Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230

 

 

 

Debian “wheezy” Released

User discussion about Debian Development, Debian Project News and Announcements. Not for support questions.
Message
Author
emariz
Posts: 2901
Joined: 2008-10-17 07:59

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

#21 Post by emariz »

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.

goofygutt
Posts: 3
Joined: 2013-05-05 01:24

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

#22 Post by goofygutt »

Updated without problems :) Not so happy about Gnome 3 tough, perhaps it will grow on me.

stevesr0
Posts: 159
Joined: 2012-05-05 03:32

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

#23 Post by stevesr0 »

Thanks again emariz (and other responders).

I plan to upgrade this computer to Wheezy because it is a secondary computer, but I am more comfortable doing it slowly, a step at a time.

The info about checking the sources.list that is given in Appendix A. is not completely clear to me, and I suspect to others. Therefore, I am presenting my sources.list for discussion and advice.
(OBVIOUSLY, I haven't added the wheezy repositories that I would use for the upgrade. I plan to do that after clarifying which of the existing repositories should or shouldn't be disabled.)

Here is a copy of my /etc/apt/sources.list file:

# deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux testing _Squeeze_ - Official Snapshot i386 NETINST Binary-1 20100919-21:00]/ squeeze main
deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ squeeze main
deb http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates main
deb-src http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates main
# deb http://download.skype.com/linux/repos/debian/ stable non-free
deb http://www.deb-multimedia.org/ squeeze main non-free
deb http://mirror.home-dn.net/debian-multimedia/ squeeze main
deb http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/debian/ squeeze contrib non-free
# deb http://dl.google.com/linux/deb/ stable non-free
# deb http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports/ squeeze-backports main contrib non-free
# deb http://deb.opera.com/opera/ squeeze non-free
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ squeeze main contrib non-free
deb http://www.deb-multimedia.org/ squeeze-backports main
deb http://mozilla.debian.net/ squeeze-backports iceweasel-release
------------------------------------

1. I assume that a repository that has been disabled by placing a # in front (as shown above) will be ignored in an upgrade to wheezy (so I don't have to delete the line in the file)?

2. The cdrom repository has been disabled since I completed the initial install of Squeeze, as I have only used online sources since then. Since I am not planning to use a Wheezy cd for the upgrade, is there any reason to enable this line? (I ask this only because Appendix A makes a point about not editing the cdrom line.)

3. I have no desire to upgrade virtualbox, skype, chrome or opera at this time, so I plan to keep their repositories disabled.

4. The backport repositories: If I set preferences to upgrade to the wheezy repository, rather than to the highest version, would it be better to leave the backport repositories enabled or disabled?

5. The other repositories that I question disabling are all the three multimedia repositories and mozilla.debian.net. Is it OK to leave these disabled and add multimedia afterwards or is this likely to break the upgrade and the system for some reason?

6. Unless corrected by others answers to 1-5, I believe this is what a minimal sources.list for the upgrade from squeeze to wheezy might look like:

# deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux testing _Squeeze_ - Official Snapshot i386 NETINST Binary-1 20100919-21:00]/ squeeze main
deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main
deb http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main
deb-src http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main
# deb http://download.skype.com/linux/repos/debian/ stable non-free
# deb http://www.deb-multimedia.org/ squeeze main non-free
# deb http://mirror.home-dn.net/debian-multimedia/ squeeze main
# deb http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/debian/ squeeze contrib non-free
# deb http://dl.google.com/linux/deb/ stable non-free
# deb http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports/ squeeze-backports main contrib non-free
# deb http://deb.opera.com/opera/ squeeze non-free
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free
# deb http://www.deb-multimedia.org/ squeeze-backports main
# deb http://mozilla.debian.net/ squeeze-backports iceweasel-release
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As always, thanks in advance for comments.

emariz
Posts: 2901
Joined: 2008-10-17 07:59

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

#24 Post by emariz »

stevesr0 wrote:The info about checking the sources.list that is given in Appendix A. is not completely clear to me, and I suspect to others. Therefore, I am presenting my sources.list for discussion and advice.
Do you know why Debian releases are supported for one year after the publication of a new release? So that you have full twelve months to plan a successful migration. Relax, read, learn, try, and then do. It has only been two days.


My opinion:

You were using Squeeze, an archive with N number of packages at version S. The Wheezy archive has X number of packages at version W>=S. Because the package manager cannot downgrade packages by default and W>=S, the package manager will (try to) upgrade all installed Squeeze packages that are also available in the Wheezy archive, and list as obsolete those that are no longer available.

When one starts using third-party repositories, the comparison is more complex. Most, if not all, packages in Squeeze-Backports are at a lower version than in Wheezy, say B | W>B>S. But many packages in Deb Multimedia and Deb Multimedia Backports may be at the same or a higher version than Wheezy and have different dependencies. And the packages in Debian Mozilla may be many versions newer than those in Wheezy, but depend on packages only available in Squeeze or Squeeze-Backports.

First, one has to look for third-party repositories that are Wheezy-compatible. If there are but one does not enable them during the upgrade, many packages will be replaced, others will remain at their current version and be marked as obsolete, and some others will simply break. If one does enable these third-party repositories, APT may still face issues, but it certainly will have more tools.

Do the upgrade in parts, it will be extremely simpler to diagnose the problems. In fact, I would start with the packages from third-party repositories.

User avatar
kc1di
Posts: 274
Joined: 2007-03-12 12:52
Location: Somewhere In Maine
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

#25 Post by kc1di »

goofygutt wrote:Updated without problems :) Not so happy about Gnome 3 tough, perhaps it will grow on me.
I tried Gnome 3 for awhile but decided to go with xfce :)
Dave
Morse Code -An Early digital mode !
Bookworm
John 3:16
Registered Linux User # 462608

w2vy
Posts: 48
Joined: 2011-02-07 14:06

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

#26 Post by w2vy »

emariz wrote:Do the upgrade in parts, it will be extremely simpler to diagnose the problems. In fact, I would start with the packages from third-party repositories.
That sounds good... is there a wiki page that describes the steps for the some-what smart but cautious admin?

You suggested doing the third party packages first, I have skype, dropbox and googletalk
And those sources just list debian with no referenced to the release, so is it reasonable to assume they
are not very release specific or they handle it properly automatically?

I also have one launchpad source that I seem to have gotten a java7 release from, I am inclined to just uninstall that package
and remove the source.

The rest are all debian.org urls

Here's another (likely) common one http://mozilla.debian.net/ squeeze-backports iceweasel-release

any suggestion would be nice.

debian is so stable we don't have new releases that often... it is a Blessing and a Curse...
The Blessing is obvious... the curse is we all forget how to do the slightly non-standard stuff

tom

emariz
Posts: 2901
Joined: 2008-10-17 07:59

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

#27 Post by emariz »

w2vy wrote:You suggested doing the third party packages first, I have skype, dropbox and googletalk
And those sources just list debian with no referenced to the release, so is it reasonable to assume they
are not very release specific or they handle it properly automatically?

I also have one launchpad source that I seem to have gotten a java7 release from, I am inclined to just uninstall that package and remove the source.
I would start with third-party repositories because those are precisely the packages that APT may have more problems dealing with. The key part here is to know if the third-party repositories are compatible with Wheezy. Backports, Debian Mozilla and Deb Multimedia provide Wheezy archives, but you will have to read about the others.
I would remove all PPA's, but I do not use them and have no experience managing them.

Review your APT Preferences, add the Wheezy and Wheezy-compatible third-party repositories to your sources list, and leave the Squeeze ones enabled.
Are you familiar with Aptitude's visual mode? As you will be upgrading your system in parts and keeping and eye on the process, there is no need to use Apt-Get (which is more conservative.)

Read the release notes and the installation guide, and always simulate the actions before proceeding, or run Aptitude's visual mode as a normal user first.

Start with, say, the packages from Skype, then Googletalk, then those from Mozilla, and lastly those from Deb Multimedia, which may be the most complicate and the ones that require more interaction.
Once the packages from third-party repositories have been solved (upgraded, removed or put on hold, according to the issues), start upgrading the system: Kernel and firmware first, restart, then the X Server, then the core packages of the desktop environment, then the accessories and multimedia applications, then the office suite, etc. At the end simulate aptitude safe-upgrade and aptitude full-upgrade to update all packages that are still at their version from Squeeze and choose the best options for you.
After the upgrade, reinstall the missing packages, remove the obsolete ones, and remove any Squeeze-related repositories from your sources list.
Last edited by emariz on 2013-05-10 03:39, edited 1 time in total.

Randicus
Posts: 2663
Joined: 2011-05-08 09:11

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

#28 Post by Randicus »

Yes, Wheezy has been released. Now it is time for a rant (sort of :) ).
I installed Squeeze on a new computer and upgraded to Wheezy. Everything worked perfectly, except my printer no longer printed. After a few days of futile trouble-shooting, I experimented by re-installing with a Wheezy disc. Then all Hell broke loose.
1 - My printer still does not work.
2 - I no longer have transparency.
3 - My Openbox startup.sh is ignored.
4 - fbpanel will not open on its own.
:evil: {Insert explitive here.} :evil:
I have some rough times ahead. :(
Damn, I need a coffee right now.

User avatar
beardedragon
Posts: 182
Joined: 2011-06-08 21:18

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

#29 Post by beardedragon »

beardedragon wrote:Not sure what I did? Net installed Debian Wheezy on whole disk and once installed decided to add some things. Using aptitude, suddenly half of the already installed programs are removed. Looked at what was left, installed google chrome, xfce, xfce-goodies, libreoffice, icedove and xsane. Added cairo-dock and desktopnova and back up and running. The only thing missing now is the icon for the network in the notification area. Still online as before.
Seems like everything went haywire, so I reinstalled using Net-Install and got it to take the Desktop Xfce. Success. After working through a couple of problems, using Google Chrome to take advantage of Flash and finding a solution for libdvdcss2 in VLC I am very happy with this version.
Robert Collard, Madison, WI
Lenovo K450e Kernel: 4.19.0-5 NVIDIA 418.74
Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster) XFCE-4.12.4
Rule #1 Back Up
Rule #2 Back Up Your Back Up

User avatar
jackdaws
Posts: 160
Joined: 2006-04-17 16:01
Location: The Glens of Antrim

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

#30 Post by jackdaws »

Great job! Congratulations and thanks to all concerned. I've been using Wheezy for something approaching a few years now, and it's very stable and functional on my system.
Perfectionism is an imperfection

stevesr0
Posts: 159
Joined: 2012-05-05 03:32

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

#31 Post by stevesr0 »

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.

emariz
Posts: 2901
Joined: 2008-10-17 07:59

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

#32 Post by emariz »

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.

rupeshforu3
Posts: 133
Joined: 2012-12-06 07:04
Location: India

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

#33 Post by rupeshforu3 »

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.

User avatar
llivv
Posts: 5340
Joined: 2007-02-14 18:10
Location: cold storage

Wheezy released 4 may 2013

#34 Post by llivv »

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 memory of Ian Ashley Murdock (1973 - 2015) founder of the Debian project.

stevesr0
Posts: 159
Joined: 2012-05-05 03:32

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

#35 Post by stevesr0 »

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: 159
Joined: 2012-05-05 03:32

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

#36 Post by stevesr0 »

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?

emariz
Posts: 2901
Joined: 2008-10-17 07:59

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

#37 Post by emariz »

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.

stevesr0
Posts: 159
Joined: 2012-05-05 03:32

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

#38 Post by stevesr0 »

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.

emariz
Posts: 2901
Joined: 2008-10-17 07:59

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

#39 Post by emariz »

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.

stevesr0
Posts: 159
Joined: 2012-05-05 03:32

Re: Debian “wheezy” Released

#40 Post by stevesr0 »

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.

Locked