[Aptitude-devel] Bug#697748: Bug#697748: aptitude safe-upgrade ignores some trivial upgrades

[Grześ Andruszkiewicz]

Hi,

I marked the fuse-utils as auto before doing the second upgrade. I am
90% confident that aptitude safe-upgrade then produced:
Will install 0 packages, and remove 0 packages.
===============================================================================
[HOLD, DEPENDENCIES] fuse-utils:i386
[HOLD, DEPENDENCIES] fuseiso:i386
===============================================================================

aptitude dist-upgrade did the job:
Will install 1 packages, and remove 1 packages.
84.0 kB of disk space will be freed
===============================================================================
[REMOVE, NOT USED] fuse-utils:i386
[UPGRADE] fuseiso:i386 20070708-2 -> 20070708-3
===============================================================================

Cheers,
Grzegorz

PS. I get this kind of situation quite often with packages not
upgrading without any obvious reason.

On 9 January 2013 11:48, Axel Beckert <abe at debian.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Grzegorz Andruszkiewicz wrote:
>> I just ran the standard aptitude safe-upgrade today:
>> grzes:/home/ga# aptitude safe-upgrade
>> The following packages will be upgraded:
>>   inkscape librpm3 librpmbuild3 librpmio3 librpmsign1 python-xdg rpm rpm-common
>> rpm2cpio
>> 9 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 2 not upgraded.
> [...]
>> Current status: 2 updates [-9].
>>
>>
>> As you can see, there are still 2 updates left. So I tried:
>> grzes:/home/ga# aptitude dist-upgrade
>> The following packages will be upgraded:
>>   fuse-utils fuseiso
>> 2 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
>> Need to get 66.3 kB of archives. After unpacking 13.3 kB will be freed.
>> Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]
>>
>> and as you see there are no issues why these should not be upgraded in the
>> "safe" way.
>
> Indeed. Do you know the version of fuse-utils before the dist-upgrade?
> For me, the upgrade was:
>
> 03-Jan-2013:
> [UPGRADE] fuse-utils:amd64 2.9.0-2 -> 2.9.0-2+deb7u1
>
> 06-Jan-2013:
> [UPGRADE] fuseiso:amd64 20070708-2 -> 20070708-3
>
> And the changelog entry of fuseiso 20070708-3 contains:
>
>    * Renamed dependency from fuse-utils to fuse (Closes: #689009)
>
> And now it looks like this for me:
>
> fuse-utils:
>   Installed: 2.9.0-2+deb7u1
>   Candidate: 2.9.0-2+deb7u1
>   Version table:
>  *** 2.9.0-2+deb7u1 0
>         900 http://ftp.ch.debian.org/debian/ wheezy/main amd64 Packages
>         901 http://ftp.ch.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-proposed-updates/main amd64 Packages
>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> fuseiso:
>   Installed: 20070708-3
>   Candidate: 20070708-3
>   Version table:
>  *** 20070708-3 0
>         900 http://ftp.ch.debian.org/debian/ wheezy/main amd64 Packages
>         800 http://ftp.ch.debian.org/debian/ sid/main amd64 Packages
>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
>
> fuse-utils is a transitional package which does no more exist in Sid,
> so I suspect that the dependencies playing here are not dead simple
> and I'm not so surprised that this can cause such issues. Nevertheless
> it should have been able to do it in one run.
>
>                 Regards, Axel
> --
>  ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe at debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
> : :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
> `. `'   |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
>   `-    |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send mail to 697748-unsubscribe at bugs.debian.org.