of apt's
> M> configuration files. It defaults to yes. Why did you refuse?
>
> Sorry, I thought my mostly default setup would make my reports even
> more wasteful.
> [...]
So is it true that you have no /etc/apt/preferences and were not using
pinning of any kind when this happened?
> M> If you can still reproduce this bug on your system, send the output of:
>
> Unfortunately I already removed all 7 of them. Idea: If you can't reproduce
> the bug, then try installing all the relevant packages but no later versions
> than last week's, and do apt-get update.
I run unstable, updated almost every day, and I can't go back in time. If
this happens again, you know what information to send now.
--
- mdz
Subject: Re: Bug#204780: /usr/bin/apt-get: --no-upgrade should apply to more
than just install
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:17:17 -0500 (CDT)
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> I run unstable, updated almost every day, and I can't go back in time. If
> this happens again, you know what information to send now.
http://snapshot.debian.net/
Subject: Re: Bug#204780: /usr/bin/apt-get: --no-upgrade should apply to more than just install
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:30:17 -0400
On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 01:17:17PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > I run unstable, updated almost every day, and I can't go back in time. If
> > this happens again, you know what information to send now.
>
> http://snapshot.debian.net/
If you can reproduce it with snapshot.debian.net, I'd like to hear about it.
I have no idea what state I would need to put the system in.
--
- mdz
Subject: Re: Bug#204780: /usr/bin/apt-get: --no-upgrade should apply to more
than just install
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:49:44 +0800
M> So is it true that you have no /etc/apt/preferences and were not using
M> pinning of any kind when this happened?
Correct.
M> I run unstable, updated almost every day, and I can't go back in time. If
M> this happens again, you know what information to send now.
OK. See you next time.
OK, I have trapped another case for you, now with apt 0.5.9
It attempts to install something unless I put all the things it will
remove on the command line for it.
# apt-get remove libgphoto2-port0
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following extra packages will be installed:
libexif9
The following packages will be REMOVED:
libgphoto2-2 libgphoto2-2-dev libgphoto2-port0 libsane libsane-dev
python-imaging-sane python2.2-imaging-sane sane xsane
The following NEW packages will be installed:
libexif9
0 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 9 to remove and 282 not upgraded.
Need to get 61.1kB of archives.
After unpacking 19.2MB disk space will be freed.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
Abort.
# set libgphoto2-2 libgphoto2-2-dev libgphoto2-port0 libsane libsane-dev python-imaging-sane python2.2-imaging-sane sane xsane
# apt-get remove -s $@
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following packages will be REMOVED:
libgphoto2-2 libgphoto2-2-dev libgphoto2-port0 libsane libsane-dev
python-imaging-sane python2.2-imaging-sane sane xsane
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 9 to remove and 282 not upgraded.
Remv libsane-dev (1.0.12-6 Debian:unstable)
Remv xsane (0.91-5 Debian:unstable)
Remv sane (1.0.11-2 Debian:unstable)
Remv python-imaging-sane (1.1.4-1 Debian:unstable)
Remv python2.2-imaging-sane (1.1.4-1 Debian:unstable)
Remv libsane (1.0.12-6 Debian:unstable)
Remv libgphoto2-2-dev (2.1.1-10 Debian:unstable)
Remv libgphoto2-2 (2.1.1-10 Debian:unstable)
Remv libgphoto2-port0 (2.1.1-10 Debian:unstable)
# apt-get -o Debug::pkgProblemResolver=true remove -s $@
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
Starting
Starting 2
Done
The following packages will be REMOVED:
libgphoto2-2 libgphoto2-2-dev libgphoto2-port0 libsane libsane-dev
python-imaging-sane python2.2-imaging-sane sane xsane
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 9 to remove and 282 not upgraded.
Remv libsane-dev (1.0.12-6 Debian:unstable)
Remv xsane (0.91-5 Debian:unstable)
Remv sane (1.0.11-2 Debian:unstable)
Remv python-imaging-sane (1.1.4-1 Debian:unstable)
Remv python2.2-imaging-sane (1.1.4-1 Debian:unstable)
Remv libsane (1.0.12-6 Debian:unstable)
Remv libgphoto2-2-dev (2.1.1-10 Debian:unstable)
Remv libgphoto2-2 (2.1.1-10 Debian:unstable)
Remv libgphoto2-port0 (2.1.1-10 Debian:unstable)
# apt-get -o Debug::pkgProblemResolver=true remove -s libgphoto2-port0
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
Starting
Starting 2
Investigating libgphoto2-2
Package libgphoto2-2 has broken dep on libexif9
Considering libexif9 1 as a solution to libgphoto2-2 6
Re-Instated libexif9
Reinst Failed because of protected libgphoto2-port0
Removing libgphoto2-2 rather than change libexif9
Investigating libsane
Package libsane has broken dep on libgphoto2-2
Considering libgphoto2-2 6 as a solution to libsane 5
Reinst Failed because of libgphoto2-2
Removing libsane rather than change libgphoto2-2
Investigating python2.2-imaging-sane
Package python2.2-imaging-sane has broken dep on libsane
Considering libsane 5 as a solution to python2.2-imaging-sane 1
Removing python2.2-imaging-sane rather than change libsane
Investigating libsane-dev
Package libsane-dev has broken dep on libsane
Considering libsane 5 as a solution to libsane-dev 0
Reinst Failed because of libsane
Removing libsane-dev rather than change libsane
Investigating python-imaging-sane
Package python-imaging-sane has broken dep on python2.2-imaging-sane
Considering python2.2-imaging-sane 1 as a solution to python-imaging-sane 0
Removing python-imaging-sane rather than change python2.2-imaging-sane
Investigating xsane
Package xsane has broken dep on libsane
Considering libsane 5 as a solution to xsane 0
Removing xsane rather than change libsane
Investigating sane
Package sane has broken dep on libsane
Considering libsane 5 as a solution to sane 0
Removing sane rather than change libsane
Investigating libgphoto2-2-dev
Package libgphoto2-2-dev has broken dep on libgphoto2-2
Considering libgphoto2-2 6 as a solution to libgphoto2-2-dev -1
Reinst Failed because of libgphoto2-2
Removing libgphoto2-2-dev rather than change libgphoto2-2
Done
The following extra packages will be installed:
libexif9
The following packages will be REMOVED:
libgphoto2-2 libgphoto2-2-dev libgphoto2-port0 libsane libsane-dev
python-imaging-sane python2.2-imaging-sane sane xsane
The following NEW packages will be installed:
libexif9
0 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 9 to remove and 282 not upgraded.
Remv libsane-dev (1.0.12-6 Debian:unstable)
Remv xsane (0.91-5 Debian:unstable)
Remv sane (1.0.11-2 Debian:unstable)
Remv python-imaging-sane (1.1.4-1 Debian:unstable)
Remv python2.2-imaging-sane (1.1.4-1 Debian:unstable)
Remv libsane (1.0.12-6 Debian:unstable)
Remv libgphoto2-2-dev (2.1.1-10 Debian:unstable)
Remv libgphoto2-2 (2.1.1-10 Debian:unstable)
Remv libgphoto2-port0 (2.1.1-10 Debian:unstable)
Inst libexif9 (0.5.10-2 Debian:unstable)
Conf libexif9 (0.5.10-2 Debian:unstable)
> # apt-get -o Debug::pkgProblemResolver=true remove -s libgphoto2-port0
> Reading Package Lists... Done
> Building Dependency Tree... Done
> Starting
> Starting 2
> Investigating libgphoto2-2
> Package libgphoto2-2 has broken dep on libexif9
> Considering libexif9 1 as a solution to libgphoto2-2 6
> Re-Instated libexif9
> Reinst Failed because of protected libgphoto2-port0
> Removing libgphoto2-2 rather than change libexif9
I'm not intimately familiar with this part of the code, but this doesn't
look right to me. You haven't requested removal of libexif9, so I don't
know why libgphoto2-2's dependency would be found to be broken.
I am still unable to reproduce this, so I can't tell why this is happening.
I downgraded my libexif9 to 0.5.10-1 to make it upgradable to 0.5.10-2, but
it doesn't get upgraded when I remove libgphoto2-port0:
mizar:[~] sudo apt-get -o Debug::pkgProblemResolver=true remove libgphoto2-port0
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
Starting
Starting 2
Investigating libgphoto2-2
Package libgphoto2-2 has broken dep on libgphoto2-port0
Considering libgphoto2-port0 10003 as a solution to libgphoto2-2 5
Reinst Failed because of protected libgphoto2-port0
Removing libgphoto2-2 rather than change libgphoto2-port0
Investigating libsane
Package libsane has broken dep on libgphoto2-2
Considering libgphoto2-2 5 as a solution to libsane 1
Removing libsane rather than change libgphoto2-2
Investigating sane-utils
Package sane-utils has broken dep on libsane
Considering libsane 1 as a solution to sane-utils 0
Removing sane-utils rather than change libsane
Investigating gphoto2
Package gphoto2 has broken dep on libgphoto2-2
Considering libgphoto2-2 5 as a solution to gphoto2 -1
Removing gphoto2 rather than change libgphoto2-2
Investigating gtkam
Package gtkam has broken dep on libgphoto2-2
Considering libgphoto2-2 5 as a solution to gtkam -1
Removing gtkam rather than change libgphoto2-2
Done
The following packages will be REMOVED:
gphoto2 gtkam libgphoto2-2 libgphoto2-port0 libsane sane-utils
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 6 to remove and 62 not upgraded.
Need to get 0B of archives.
I don't know whether this is due to a difference between the state of your
system and the state of mine, or whether it happens to be trying a different
solution first in this case. Send your /var/lib/dpkg/status file, and
describe the exact steps that you took leading up to this, including running
apt-get update, upgrading, installing, anything you did to the system.
--
- mdz
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 08:28:20PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> Send your /var/lib/dpkg/status file, and describe the exact steps that you
> took leading up to this, including running apt-get update, upgrading,
> installing, anything you did to the system.
Remember to gzip the status file. Also send the output of "apt-cache
dumpavail", also gzipped.
--
- mdz
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 08:28:20PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> I'm not intimately familiar with this part of the code, but this doesn't
> look right to me.
<snip>
> I am still unable to reproduce this, so I can't tell why this is happening.
This one is due to the python 2.2 -> 2.3 transition:
orion:~# apt-get upgrade
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following packages have been kept back
foomatic-gui freeswan gdeskcal python python-apt python-egenix-mxdatetime python-glade2 python-gnome2 python-gtk2 python-xml
python2.2 python2.2-xmlbase reportbug straw
The following packages will be upgraded
python2.2-glade2 python2.2-gnome2 python2.2-gtk2 python2.2-optik python2.2-pyorbit python2.2-xml
6 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 14 not upgraded.
Need to get 1467kB of archives.
After unpacking 1061kB disk space will be freed.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
Abort.
orion:~# apt-get dselect-upgrade
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following packages will be REMOVED:
python-bsddb3 python-xmlbase* python2.2-xml* python2.2-xmlbase* straw
The following NEW packages will be installed:
python2.3 python2.3-egenix-mxdatetime python2.3-egenix-mxtools python2.3-gtk2 python2.3-xml
The following packages will be upgraded
foomatic-gui gdeskcal python python-apt python-egenix-mxdatetime python-glade2 python-gnome2 python-gtk2 python-xml
python2.2 python2.2-glade2 python2.2-gnome2 python2.2-gtk2 python2.2-optik python2.2-pyorbit reportbug
16 packages upgraded, 5 newly installed, 5 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
Need to get 7974kB of archives.
After unpacking 11.0MB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
Abort.
orion:~# apt-get remove python-bsddb3
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following extra packages will be installed:
python python-apt python-egenix-mxdatetime python-xml python2.3 python2.3-egenix-mxdatetime python2.3-egenix-mxtools
python2.3-xml
Suggested packages:
python-tk python2.3-doc
The following packages will be REMOVED:
python-bsddb3 python-xmlbase straw
The following NEW packages will be installed:
python2.3 python2.3-egenix-mxdatetime python2.3-egenix-mxtools python2.3-xml
The following packages will be upgraded
python python-apt python-egenix-mxdatetime python-xml
4 packages upgraded, 4 newly installed, 3 to remove and 15 not upgraded.
Need to get 4149kB of archives.
After unpacking 13.5MB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
Abort.
orion:~#
python-bsddb3 depends on "python (>= 2.2), python (<< 2.3)" (IOW, it
hasn't transitioned yet) thus keeping up everything else which wants
python >= 2.3.
python-bsddb3 itself is required by straw, btw, though that is besides the
point here I suppose.
apt can't upgrade a load of packages (which directly or indirectly require
python >= 2.3) without removing python-bsddb3. When asked to remove the
latter, it finds a number of packages which can be updated thanks to this
removal and decides to do so, for whatever reason.
This output leads me to believe that the reason it does so is that it
walks the dependency chain (both up and down) of installed packages
involving the package being removed, and tries to fix anything broken it
finds in that dependency chain rather than only removing the package:
orion:~# apt-get -o Debug::pkgProblemResolver=true remove python-bsddb3 1> /dev/null
Starting
Starting 2
Package straw has broken dep on python
Considering python 50 as a solution to straw 0
Re-Instated python2.3
Re-Instated python
Reinst Failed because of protected python-bsddb3
Removing straw rather than change python
Package python has broken dep on python-xmlbase
Considering python-xmlbase 1 as a solution to python 50
Added python-xmlbase to the remove list
Fixing python via remove of python-xmlbase
Package python-apt has broken dep on python
Considering python 50 as a solution to python-apt 2
Re-Instated python-apt
Package python-xml has broken dep on python
Considering python 50 as a solution to python-xml 1
Re-Instated python2.3-xml
Re-Instated python-xml
Package python-egenix-mxdatetime has broken dep on python
Considering python 50 as a solution to python-egenix-mxdatetime 1
Re-Instated python2.3-egenix-mxtools
Re-Instated python2.3-egenix-mxdatetime
Re-Instated python-egenix-mxdatetime
Done
A bit more information on the above packages:
- straw, python-apt, python-xml and python-egenix-mxdatetime have already
transitioned and want python 2.3, hence the broken deps.
- python 2.3 conflicts with python-xmlbase.
The above however is true only for the latest, not-installed-yet versions
of these packages. The ones currently installed on my system are versions
which haven't transitioned yet.
However, while straw is currently not broken, removing python-bsddb3 does
break it; and I suppose when apt tries to figure out what to do it does so
with the most current version of straw rather than the installed one, thus
triggering the upgrade of lots of things (the dependency walk kept in mind)
Regards,
Filip
--
* Robot101 likes the way that windows says 'Windows is now detecting your
hardware and any plug and play devices you may have.', thus
confirming that plug and play devices don't actually qualify as
hardware.
Let's take another look,
# apt-get remove -s libgphoto2-port0
The following extra packages will be installed:
libexif9
The following packages will be REMOVED:
libgphoto2-2 libgphoto2-2-dev libgphoto2-port0 libsane libsane-dev python2.2-imaging-sane
sane xsane
The following NEW packages will be installed:
libexif9
Above, we immediately we see that libexif9 has been repeated once as "extra",
again as "NEW".
0 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 8 to remove and 259 not upgraded.
Remv libsane-dev (1.0.12-6 Debian:unstable)
Remv xsane (0.91-5 Debian:unstable)
Remv sane (1.0.11-2 Debian:unstable)
Remv python2.2-imaging-sane (1.1.4-1 Debian:unstable)
Remv libsane (1.0.12-6 Debian:unstable)
Remv libgphoto2-2-dev (2.1.2-2 Debian:unstable)
Remv libgphoto2-2 (2.1.2-2 Debian:unstable)
Remv libgphoto2-port0 (2.1.2-2 Debian:unstable)
Inst libexif9 (0.5.10-2 Debian:unstable)
Conf libexif9 (0.5.10-2 Debian:unstable)
Can you try reproducing the bug again using the exact versions as above.
> I downgraded my libexif9 to 0.5.10-1 to make it upgradable to
> 0.5.10-2
Whereas I don't have libexif9 installed
$ dpkg -l |grep libexif
ii libexif-dev 0.5.9-4 The EXIF library allows you to parse an EXIF
ii libexif5 0.5.3-1 The EXIF library allows you to parse an EXIF
ii libexif8 0.5.9-4 The EXIF library allows you to parse an EXIF
Rather than send the large files, here's what I have installed:
http://jidanni.org/tmp/dpkg-l.zip
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 04:09:42AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> 0 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 8 to remove and 259 not upgraded.
> Remv libsane-dev (1.0.12-6 Debian:unstable)
> Remv xsane (0.91-5 Debian:unstable)
> Remv sane (1.0.11-2 Debian:unstable)
> Remv python2.2-imaging-sane (1.1.4-1 Debian:unstable)
> Remv libsane (1.0.12-6 Debian:unstable)
> Remv libgphoto2-2-dev (2.1.2-2 Debian:unstable)
> Remv libgphoto2-2 (2.1.2-2 Debian:unstable)
> Remv libgphoto2-port0 (2.1.2-2 Debian:unstable)
> Inst libexif9 (0.5.10-2 Debian:unstable)
> Conf libexif9 (0.5.10-2 Debian:unstable)
>
> Can you try reproducing the bug again using the exact versions as above.
> [...]
> Whereas I don't have libexif9 installed
libgphoto2-2 version 2.1.2-2 depends on libexif9. So, if you don't have it
installed, your system is broken, and apt is right to try to fix it.
This is why I asked for your status file and all of the other information
you have not yet sent.
--
- mdz
M> libgphoto2-2 version 2.1.2-2 depends on libexif9. So, if you don't have it
M> installed, your system is broken, and apt is right to try to fix it.
I see. Odd. I don't know how it got that way, and
# apt-get check
# apt-get install
# apt-get install -f
# apt-get remove
# dpkg -C
don't say anything special, more than
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 269 not upgraded.
M> This is why I asked for your status file and all of the other information
M> you have not yet sent.
As my system is thus broken, this may not be worth pursuing anymore.
If http://jidanni.org/tmp/dpkg-l.zip does not contain the needed
information, then please give me grep-status(1) commands to run, the
output of which compressed should be under 100Kb due to bandwidth.
Or instead you might force the installation of that handful of
programs, and at least stop apt-get from listing the same package as
to be gotten as "NEW" and "extra" in such broken circumstances.
Or, why the above checks can't detect a broken situation.
I.e. as we will probably never know how my system got that way, then
instead just turn the focus of the probe into adjusting apt-get's
response to such circumstances.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 09:26:48AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> As my system is thus broken, this may not be worth pursuing anymore.
Are you sure? I just remembered about #195510 (which can't be fixed yet
unfortunately), so the version number I saw displayed in the apt-get remove
output would not have been the installed version, but the new version.
Perhaps you had an older version of libgphoto2-2 installed which did not
have this dependency.
So my theory would be that the problem resolver, in an attempt to fix the
breakage caused by removing one of the dependencies, attempts an upgrade,
which fails because the same dependency exists in the newer version.
However, in the process, a new dependency in the new version of the upgraded
package is marked for installation (and this change is not unwound).
--
- mdz
M> Perhaps you had an older version of libgphoto2-2 installed which did not
M> have this dependency.
$ apt-cache policy libgphoto2-2
Installed: 2.1.1-9
Candidate: 2.1.2-2
$ apt-cache -a show libgphoto2-2 |sort|uniq -u|grep ^Depends:
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3.1-1), libexif8, libgphoto2-port0 (>= 2.1.1-9)
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3.2-1), libexif9, libgphoto2-port0 (>= 2.1.2-2)
$ apt-cache -a show libgphoto2-port0|sort|uniq -u
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3.1-1), libusb-0.1-4 (>= 1:0.1.6a)
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3.2-1), libusb-0.1-4 (>= 1:0.1.7)
I'd be happy to run any probe scripts you send.
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> So my theory would be that the problem resolver, in an attempt to fix the
> breakage caused by removing one of the dependencies, attempts an upgrade,
> which fails because the same dependency exists in the newer version.
> However, in the process, a new dependency in the new version of the upgraded
> package is marked for installation (and this change is not unwound).
Yes this is the problem.
While flailing about looking for any solution that works it stops when it
finds the first solution.
There is some code that does some simple things to minimize extra packages
but it cannot handle very complex relationships between the extra
packages. I'm actually not sure if it is engaged for this particular code
path or not
Fundamentaly these sorts of problems are not truely solvable. The problem
is NP (a varietion of 3 sat) and thus cannot be perfectly solved. The
heuristics are designed around common idioms that were in place around the
hamm release - since then people have created dependency networks of ever
increasing complexting and it now the limits show up alot more often.
Jason
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 10:44:26PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Yes this is the problem.
>
> While flailing about looking for any solution that works it stops when it
> finds the first solution.
>
> There is some code that does some simple things to minimize extra packages
> but it cannot handle very complex relationships between the extra
> packages. I'm actually not sure if it is engaged for this particular code
> path or not
>
> Fundamentaly these sorts of problems are not truely solvable. The problem
> is NP (a varietion of 3 sat) and thus cannot be perfectly solved. The
> heuristics are designed around common idioms that were in place around the
> hamm release - since then people have created dependency networks of ever
> increasing complexting and it now the limits show up alot more often.
Thanks for the explanation. Since this situation would seem to only be
possible when removing a package while the system is not up-to-date with
available packages, I'm not particularly concerned about this behaviour.
--
- mdz
Bug No longer marked as fixed in versions apt/0.7.22 and reopened.
Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <[email protected]>
to [email protected].
(Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:45:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).