Re: cold plug with udev

In article <4ECA1221B8%news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Darren Salt <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I demand that Nick Leverton may or may not have written...

Could be right if the OP's been tracking etch via "upgrade" instead of
"dist-ugpade".

"upgrade" would cause any given package to be upgraded, given a newer
version, unless there is a dependency problem or it's marked as held. I'd
therefore expect udev 0.105.

"dist-upgrade" is less conservative and is best used for upgrading between
releases, e.g. sarge -> etch.

That's what I thought I was saying :) But I don't know when udev's
various Conflicts came in. Hotplug was an early one but it used to be
versioned, now it's absolute. Et cetera.

If you want to find out why APT hasn't dragged in the latest udev
there's one simple way: "apt-get -u -s dist-upgade". Apt-get
won't drag in the extra dependencies that aptitude does, and simulating
the dist-upgrade will stop it actualyl changing anything - so you can
see what would be changed in bringing you fully up to date.

I can't say for sure as I am on latest, but it's not uncommon for a package
to be kept behind if installing it would mean either installing a new
dependency or removing a new conflict.

I don't see that either of those would prevent upgrade.

I thought we both agreed above that that's what happens - what have I
mis-understood ?

A package won't be upgraded if it would require the upgrade, installation or
removal of some other package and doing so would break another package. The
difference with dist-upgrade is, AIUI, that it will happily remove the
newly-broken package too.

Apt-get and aptitude are different in this respect. Apt-get will,
in general, install what it can and complain if it can't. I've found
it rare in recent years that apt-get wanted to remove more than one or
two pacakges.

But aptitude has recently acquired a conflict resulution mechanism which
is quite happy to uninstall 90% of your system just to install one
requirement :-(

udev:
Installed: 0.098-X
Candidate: 0.105-3

Possibly. OTOH, 0.098-1 is the most recent version mentioned in 0.105-3's
NEWS.Debian...

That's expected, NEWS.deian only changes when there's a major change
in the package that you need to be warned about (config file layout,
soname versions, etc).

As I say "apt-get -s dist-upgrade" should stop us guessing what it's
doing and show you what it really wants to do.

Nick
--
http://www.leverton.org/blosxom ... So express yourself
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: cold plug with udev
    ... unless there is a dependency problem or it's marked as held. ... itself, hence the unversioned conflict. ... package to be kept behind if installing it would mean either installing ... Er, AFAICS, you were saying that the package should remain unupgraded to ...
    (uk.comp.os.linux)
  • Live upgrade from FC5 to FC6 successful, FC7 next
    ... Then just run yum upgrade. ... There were only 5 dependency failures. ... Error: Missing Dependency: libgcj.so.7 is needed by package eclipse-pydev ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Im having troubles upgrading from FC5 to FC6 using yum
    ... I've tried a couple of iterations of upgrading my Fedora Core 5 machine ... --> Finished Dependency Resolution ... package mozilla-mail ... If mplayer did not upgrade, ...
    (linux.redhat)
  • Re: Program Needs libstdc++-libc6.2-2.so.3
    ... >> upgrade with the changes in C libraries, but I know very little about C ... Maybe installing it is enough to solve ... I can't find a package by that name. ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: Removing desktop environments
    ... It would be put back on upgrade though with the new stuff. ... Installing one package at a time and asking yourself thereafter -- do I ... Whenever I remove a package I always purge except system stuff I'll generally ...
    (Debian-User)