feh

Oct. 3rd, 2003 09:25 am
ewx: (Default)
[personal profile] ewx
Upgraded my PC to Debian testing last night. Apt needed its usual huge amounts of hand-holding, and by the time I went to bed it wouldn't boot any more. It seems to be mostly OK now though; a few programs seem to have evaporated and Gnome has trashed its old (per-user) configuration and not bothered to install a new one.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-03 02:04 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] saraphale.livejournal.com
Why did apt need handholding? I've not had a problem with it, so far. Debian do seem to be reworking gnome, I've noticed a lot of packages have disappeared from the apt archives.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-03 02:30 am (UTC)
ext_8103: (Default)
From: [identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com
Some things it did this time were: told me that a bunch of packages have been "held back" without saying why; failed to upgrade some things, usually instead removing them completely (for instance gnome-panel, explaining perhaps why Gnome was so thoroughly broken, though I didn't have much time to investigate properly this morning); installed things bit by bit and complain when they error when feeding the lot to dpkg in a single "dpkg -iGEB *.deb" command actually worked much better.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-03 05:16 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imc.livejournal.com
. . . and I thought rpm needed handholding.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-03 05:40 am (UTC)
ext_8103: (Default)
From: [identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com
The silly thing is, apart from for installing a small number of packages, I find that apt actually needs more handholding than nearly-raw dpkg.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-03 06:41 am (UTC)
pm215: (Default)
From: [personal profile] pm215

> installed things bit by bit and complain when they error

Sounds like bug 172339, at least alleviated in apt 0.5.5. You did upgrade apt first, right?

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-03 06:56 am (UTC)
ext_8103: (Default)
From: [identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com
I didn't, no.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-03 07:37 am (UTC)
pm215: (Default)
From: [personal profile] pm215
Ah. "upgrade the package management bits first" has been standard upgrade advice since the year dot... (Not that the upgrade is as seamless as I'd like, but that does usually help.)

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-03 09:11 am (UTC)
cjwatson: (Default)
From: [personal profile] cjwatson
If the distribution grows much further it'll be an absolute necessity; apt in stable had retarded cache limits that rendered it difficult to actually use non-trivial numbers of Packages files.

I never use apt-get dist-upgrade to go from distribution to distribution; dselect works much better. If you must use apt-get paying close attention to what it's going to remove is essential, just in case.

(no subject)

Date: 2003-10-03 11:21 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] crazyscot.livejournal.com
Thoroughly agree; even then, I find I still need to watch dselect+apt like a hawk. The other day I was trying to clean up the sprawling mass of perl binaries on my system, and it tried to remove libc6 on me...

November 2025

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
91011121314 15
1617 181920 2122
23242526272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags