Debian “wheezy” Released

News and announcements regarding Debian and the forum. Not for support questions.

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

Postby stevesr0 » 2013-05-11 16:43

emariz wrote:
stevesr0 wrote:I just checked and I have roughly 98 packages from bpo60.

This search pattern lists all installed packages from the Backports repository:
Code: Select all
$ aptitude search '?installed ?origin(Debian Backports)'


And this one will also include installed backports from other repositories (like the Debian Mozilla Team and Deb Multimedia):
Code: Select all
$ aptitude search '?narrow(?installed, ?archive(squeeze-backports))'



stevesr0 wrote:If all of these have to be downgraded to Squeeze packages in order to upgrade, I would be inclined to just do a fresh install of Wheezy.

You do not need to downgrade anything, because the version of those packages in Wheezy is most likely higher than its counterpart in Squeeze-Backports. Third-party repositories may cause more trouble, but Backports is carefully managed, precisely to prevent these issues.


Hi emariz,

Replying to your response above.

Thanks for aptitude "code".

I ran both.

The first one returned no packages ?!!

The second returned:

root@emachinesm6810:/home/stevesr0# aptitude search '?narrow(?installed, ?archive(squeeze-backports))'
i iceweasel - Web browser based on Firefox
i lame - LAME Ain't an MP3 Encoder
i A libbluray1 - Blu-ray disc playback support library (sha
i A libebml3 - access library for the EBML format (shared
i A libmatroska5 - extensible open standard audio/video conta
i A libmozjs20d - Mozilla SpiderMonkey JavaScript library
i libmp3lame0 - LAME Ain't an MP3 Encoder (shared library)
i A libnspr4 - NetScape Portable Runtime Library
i A libnspr4-0d - NetScape Portable Runtime Library - transi
i libsqlite3-0 - SQLite 3 shared library
i A libvlc5 - multimedia player and streamer library
i A libvlccore5 - base library for VLC and its modules
i A libx264-124 - x264 video coding library
i vlc - multimedia player and streamer
i A vlc-data - Common data for VLC
i A vlc-nox - multimedia player and streamer (without X
i A vlc-plugin-notify - LibNotify plugin for VLC
i A vlc-plugin-pulse - PulseAudio plugin for VLC
i A xulrunner-20.0 - XUL + XPCOM application runner
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I try to search within "visual" aptitude, I don't see any way of search by version or repository and using "bpo" I get one package that includes bpo. If I try with bpo60, I don't get any packages.

Interesting discrepancies.
stevesr0
 
Posts: 156
Joined: 2012-05-05 03:32

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

Postby emariz » 2013-05-11 21:29

stevesr0 wrote:
emariz wrote:This search pattern lists all installed packages from the Backports repository:
Code: Select all
$ aptitude search '?installed ?origin(Debian Backports)'

The first one returned no packages ?!!

The Backports repository is not present. Otherwise, at least Iceweasel should have been shown (as a false positive, see below.)

This is the correct search pattern to locate installed packages from Backports:
Code: Select all
$ aptitude search '?narrow(?installed, ?origin(Debian Backports))'

Without the ?narrow option, the search pattern could produce false positives: Packages that are installed and exist in Backports, but that may have been installed using a different repository.
emariz
 
Posts: 2886
Joined: 2008-10-17 07:59

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

Postby rupeshforu3 » 2013-05-12 17:14

May I know how many months it would take to get full installation DVDs(a set of ten).

As I am living in a remote area I have to buy finished DVDs and vendors release these DVDs when they are available for download using http,ftp or torrent.

Please do not respond negatively.


Regards,
Rupesh.
rupeshforu3
 
Posts: 124
Joined: 2012-12-06 07:04
Location: India

Wheezy released 4 may 2013

Postby llivv » 2013-05-12 17:18

I've been using wheezy since they squeezed out squeezy.
I've tried to do my part to help get wheezy out the door and working
on as many machine types as possible.
Even though I don't know how to do that to well yet. :oops:
in the kitchen with Julia ....
[...]
Get on the D bus to B Can ....
[...]
User avatar
llivv
 
Posts: 5586
Joined: 2007-02-14 18:10
Location: willo the tree

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

Postby stevesr0 » 2013-05-14 03:22

emariz wrote:
stevesr0 wrote:
emariz wrote:This search pattern lists all installed packages from the Backports repository:
Code: Select all
$ aptitude search '?installed ?origin(Debian Backports)'

The first one returned no packages ?!!

The Backports repository is not present. Otherwise, at least Iceweasel should have been shown (as a false positive, see below.)

This is the correct search pattern to locate installed packages from Backports:
Code: Select all
$ aptitude search '?narrow(?installed, ?origin(Debian Backports))'

Without the ?narrow option, the search pattern could produce false positives: Packages that are installed and exist in Backports, but that may have been installed using a different repository.


I took another look at my sources list. The backports repo is there - but was disabled. When I enabled it and reran the aptitude "script", the files show up.

I have gone ahead with removal of Libreoffice and downgrade of iceweasel back to squeeze version.
stevesr0
 
Posts: 156
Joined: 2012-05-05 03:32

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

Postby stevesr0 » 2013-05-14 03:29

I have 4 kernels installed, 2.6.32-48 from squeeze, and 2.6.39-3, 3.2.20-1 and 3.2.41-2 from squeeze backports.

For an upgrade to wheezy, is it clearly advisable to leave the squeeze kernel but remove the others, before switching to wheezy repositories for dist upgrade or not?
stevesr0
 
Posts: 156
Joined: 2012-05-05 03:32

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

Postby emariz » 2013-05-14 22:11

stevesr0 wrote:I have gone ahead with removal of Libreoffice and downgrade of iceweasel back to squeeze version.


stevesr0 wrote:I have 4 kernels installed, 2.6.32-48 from squeeze, and 2.6.39-3, 3.2.20-1 and 3.2.41-2 from squeeze backports.
For an upgrade to wheezy, is it clearly advisable to leave the squeeze kernel but remove the others, before switching to wheezy repositories for dist upgrade or not?

I already told you that you did not need to downgrade anything, but you did not care. Once again, there is no need to downgrade a package to upgrade to a new Debian release, specially if these packages come from Backports.
Reread my message with tips about upgrading the system in various steps.
emariz
 
Posts: 2886
Joined: 2008-10-17 07:59

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

Postby stevesr0 » 2013-05-15 02:14

emariz wrote:
stevesr0 wrote:I have gone ahead with removal of Libreoffice and downgrade of iceweasel back to squeeze version.


stevesr0 wrote:I have 4 kernels installed, 2.6.32-48 from squeeze, and 2.6.39-3, 3.2.20-1 and 3.2.41-2 from squeeze backports.
For an upgrade to wheezy, is it clearly advisable to leave the squeeze kernel but remove the others, before switching to wheezy repositories for dist upgrade or not?

I already told you that you did not need to downgrade anything, but you did not care. Once again, there is no need to downgrade a package to upgrade to a new Debian release, specially if these packages come from Backports.
Reread my message with tips about upgrading the system in various steps.


------------------------------------

I appreciate both the advice given by you and other experienced Debianites and the time required to read posts and create responses.

Thank you.

Threads on the forums - even with some poorly constructed posts - are read by many and are a valuable resource. So, I view even my blundering comments as potentially useful to others.

Note that others had recommended downgrading packages from the official backports repository.

This computer is my older one and I view it not so much as a test computer as a training device for me to improve my linux skills. I may be appear unnecessarily cautious, but from my viewpoint, removing things allows me to practice downgrading!

Bear in mind that all recommendations are given without a guarantee <g>; it is the user who makes changes on his/her system who is responsible for breaking it.

As it says in acknowledgements in many books, thanks for the advice, but I the author accept responsibility for any errors.
stevesr0
 
Posts: 156
Joined: 2012-05-05 03:32

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

Postby emariz » 2013-05-15 05:02

stevesr0 wrote:Bear in mind that all recommendations are given without a guarantee <g>; it is the user who makes changes on his/her system who is responsible for breaking it.

It is true that I cannot guarantee that my approach will work, but I could only provide theoretical recommendations because you have never showed us real issues. Add the Wheezy and Wheezy-compatible repositories, simulate the upgrade and come back with concrete questions. Then I will be able to provide actual help.

You can continue downgrading all that you want, just as I can prove you that no package from Backports would break during the upgrade in my system, comprised of 803 packages using Squeeze + all Backports. See:

Code: Select all
$ cat /etc/apt/sources.list

## Squeeze

# Principal
deb http://ftp.ccc.uba.ar/pub/linux/debian/debian/ squeeze main contrib non-free

# Actualizaciones
deb http://ftp.ccc.uba.ar/pub/linux/debian/debian/ squeeze-updates main contrib non-free

# Actualizaciones propuestas (incluye las de seguridad)
deb http://ftp.ccc.uba.ar/pub/linux/debian/debian/ squeeze-proposed-updates main contrib non-free

# Backports
deb http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian-backports/ squeeze-backports main contrib non-free

# Multimedia
deb http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian-multimedia/ squeeze main non-free

# Backports multimedia
deb http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian-multimedia/ squeeze-backports main non-free

# Mozilla
deb http://mozilla.debian.net/ squeeze-backports iceweasel-release


Code: Select all
$ cat /etc/apt/preferences

Explanation: Dar a Backports la misma prioridad que Squeeze
Package: *
Pin: release a=squeeze-backports
Pin-Priority: 500


Code: Select all
$ aptitude --simulate full-upgrade

No se instalará, actualizará o eliminará ningún paquete.
0 paquetes actualizados, 0 nuevos instalados, 0 para eliminar y 0 sin actualizar.
Necesito descargar 0 B de ficheros. Después de desempaquetar se usarán 0 B.
Descargará/instalará/eliminará paquetes.



Now let me add the Wheezy and Wheezy-compatible repositories, and update the APT Preferences to continue using all Backports:

Code: Select all
$ cat /etc/apt/sources.list

## Squeeze

# Principal
deb http://ftp.ccc.uba.ar/pub/linux/debian/debian/ squeeze main contrib non-free

# Actualizaciones
deb http://ftp.ccc.uba.ar/pub/linux/debian/debian/ squeeze-updates main contrib non-free

# Actualizaciones propuestas (incluye las de seguridad)
deb http://ftp.ccc.uba.ar/pub/linux/debian/debian/ squeeze-proposed-updates main contrib non-free

# Backports
deb http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian-backports/ squeeze-backports main contrib non-free

# Multimedia
deb http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian-multimedia/ squeeze main non-free

# Backports multimedia
deb http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian-multimedia/ squeeze-backports main non-free

# Mozilla
deb http://mozilla.debian.net/ squeeze-backports iceweasel-release


## Wheezy

# Principal
deb http://ftp.ccc.uba.ar/pub/linux/debian/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free

# Actualizaciones
deb http://ftp.ccc.uba.ar/pub/linux/debian/debian/ wheezy-updates main contrib non-free

# Actualizaciones propuestas (incluye las de seguridad)
deb http://ftp.ccc.uba.ar/pub/linux/debian/debian/ wheezy-proposed-updates main contrib non-free

# Backports
deb http://ftp.ccc.uba.ar/pub/linux/debian/debian/ wheezy-backports main contrib non-free

# Multimedia
deb http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian-multimedia/ wheezy main non-free

# Mozilla
deb http://mozilla.debian.net/ wheezy-backports iceweasel-release


Code: Select all
$ cat /etc/apt/preferences

Explanation: Dar a Backports la misma prioridad que Squeeze
Package: *
Pin: release a=squeeze-backports
Pin-Priority: 500

Explanation: Dar a Backports la misma prioridad que Wheezy
Package: *
Pin: release a=wheezy-backports
Pin-Priority: 500


Code: Select all
$ su -c 'aptitude update'

Estado actual: 682 actualizados [+682], 11568 nuevos [+11568].


Code: Select all
$ aptitude --simulate full-upgrade

633 paquetes actualizados, 419 nuevos instalados, 127 para eliminar y 0 sin actualizar.
Necesito descargar 634 MB de ficheros. Después de desempaquetar se usarán 409 MB.

No se satisfacen las dependencias de los siguientes paquetes:
  python-aptdaemon.pkcompat: Entra en conflicto: packagekit pero se va a instalar 0.7.6-3.
  gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly: Entra en conflicto: gstreamer0.10-lame pero está instalado 0.10.17-0.0.
  libept1: Depende: libapt-pkg4.10 que es un paquete virtual.

Las acciones siguientes resolverán estas dependencias

     Eliminar los paquetes siguientes:                     
1)     gstreamer0.10-lame                                 
2)     libept1                                             

     Mantener los paquetes siguientes en la versión actual:
3)     python-aptdaemon.pkcompat [Sin instalar]

¿Acepta esta solución? [Y/n/q/?]


As you can see, there are more packages that can be upgraded (682) than those that would actually be upgraded (633), but a quick check using Aptitude's visual mode showed me that the packages listed for removal were obsolete, despite having a new version.

About the "problems":
· The latest gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly breaks gstreamer0.10-lame (from Deb Multimedia) because the LAME library has been included in Debian.
· libept1 is no longer a dependency of the latest aptitude.
· python-aptdaemon.pkcompat is an alternative to packagekit. In this case, I would have to read more about them and see which one to install, if any.


I did all of this right before writing this reply, but I have already told you that it would not be difficult. It could not be.
Granted, I already understand a couple of things about APT and I care about the dependency chain when I build the system, yet APT is smarter that one may think.
emariz
 
Posts: 2886
Joined: 2008-10-17 07:59

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

Postby stevesr0 » 2013-05-15 21:27

re: emariz's last post -

That is a great post.

Thanks very much (mucho <g>).

I have printed it out and will chew on it for a while.
stevesr0
 
Posts: 156
Joined: 2012-05-05 03:32

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

Postby emariz » 2013-05-16 01:10

stevesr0 wrote:Thanks very much
I have printed it out and will chew on it for a while.

Note that you may want to be more cautious than I am and only install the desired packages from Backports (the normal approach) instead of updating all available packages to their version in Backports (what I did using APT Preferences.) Related issues were described here (1). Fortunately, those were the only ones that I have faced since late 2011, when that system was built.

Also note that I use Proposed Updates because I like to try the new versions of (Stable) packages whenever they are available, instead of waiting until the next Point Release. And I do not use the Security repository because all security fixes are automatically added to the Proposed Updates repository.

Ah!, I use Aptitude instead of Apt-Get for everything; it is the only package manager that I know. And I did not even try a "safe-upgrade."

On a more conservative system using more conservative upgrading methods, there might not have been any issues at all during the upgrade.


1. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=62647
emariz
 
Posts: 2886
Joined: 2008-10-17 07:59

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

Postby stevesr0 » 2013-05-16 23:41

Reply to emariz comments of 2013-05-15 20:10.

Your comments and the thread you linked are helpful clarifications and qualifications.

A big factor for me is that I have never broken a system - thus, I haven't had the opportunity (yet) to gain experience and confidence in fixing/restoring one.

Also, I am in no rush. It seems that I gain understanding by reading, resting and reading again <g>.

So, yes, I am more comfortable in going slowly.

re: emariz comments of 2013-05-15 00:02,

I wondered about the absence of security repositories.

You include a multimedia repository: http://ftp.br.debian.org/debian-multimedia/ squeeze main non-free

Is this the unofficial multimedia repository? If so, hasn't the name and location changed to deb-multimedia?

The release notes for Wheezy have a section on improved multimedia support (Section 2.2.5) that states, "For most use cases, installation of
packages from third-party repositories should not be necessary
anymore. The times of crippled multimedia support in Debian are
finally over!"

Do you agree with this or still find it necessary to include unofficial repositories for multimedia?

EDIT: I see that there is a debian-multimedia subdirectory on the Brazilian ftp Debian repository. I first looked on ftp.debian.org and the debian-multimedia directory isn't present on that. So, apparently, this is an official debian multimedia repository??

Again, thanks very much for your helpful comments.
stevesr0
 
Posts: 156
Joined: 2012-05-05 03:32

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

Postby 4D696B65 » 2013-05-16 23:50

This is the News & Announcements forum. It is not the place to ask questions.
Please post questions in the appropriate place.
User avatar
4D696B65
 
Posts: 1967
Joined: 2009-06-28 06:09

Previous

Return to News & Announcements

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

fashionable