Acknowledgement sent
to Lucas Nussbaum <[email protected]>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to APT Development Team <[email protected]>.
(Fri, 06 Aug 2010 06:42:08 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: apt: fails to upgrade some packages properly
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 02:40:53 -0400
Package: apt
Version: 0.7.25.3
Severity: serious
Hi,
I have been testing upgrades from lenny to sid with a tool similar to
piuparts. I ran into many (~80) strange failures, where apt takes a
wrong decision about which packages to upgrade.
All the logs are available from
http://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2010/08/05/pkg-upgrade/
Here are the various cases:
package-not-upgraded/:
The package under test was not upgraded during apt-get dist-upgrade.
That is always because upgrading it would have required the removal of
another package. However, in the case of library packages being removed
to permit the upgrade, I was wondering whether it was possible to trick
apt into upgrading the package.
package-uninstalled/:
The package under test was removed during apt-get dist-upgrade.
package-uninstalled/no-removal/ <= that's where the serious issues are
The package under test was removed during dist-upgrade, but no removal
was neded to get it back! It should really have been upgraded together
with the other packages.
There are quite a lot of failures related to emacs packages, so they
are separated in the logs.
package-uninstalled/removals/:
A package was removed to permit the upgrade. I'm wondering if in some
cases, it would have made sense to auto-detect the correct solution.
Thanks,
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| [email protected]http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: [email protected] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Acknowledgement sent
to Julian Andres Klode <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to APT Development Team <[email protected]>.
(Fri, 06 Aug 2010 09:39:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: Bug#591882: apt: fails to upgrade some packages properly
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 11:35:17 +0200
On Fr, 2010-08-06 at 02:40 -0400, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Package: apt
> Version: 0.7.25.3
> Severity: serious
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been testing upgrades from lenny to sid with a tool similar to
> piuparts. I ran into many (~80) strange failures, where apt takes a
> wrong decision about which packages to upgrade.
>
> All the logs are available from
> http://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2010/08/05/pkg-upgrade/
> Here are the various cases:
> package-not-upgraded/:
> The package under test was not upgraded during apt-get dist-upgrade.
> That is always because upgrading it would have required the removal of
> another package. However, in the case of library packages being removed
> to permit the upgrade, I was wondering whether it was possible to trick
> apt into upgrading the package.
>
> package-uninstalled/:
> The package under test was removed during apt-get dist-upgrade.
>
> package-uninstalled/no-removal/ <= that's where the serious issues are
> The package under test was removed during dist-upgrade, but no removal
> was neded to get it back! It should really have been upgraded together
> with the other packages.
> There are quite a lot of failures related to emacs packages, so they
> are separated in the logs.
>
> package-uninstalled/removals/:
> A package was removed to permit the upgrade. I'm wondering if in some
> cases, it would have made sense to auto-detect the correct solution.
Please use a two stage upgrade process:
apt-get upgrade
apt-get dist-upgrade
This will reduce the number of issues.
--
Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member
See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.
Acknowledgement sent
to Lucas Nussbaum <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to APT Development Team <[email protected]>.
(Fri, 06 Aug 2010 15:18:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: Bug#591882: apt: fails to upgrade some packages properly
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:04:14 -0400
On 06/08/10 at 11:35 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> On Fr, 2010-08-06 at 02:40 -0400, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Package: apt
> > Version: 0.7.25.3
> > Severity: serious
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have been testing upgrades from lenny to sid with a tool similar to
> > piuparts. I ran into many (~80) strange failures, where apt takes a
> > wrong decision about which packages to upgrade.
> >
> > All the logs are available from
> > http://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2010/08/05/pkg-upgrade/
> > Here are the various cases:
> > package-not-upgraded/:
> > The package under test was not upgraded during apt-get dist-upgrade.
> > That is always because upgrading it would have required the removal of
> > another package. However, in the case of library packages being removed
> > to permit the upgrade, I was wondering whether it was possible to trick
> > apt into upgrading the package.
> >
> > package-uninstalled/:
> > The package under test was removed during apt-get dist-upgrade.
> >
> > package-uninstalled/no-removal/ <= that's where the serious issues are
> > The package under test was removed during dist-upgrade, but no removal
> > was neded to get it back! It should really have been upgraded together
> > with the other packages.
> > There are quite a lot of failures related to emacs packages, so they
> > are separated in the logs.
> >
> > package-uninstalled/removals/:
> > A package was removed to permit the upgrade. I'm wondering if in some
> > cases, it would have made sense to auto-detect the correct solution.
>
> Please use a two stage upgrade process:
> apt-get upgrade
> apt-get dist-upgrade
> This will reduce the number of issues.
I'm now doing:
apt-get install apt (to upgrade apt)
apt-get upgrade
apt-get dist-upgrade
And I don't really see any difference (I haven't tested all the packages
that were failing).
Good examples of packages that fail are pyrex-mode and
python-application. Both get removed during apt-get dist-upgrade, but
can be installed without removing any package after that.
L.
Acknowledgement sent
to Julian Andres Klode <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to APT Development Team <[email protected]>.
(Fri, 06 Aug 2010 19:09:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: Bug#591882: apt: fails to upgrade some packages properly
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 21:04:52 +0200
On Fr, 2010-08-06 at 11:04 -0400, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 06/08/10 at 11:35 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > On Fr, 2010-08-06 at 02:40 -0400, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > Package: apt
> > > Version: 0.7.25.3
> > > Severity: serious
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have been testing upgrades from lenny to sid with a tool similar to
> > > piuparts. I ran into many (~80) strange failures, where apt takes a
> > > wrong decision about which packages to upgrade.
> > >
> > > All the logs are available from
> > > http://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2010/08/05/pkg-upgrade/
> > > Here are the various cases:
> > > package-not-upgraded/:
> > > The package under test was not upgraded during apt-get dist-upgrade.
> > > That is always because upgrading it would have required the removal of
> > > another package. However, in the case of library packages being removed
> > > to permit the upgrade, I was wondering whether it was possible to trick
> > > apt into upgrading the package.
> > >
> > > package-uninstalled/:
> > > The package under test was removed during apt-get dist-upgrade.
> > >
> > > package-uninstalled/no-removal/ <= that's where the serious issues are
> > > The package under test was removed during dist-upgrade, but no removal
> > > was neded to get it back! It should really have been upgraded together
> > > with the other packages.
> > > There are quite a lot of failures related to emacs packages, so they
> > > are separated in the logs.
> > >
> > > package-uninstalled/removals/:
> > > A package was removed to permit the upgrade. I'm wondering if in some
> > > cases, it would have made sense to auto-detect the correct solution.
> >
> > Please use a two stage upgrade process:
> > apt-get upgrade
> > apt-get dist-upgrade
> > This will reduce the number of issues.
>
> I'm now doing:
> apt-get install apt (to upgrade apt)
> apt-get upgrade
> apt-get dist-upgrade
> And I don't really see any difference (I haven't tested all the packages
> that were failing).
>
> Good examples of packages that fail are pyrex-mode and
> python-application. Both get removed during apt-get dist-upgrade, but
> can be installed without removing any package after that.
>
For pyrex-mode:
The reason is that dpkg breaks emacs21 and that confuses APT. APT views
it like this:
pyrex-mode => python-mode => emacs21
The following solution is ignored, because python-mode is already
installed:
pyrex-mode (Depends: python-mode or emacs22) => emacs22
The following solution is ignored because emacsen is already installed
(provided by emacs21):
pyrex-mode => python-mode (Depends: emacs22 | emacsen) => emacs22
Because dpkg breaks emacs21, the chosen dependency chain becomes invalid
and the packages will be removed.
jak-thinkpad:/home/jak/Desktop/dh-autoreconf# aptitude dist-upgrade
The following NEW packages will be installed:
cpp-4.4{a} dash{a} diffutils{a} g++-4.4{a} gcc-4.4{a} insserv{a} libc-bin{a} libc-dev-bin{a} libdb4.7{a} libdb4.8{a} libdpkg-perl{a} liblzma2{a} libmpfr4{a}
libreadline6{a} libstdc++6-4.4-dev{a} python2.6{a} python2.6-minimal{a} sensible-utils{a} xz-utils{a}
The following packages will be REMOVED:
libdb4.5{u} libxcb-xlib0{u} python2.5{u} python2.5-minimal{u}
The following packages will be upgraded:
bash binutils build-essential cpio cpp cpp-4.3 debianutils diff dpkg{b} dpkg-dev e2fsprogs g++ g++-4.3 gcc gcc-4.3 gcc-4.3-base gnupg gpgv grep libc6 libc6-dev
libgdbm3 liblocale-gettext-perl libpam-modules libpam-runtime libstdc++6-4.3-dev libtext-charwidth-perl libtext-iconv-perl libx11-6 libxcb1 perl perl-base
perl-modules python python-minimal readline-common sed sysv-rc util-linux
The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
bash-completion gnupg-curl libalgorithm-merge-perl libc6-i686 libldap-2.4-2 manpages-dev netbase
39 packages upgraded, 19 newly installed, 4 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 63.8MB of archives. After unpacking 53.9MB will be used.
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
dpkg: Breaks: emacs21 (< 21.4a+1-5.7) but 21.4a+1-5.6 is installed.
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
Remove the following packages:
1) emacs21
2) pyrex-mode
3) python-mode
Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] ^C
--
Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member
See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.
Acknowledgement sent
to Julian Andres Klode <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to APT Development Team <[email protected]>.
(Fri, 06 Aug 2010 22:33:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: Bug#591882: apt: fails to upgrade some packages properly
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2010 00:30:55 +0200
On Fr, 2010-08-06 at 11:04 -0400, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 06/08/10 at 11:35 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > On Fr, 2010-08-06 at 02:40 -0400, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > Package: apt
> > > Version: 0.7.25.3
> > > Severity: serious
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have been testing upgrades from lenny to sid with a tool similar to
> > > piuparts. I ran into many (~80) strange failures, where apt takes a
> > > wrong decision about which packages to upgrade.
> > >
> > > All the logs are available from
> > > http://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2010/08/05/pkg-upgrade/
> > > Here are the various cases:
> > > package-not-upgraded/:
> > > The package under test was not upgraded during apt-get dist-upgrade.
> > > That is always because upgrading it would have required the removal of
> > > another package. However, in the case of library packages being removed
> > > to permit the upgrade, I was wondering whether it was possible to trick
> > > apt into upgrading the package.
> > >
> > > package-uninstalled/:
> > > The package under test was removed during apt-get dist-upgrade.
> > >
> > > package-uninstalled/no-removal/ <= that's where the serious issues are
> > > The package under test was removed during dist-upgrade, but no removal
> > > was neded to get it back! It should really have been upgraded together
> > > with the other packages.
> > > There are quite a lot of failures related to emacs packages, so they
> > > are separated in the logs.
> > >
> > > package-uninstalled/removals/:
> > > A package was removed to permit the upgrade. I'm wondering if in some
> > > cases, it would have made sense to auto-detect the correct solution.
> >
> > Please use a two stage upgrade process:
> > apt-get upgrade
> > apt-get dist-upgrade
> > This will reduce the number of issues.
>
> I'm now doing:
> apt-get install apt (to upgrade apt)
> apt-get upgrade
> apt-get dist-upgrade
> And I don't really see any difference (I haven't tested all the packages
> that were failing).
>
> Good examples of packages that fail are pyrex-mode and
> python-application. Both get removed during apt-get dist-upgrade, but
> can be installed without removing any package after that.
>
At least those two work now with the latest commit in
debian-experimental-ma.
------------------------------------------------------------
revno: 2032
committer: Julian Andres Klode <[email protected]>
branch nick: debian-experimental-ma
timestamp: Fri 2010-08-06 23:33:55 +0200
message:
* apt-pkg/depcache.cc:
- Only try upgrade for Breaks if there is a newer version, otherwise
handle it as Conflicts (by removing it) (helps for #591881).
diff:
=== modified file 'apt-pkg/depcache.cc'
--- apt-pkg/depcache.cc 2010-07-14 20:59:43 +0000
+++ apt-pkg/depcache.cc 2010-08-06 21:33:55 +0000
@@ -1425,10 +1425,13 @@
VerIterator Ver(*this,*I);
PkgIterator Pkg = Ver.ParentPkg();
- if (Start->Type != Dep::DpkgBreaks)
+
+
+ if (PkgState[Pkg->ID].CandidateVer != *I &&
+ Start->Type == Dep::DpkgBreaks)
+ MarkInstall(Pkg,true,Depth + 1, false, ForceImportantDeps);
+ else
MarkDelete(Pkg,false,Depth + 1, false);
- else if (PkgState[Pkg->ID].CandidateVer != *I)
- MarkInstall(Pkg,true,Depth + 1, false, ForceImportantDeps);
}
continue;
}
=== modified file 'debian/changelog'
--- debian/changelog 2010-08-02 19:02:01 +0000
+++ debian/changelog 2010-08-06 21:33:55 +0000
@@ -8,6 +8,11 @@
* apt-pkg/cdrom.cc:
- fix off-by-one error in DropBinaryArch
+ [ Julian Andres Klode ]
+ * apt-pkg/depcache.cc:
+ - Only try upgrade for Breaks if there is a newer version, otherwise
+ handle it as Conflicts (by removing it) (helps for #591881).
+
-- Michael Vogt <[email protected]> Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:37:14 +0200
apt (0.7.26~exp12) experimental; urgency=low
--
Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member
See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.
Acknowledgement sent
to Lucas Nussbaum <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to APT Development Team <[email protected]>.
(Fri, 06 Aug 2010 23:42:08 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: Bug#591882: apt: fails to upgrade some packages properly
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 19:35:15 -0400
On 07/08/10 at 00:30 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> On Fr, 2010-08-06 at 11:04 -0400, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 06/08/10 at 11:35 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > > On Fr, 2010-08-06 at 02:40 -0400, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > > Package: apt
> > > > Version: 0.7.25.3
> > > > Severity: serious
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I have been testing upgrades from lenny to sid with a tool similar to
> > > > piuparts. I ran into many (~80) strange failures, where apt takes a
> > > > wrong decision about which packages to upgrade.
> > > >
> > > > All the logs are available from
> > > > http://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2010/08/05/pkg-upgrade/
> > > > Here are the various cases:
> > > > package-not-upgraded/:
> > > > The package under test was not upgraded during apt-get dist-upgrade.
> > > > That is always because upgrading it would have required the removal of
> > > > another package. However, in the case of library packages being removed
> > > > to permit the upgrade, I was wondering whether it was possible to trick
> > > > apt into upgrading the package.
> > > >
> > > > package-uninstalled/:
> > > > The package under test was removed during apt-get dist-upgrade.
> > > >
> > > > package-uninstalled/no-removal/ <= that's where the serious issues are
> > > > The package under test was removed during dist-upgrade, but no removal
> > > > was neded to get it back! It should really have been upgraded together
> > > > with the other packages.
> > > > There are quite a lot of failures related to emacs packages, so they
> > > > are separated in the logs.
> > > >
> > > > package-uninstalled/removals/:
> > > > A package was removed to permit the upgrade. I'm wondering if in some
> > > > cases, it would have made sense to auto-detect the correct solution.
> > >
> > > Please use a two stage upgrade process:
> > > apt-get upgrade
> > > apt-get dist-upgrade
> > > This will reduce the number of issues.
> >
> > I'm now doing:
> > apt-get install apt (to upgrade apt)
> > apt-get upgrade
> > apt-get dist-upgrade
> > And I don't really see any difference (I haven't tested all the packages
> > that were failing).
> >
> > Good examples of packages that fail are pyrex-mode and
> > python-application. Both get removed during apt-get dist-upgrade, but
> > can be installed without removing any package after that.
>
> At least those two work now with the latest commit in
> debian-experimental-ma.
Great! I'll install the experimental version instead of the unstable one
next time I run my tests. (probably not before ~1 week)
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| [email protected]http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: [email protected] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Acknowledgement sent
to Julian Andres Klode <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to APT Development Team <[email protected]>.
(Sat, 07 Aug 2010 13:57:10 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: Bug#591882: apt: fails to upgrade some packages properly
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2010 15:54:03 +0200
On Fr, 2010-08-06 at 02:40 -0400, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Package: apt
> Version: 0.7.25.3
> Severity: serious
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been testing upgrades from lenny to sid with a tool similar to
> piuparts. I ran into many (~80) strange failures, where apt takes a
> wrong decision about which packages to upgrade.
>
> All the logs are available from
> http://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2010/08/05/pkg-upgrade/
> Here are the various cases:
> package-not-upgraded/:
> The package under test was not upgraded during apt-get dist-upgrade.
> That is always because upgrading it would have required the removal of
> another package. However, in the case of library packages being removed
> to permit the upgrade, I was wondering whether it was possible to trick
> apt into upgrading the package.
>
> package-uninstalled/:
> The package under test was removed during apt-get dist-upgrade.
>
> package-uninstalled/no-removal/ <= that's where the serious issues are
> The package under test was removed during dist-upgrade, but no removal
> was neded to get it back! It should really have been upgraded together
> with the other packages.
> There are quite a lot of failures related to emacs packages, so they
> are separated in the logs.
I reran those tests (package-uninstalled/no-removal) using the latest
commit in APT's debian-experimental-ma branch; and got:
Emacs cases (26)
================
Fixed (13/26):
* anthy-el
* bbdb
* css-mode
* eldav
* html-helper-mode
* mell
* migemo-perl
* php-elisp
* post-el
* prime-el
* pyrex-mode
* python-mode
* rdtool-elisp
Packages depending on emacs21 | emacsen (8/26) [0]:
* bhl
* crypt++el
* ecb
* elib
* etalk
* gnuserv
* remembrance-agent
* rnc-mode
Failed to install newer emacs (5/26) [1]:
* c-sig
* gnus
* ifile-gnus-el
* remember-el
* suikyo-elisp
[0] emacs22 | emacsen might work
[1] depends on emacs22 | ... | emacsen; but emacs22 is not pulled.
Non emacs cases (11)
====================
Fixed (1/11):
* python-application
Imagemagick (2/11):
* libautotrace-dev
* octave-image
Textlive (5/11):
* dvi2ps
* itrans-fonts
* latex-cjk-japanese-wadalab
* tex4ht-common
* tex4ht
Others (3/11):
* conkeror (xulrunner-1.9 stuff)
* libgpevtype-dev
* python-migrate (python-codespeak-lib becomes virtual in squeeze)
For texlive cases:
I. textlive-common Conflicts texlive-base-bin; causes
textlive-base-bin to be removed
II. texlive-common is not needed anymore and can be removed.
The correct solution would be to remove texlive-common instead of
texlive-base-bin.
Summary
=======
Fixed: 14/37
Remaining: 13/37
-----------------
Total: 37/37
--
Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member
See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.
Acknowledgement sent
to David Kalnischkies <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to APT Development Team <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:42:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: Bug#591882: apt: fails to upgrade some packages properly
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:37:45 +0200
(some comments i thought i had already sent… sorry)
2010/8/7 Julian Andres Klode <[email protected]>:
> Textlive (5/11):
> * dvi2ps
> * itrans-fonts
> * latex-cjk-japanese-wadalab
> * tex4ht-common
> * tex4ht
> For texlive cases:
> I. textlive-common Conflicts texlive-base-bin; causes
> textlive-base-bin to be removed
> II. texlive-common is not needed anymore and can be removed.
I think you mean in II. texlive-base-bin as it is not available in testing.
All listed packages still depend on this package non the less,
so they are non-installable in unstable/testing, right?
(most or-depend on tetex-bin, which is gone too).
> Others (3/11):
> * conkeror (xulrunner-1.9 stuff)
Fixed by the FixByInstall commit. We will see if it will work out in real
world or comes back and hit us horrible hard into our a… ;)
> * libgpevtype-dev
Depends on libmimedir-gnome-dev which was provided by
libmimedir-gnome0-dev before but this package is now dropped.
Instead libmimedir-gnome-dev is now a real package which is
noticed "too late" by APT. Could be easily worked around by
introducing a dummy package libmimedir-gnome0-dev dropping
the provides. Fixing it in APT looks a bit harder to me as i guess
it would require to answer the question if a virtual or a real package
is preferable in general…
> * python-migrate (python-codespeak-lib becomes virtual in squeeze)
… which seems to be the same culprit as above in reverse.
In my reduced testcase is python-migrate btw scheduled for upgrade,
but python-central python-codespeak-lib python2.5 python2.5-minimal
are removed…
btw Lucas, is your script available somewhere?
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
Acknowledgement sent
to Lucas Nussbaum <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to APT Development Team <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:06:55 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: Bug#591882: apt: fails to upgrade some packages properly
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:00:26 +0200
On 23/08/10 at 19:37 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> (some comments i thought i had already sent… sorry)
>
> 2010/8/7 Julian Andres Klode <[email protected]>:
> > Textlive (5/11):
> > * dvi2ps
> > * itrans-fonts
> > * latex-cjk-japanese-wadalab
> > * tex4ht-common
> > * tex4ht
>
> > For texlive cases:
> > I. textlive-common Conflicts texlive-base-bin; causes
> > textlive-base-bin to be removed
> > II. texlive-common is not needed anymore and can be removed.
>
> I think you mean in II. texlive-base-bin as it is not available in testing.
> All listed packages still depend on this package non the less,
> so they are non-installable in unstable/testing, right?
> (most or-depend on tetex-bin, which is gone too).
>
> > Others (3/11):
> > * conkeror (xulrunner-1.9 stuff)
>
> Fixed by the FixByInstall commit. We will see if it will work out in real
> world or comes back and hit us horrible hard into our a… ;)
>
> > * libgpevtype-dev
>
> Depends on libmimedir-gnome-dev which was provided by
> libmimedir-gnome0-dev before but this package is now dropped.
> Instead libmimedir-gnome-dev is now a real package which is
> noticed "too late" by APT. Could be easily worked around by
> introducing a dummy package libmimedir-gnome0-dev dropping
> the provides. Fixing it in APT looks a bit harder to me as i guess
> it would require to answer the question if a virtual or a real package
> is preferable in general…
>
> > * python-migrate (python-codespeak-lib becomes virtual in squeeze)
>
> … which seems to be the same culprit as above in reverse.
> In my reduced testcase is python-migrate btw scheduled for upgrade,
> but python-central python-codespeak-lib python2.5 python2.5-minimal
> are removed…
>
> btw Lucas, is your script available somewhere?
Yes,
http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/collab-qa/debcluster/scripts/tasks/instest.rb?revision=1760&view=markup
But as you will see it is quite hackish.
- Lucas
Acknowledgement sent
to Lucas Nussbaum <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to APT Development Team <[email protected]>.
(Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:24:07 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: Full install/removal/upgrade test results available
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:22:03 -0600
On 17/11/10 at 21:53 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 17 novembre 2010 à 21:33 +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:28:54PM -0600, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > So, that one is an interesting case, and there are several occurences of
> > > this. It might be a problem in APT. What happens is that, if you install
> > > cimg-dev on lenny, and then upgrade to squeeze, cimg-dev gets removed.
> > > But after the upgrade, you can safely reinstall it. It might be caused
> > > by the handling of Breaks in APT. I'm not sure.
> >
> > So I have no idea what to do except waiting for other hints or somebody
> > confirming that APT has a problem.
>
> Same goes for rhythmbox and gnome-core, apparently, and the APT debug
> logs don’t make it easy to understand what happens.
There's already an open APT bug about upgrade issues (#591882, Cced).
Ideally, we would have one bug per type of issue, but I'm having problem
distinguishing the various issues here.
- Lucas
Acknowledgement sent
to Holger Levsen <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to APT Development Team <[email protected]>.
(Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:39:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 17. November 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> There's already an open APT bug about upgrade issues (#591882, Cced).
> Ideally, we would have one bug per type of issue, but I'm having problem
> distinguishing the various issues here.
#603680 looks quite similar to #591882 to me.
cheers,
Holger
Acknowledgement sent
to Julien Cristau <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to APT Development Team <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 06 Dec 2010 11:54:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 11:04:14 -0400, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I'm now doing:
> apt-get install apt (to upgrade apt)
> apt-get upgrade
> apt-get dist-upgrade
I don't think this procedure makes sense to test lenny→squeeze upgrades.
It might be a testbed for apt to improve squeeze→wheezy, but for
lenny→squeeze we should rely on lenny's apt, and fix packages to work
well with that. So I don't think there's a serious bug in apt here,
individual package upgrade issues should be fixed in those specific
packages at this point.
Cheers,
Julien