automatic “unholding” of held packages??

[Member stevesr0]

When I sudo apt update && sudo apt full-upgraded my Sid install tonight, I found that it took packages I had apt-mark hold and unheld them!

The only thing I can attribute it to is the appearance of an upgrade that was more than one level above what I had installed (pipewire 0.3.64.2-nosystemd to 0.3.64.4).

Is this expected behavior?

If so, is this why other ways of “holding back” packages are used?

stevesr0

(This is a separate issue from my other post tonight about funky upgrade things. Different machine, different antiX version.)

[Member olsztyn]

Helpful

Up

0

::

stevesr0 wrote:

When I sudo apt update && sudo apt full-upgraded my Sid install tonight, I found that it took packages I had apt-mark hold and unheld them!
The only thing I can attribute it to is the appearance of an upgrade that was more than one level above what I had installed (pipewire 0.3.64.2-nosystemd to 0.3.64.4).

I do not think I am answering your question but as a precaution according to my practice:
– Some of the pipewire related packages that would be upgraded to 0.3.64-4 would be from 0.3.64-2 nosystemd version to unmodified debian version, such as libspa-0.2-modules or libpipewire-0.3-0. This should be held until anti has a chance to modify the ‘-4’ version to nosystemd.
– To be cautious in preserving consistency of upgrading I am resorting to Synaptic, where it is more clear what can be upgraded in a consistent manner and not flipping anti’s nosystemd modified to the regular debian ones, as well as avoiding other inconsistencies and surprises.
– As another example of a significant inconsistency in SID (debian) these past two days is that Libreoffice gets removed when upgrading certain modules or if upgrading Libreoffice itself, some of its components stay behind, not upgraded. Such cases are easy to spot and avoid in Synaptic.

However, noticing these inconsistencies and manually and selectively upgrading rather than through apt upgrade systemwide, you can have SID as stable and rock solid as antiX/debian stable.

• This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by olsztyn.
• This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by olsztyn.

Live antiX Boot Options (Previously posted by Xecure):
https://antixlinuxfan.miraheze.org/wiki/Table_of_antiX_Boot_Parameters

[Member olsztyn]

Helpful

Up

0

::

olsztyn wrote:

– As another example of a significant inconsistency in SID (debian) these past two days is that Libreoffice gets removed when upgrading certain modules or if upgrading Libreoffice itself, some of its components stay behind, not upgraded. Such cases are easy to spot and avoid in Synaptic.

Update:
As of today this inconsistency appears to have been fixed in SID.
This would be an example that it pays to wait a day or two for such inconsistencies to be fixed rather than upgrade in inconsistent state.
I am running antiX/Debian SID full time now, following certain rules when upgrading, such as:
– I Never overlay nosystemd versions of components with default Debian versions
– I do not upgrade components in inconsistent state (such as one LibreOffice example these past two days)
– I typically do not overlay release level versions with beta level ones. Upgrade them when they become mature.

Over the past few months this became my ideal and still rock solid antiX…

Live antiX Boot Options (Previously posted by Xecure):
https://antixlinuxfan.miraheze.org/wiki/Table_of_antiX_Boot_Parameters

[Member stevesr0]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Hi olsztyn,

Thanks for reply.

As noted in the thread about keeping “nosystemd pure”, it is necessary to check each upgradable package before allowing its install. Your cautionary comments are spot on. What is a beta level upgrade and what identifies it? Is it the presence of a b in the version or a small numerical increase or…?

I use aptitude – I am used to it.

My Sid install is minimalistic enough to do without a real wordprocessor application. I just have leafpad installed.
I am curious about the Libreoffice problem – was it an unmet dependency issue?

Tonight, the packages I held yesterday were still held, so I think it only changes when there is a two-step difference between the installed and the latest available version. Just something else to check each time…

stevesr0

[Member olsztyn]

Helpful

Up

0

::

stevesr0 wrote:

What is a beta level upgrade and what identifies it? Is it the presence of a b in the version or a small numerical increase or…?

Indeed. If the actual version is the same and the only difference in the upgrade is +b1, etc., then I wait until the upgrade matures to the version change. It usually progresses relatively quickly, with some exceptions like e.g. Celluloid, which seems to have been stuck with b1 update for quite some time.

stevesr0 wrote:

My Sid install is minimalistic enough to do without a real wordprocessor application. I just have leafpad installed.
I am curious about the Libreoffice problem – was it an unmet dependency issue?

I am running Full kaboodle of antiX SID/Debian bookworm/SID, including the latest LibreOffice and a bunch of multimedia additions. As I understand from prior posts you are running Openbox WM in SID, while the only difference in my WM vs. yours is LXpanel in Openbox. This is in addition to the standard four WMs from antiX, JWM having been my primary choice before I became familiar with the integrated functionality and elegance of Openbox + LXpanel.
With LibreOffice it was not an unmet dependency issue but rather some degree of havoc created by inconsistencies. such as upgrading one component entailed removal of LibreOffice altogether. Second option was to upgrade only some parts of LibreOffice. Inconsistencies are visible and easy to identify, and it is usually a matter of a day or two for them to get fixed in SID.

stevesr0 wrote:

I use aptitude – I am used to it.

I am not as handy with ‘apt’ to see what upgrades entail and recognize inconsistencies. In my case Synaptic makes my upgrades quick and easy to manually decide upgrades and identify inconsistencies, focusing on Status being ‘Installed upgradable’ listing.

stevesr0 wrote:

Tonight, the packages I held yesterday were still held, so I think it only changes when there is a two-step difference between the installed and the latest available version.

If I understood you are referring to pipewire upgrade from ‘-2’ to ‘-4’ difference. Problem is that a few components of the ‘-2’ version are nosystemd modified by anticapitalista, which in case of pipewire means elogind-free, and should not be upgraded to plain Debian ‘-4’ version. This was as of earlier today. I do not know when anticapitalista will get to modify these, if worthwhile to do such work at all for such minor upgrade. I think anti has been putting lots of work into pipewire and modified lots of components recently to ‘nosystemd/noelogind’ already. I do not count on such effort to be repeated each time any upgrade happens in Debian…

In any case I am running my SID antiX as elogind-free. Rock solid and trouble free for some time now, having paid attention to consistency of upgrades.

• This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by olsztyn.
• This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by olsztyn.

Live antiX Boot Options (Previously posted by Xecure):
https://antixlinuxfan.miraheze.org/wiki/Table_of_antiX_Boot_Parameters

[Author]

Posts