/dev/chat

8:59 AM

@derobert So, my sound card arrived. Fingers crossed. <suspensful music plays.>

dn-ʞɔɐq ɹW

9:19 AM

@FaheemMitha 3 hours of suspenseful music

@dn-ʞɔɐqɹW That's roughly 2 hours, 59 minutes and 30 seconds too much of suspensful music, then.

dn-ʞɔɐq ɹW

:D The sound card works???

@dn-ʞɔɐqɹW Well, it will need to be installed. Don't know yet. It just got here.

dn-ʞɔɐq ɹW

Well, so another 3 hours of suspenseful music then before I need to post another link!!! :P

(suspenseful music will keep on playing until the card is installed and works)

derobert

Would seem like the suspenseful music only plays once the card is working. I mean, it's a sound card. Hard to have suspenseful music without one...

And with that joke, going to bed. It's 0430...

And all my messages end with ellipses... Good night....

9:55 AM

@derobert Yes, once the card is installed, I'll make sure to try to play some suspenseful music.

@dn-ʞɔɐqɹW Consider switching back to Fabby. Your current username/nick gets a -100 from me. Sorry.

I do have a functioning sound card. But it doesn't work well.

11:51 AM

Hello guys. I have a little question about apt-pinning. Could you please help?

I have Debian Jessie, and would like to install everything from stable, but I would like to have php7.0 come from dotdeb packages. Is the following the right way to do the pinning for that?

Package: *
Pin: release a=stable
Pin-Priority: 1001

Package: php7.0*
Pin: release o=packages.dotdeb.org
Pin-Priority: 1010

somebody

12:31 PM

help? my USB is only detected when i'm connected to the internet

@TheQuantumPhysicist Putting pin priorities for stable is not necessary.

@somebody Ask a question, please.

@TheQuantumPhysicist As for the other repos, I'd use something like 50.

@FaheemMitha I'm pinning stable because I want it to be higher than the other one. This is still not necessary?

That way it won't be upgraded by default. Or maybe 100? That way (I think) new upgrades for dotdeb if they are available. That's what backports uses.

@TheQuantumPhysicist Stable is the default. Don't pin it. Pin the other non-default stuff.

So remove stable pinning, and make priority of dotdeb like 100? This will still work?

Thanks!

@TheQuantumPhysicist I think that would work. 100 should do nothing unless you explicitly install it.

But should upgrade more recent versions automatically.

12:36 PM

I used

Package: php7*
Pin: release o=packages.dotdeb.org
Pin-Priority: 100

without stable pinning

I always have a hard time keeping track of what those priority numbers mean, and the man page isn't much help.

but it insists on installing everything from dotdeb, which I don't want. I just want php7

I complained on #debian-apt, but David K. didn't care.

@TheQuantumPhysicist Ah, my mistake then. Switch to 50, that will definitely work.

lol... I feel beeter :)

I was like - it's confusing. He was like - whatever.

12:38 PM

Maybe they need mass complaint, then they'll do something about it

Use 50. But it won't automatically upgrade to newer versions.

oh, with 50 it's still willing to install everything from dotdeb

oh

I want to upgrade php7 to newer versions

@TheQuantumPhysicist No, that should definitely not happen.

but I want it to ignore everything else

It's not matching it correctly. At 50 it would ignore dotdeb.

Check your release pin is matching correctly. What is apt-cache policy php7, or whatever the package is called?

12:40 PM

This is my whole preferences file now:

#Package: *
#Pin: release a=stable
#Pin-Priority: 1001

Package: php7*
Pin: release o=packages.dotdeb.org
Pin-Priority: 50

Package: php7*
Pin: release o=dotdeb.netmirror.org
Pin-Priority: 50

@TheQuantumPhysicist Ok, just give me the output of apt-cache policy then.

php7.0:
Installed: 7.0.3-1~dotdeb+8.1
Candidate: 7.0.3-1~dotdeb+8.1
Package pin: 7.0.3-1~dotdeb+8.1
Version table:
*** 7.0.3-1~dotdeb+8.1 50
500 http://packages.dotdeb.org/ jessie/all amd64 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
7.0.2-1~dotdeb+8.2 50
500 http://packages.dotdeb.org/ jessie/all amd64 Packages
7.0.2-1~dotdeb+8.1 50
500 http://packages.dotdeb.org/ jessie/all amd64 Packages
7.0.1-1~dotdeb+8.1 50
500 http://packages.dotdeb.org/ jessie/all amd64 Packages
7.0.0-5~dotdeb+8.1 50
500 http://packages.dotdeb.org/ jessie/all amd64 Packages

I just want to be clear on what I'm looking for so that there's no misunderstanding. I want everything stable to come from default debian repo, and only php7* from dotdeb

@TheQuantumPhysicist Yes, I got that.

Give me just the output of apt-cache policy, please.

I did!

@TheQuantumPhysicist No, nothing with php in it, exactly as written. apt-cache policy.

12:43 PM

Package files:
 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
     release a=now
 500 repo.mysql.com/apt/debian jessie/mysql-5.6 i386 Packages
     release o=MySQL,n=jessie,l=MySQL,c=mysql-5.6
     origin repo.mysql.com
 500 repo.mysql.com/apt/debian jessie/mysql-apt-config i386 Packages
     release o=MySQL,n=jessie,l=MySQL,c=mysql-apt-config
     origin repo.mysql.com
 500 repo.mysql.com/apt/debian jessie/mysql-5.6 amd64 Packages
     release o=MySQL,n=jessie,l=MySQL,c=mysql-5.6
     origin repo.mysql.com

@TheQuantumPhysicist As you can see, your pin didn't take. dotdeb is still at 500. And I'd recommended getting rid of those pinned packages listed at the end.

Also, you've got a lot of sources from different places. I recommend only using one source. I use httpredir, which directs you automatically to a suitable mirror.

See httpredir.debian.org

This is weird... the only preferences I have is the ones I showed you

where is this pinning coming from?

Well, Ok, just http.debian.net, ftp.de.debian.org. But you don't need both of them. And check if you really need the third party stuff.

and preferences.d is empty

@TheQuantumPhysicist Could be set in other places. I assume this is not intentional?

I haven't used per-package pinning in so long that I've forgotten the details.

12:49 PM

The sources? The intentional sources are mysql and dotdeb and default debian

Oh and there's also gitlab

@TheQuantumPhysicist Yes, like I said, you use both http.debian.net & ftp.de.debian.org.

what's the difference between that and httpredir?

Will that solve the problem? What's the relation between the repositories and pinning?

@TheQuantumPhysicist See the link. It dynamically redirects to a suitable url. Based largely on speed/accessibility, I think.

So if I use that, then no need to use ftp and http

It's what is generally recommended these days, I think. New installs use it automatically.

@TheQuantumPhysicist No, you still use the same syntax.

You just change the hostname to httpredir.debian.org

Again, read the page.

@TheQuantumPhysicist Set Package: * everywhere.

Change the dotdeb preference to 100. It shouldn't try to install anything. See if that works.

Currently you're only matching php, which doesn't make sense, imo.

1:02 PM

It's still trying to install something from dotdeb:

libmysqlclient18:
Installed: 5.5.47-0+deb8u1
Candidate: 5.6.29-1debian8
Version table:
5.6.29-1debian8 0
500 http://repo.mysql.com/apt/debian/ jessie/mysql-5.6 amd64 Packages
*** 5.5.47-0+deb8u1 0
500 http://security.debian.org/ stable/updates/main amd64 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
5.5.46-0+deb8u1 0
500 http://httpredir.debian.org/debian/ stable/main amd64 Packages

Oh, this is not dotdeb

So you're right

@TheQuantumPhysicist Have you made that change? If so, apt-cache policy again, please.

Package files:
 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
     release a=now
 500 repo.mysql.com/apt/debian jessie/mysql-5.6 i386 Packages
     release o=MySQL,n=jessie,l=MySQL,c=mysql-5.6
     origin repo.mysql.com
 500 repo.mysql.com/apt/debian jessie/mysql-apt-config i386 Packages
     release o=MySQL,n=jessie,l=MySQL,c=mysql-apt-config
     origin repo.mysql.com
 500 repo.mysql.com/apt/debian jessie/mysql-5.6 amd64 Packages
     release o=MySQL,n=jessie,l=MySQL,c=mysql-5.6
     origin repo.mysql.com

@TheQuantumPhysicist That looks Ok.

Great!

Is it still trying to upgrade any of the dotdeb packages?

1:05 PM

No.

How can I let it upgrade php7 only from dotdeb?

Ok, good. I recommend checking your third party stuff too.

@TheQuantumPhysicist Um, it will try to get the most recent version.

I'm sorry, what do you by checking?

Oh yeah

that I do with apt-show-versions | grep newer

I do that regularly to make sure that there's nothing newer that what the repos have

It's difficult to stop it doing that, and I recommend you don't try. If the version of php in dotdeb is older than the one in Debian, use the Debian one instead. Actually, I'd backport php 7 from Debian myself, rather than use a third party repos.

@TheQuantumPhysicist Just whether you actually need those third party repositories.

Well I have many websites that use php7... and it's much, much faster than php5.*

You mean with backport to use the testing version of debian?

@TheQuantumPhysicist I just meant, you could (probably) use the php7 in Debian itself. But it might require backporting to stable if a backport does not itself exist.

1:10 PM

Honestly I don't know what backporting means

@TheQuantumPhysicist unix.stackexchange.com/tags/backports/info

The linked question goes into some detail.

I see

so you're suggesting that I create a pinning rule for php7 from debian testing?

or rebuild myself?

@TheQuantumPhysicist No, backporting requires building the package on jessie.

Read the question and answer.

It requires knowing something about the Debian package building and management. It's not rocket science, but you won't figure it out in 5 minutes, either.

You sent me a tag link. Do you mean the question "How can I install more recent versions of software than what Debian provides?"

Ok, dinner time.

@TheQuantumPhysicist Yes.

1:13 PM

Thank you!

Bon appetit

10:49 PM

@Celada After reflection I think your answer about apt is correct. Sorry. In the past apt-get didn't do much conflict resolution and wouldn't install anything when you told it to remove something, but I think that nowadays this can happen.

My initial feeling was that apt had recorded that php5-cgi had been scheduled for installation, but I'm not sure about that anymore, I can't reproduce this situation.

This desired/actual distinction can happen with dpkg, and it can happen with aptitude, but I can't reproduce it with apt.

@Gilles It's Celada, not Jenny.

@FaheemMitha Celada on Unix & Linux, but JennyD on Server Fault and in chat

@Gilles No.

chat.stackexchange.com/users/73860/jenny-d

They're different people. Jenny lives in Sweden. Celada in London.

10:54 PM

Oh. Oops.

I'm not sure if apt can do that sort of thing. It's usually not that intelligent. But I wouldn't want to bet either way.

At any rate, I was convinced by Celada's explanation.

Different people with approximately the same rep and similar-looking avatars at 32x32. Damn. And Celada isn't pingable in chat.

For an expert opinion one would have to ask David K. and friends in #debian-apt. And maybe I will.

No, I can't. She deleted it. Bugger.

I guess I could cut and paste.

@terdon Could you politely suggest to Celada that she undelete unix.stackexchange.com/a/264781/4671 ?

I'll ask #debian-apt what they think. But it would be easier with the answer undeleted.

@terdon I left a comment on unix.stackexchange.com/a/264781 stating that it was wrong, but on reflection I think it may be correct (I'm pretty sure it would have been wrong 10 years ago, but now I suspect it's correct). Sorry. Now that answer is deleted and Celada isn't in chat so my ping won't reach her.

and thanks @FaheemMitha

@Gilles You're welcome.

11:05 PM

@Seth I doubt system reinstallation is usually necessary for this sort of problem. When a manually installed (i.e., not installed automatically as a dependency) package, or sometimes even a dependency of such a package, declares a "depends" relationship (i.e., strong dependency, not just "recommends"), subsequent transactions will attempt to preserve the dependency. If the dependency is a virtual package, alternative software may be installed to replace what's being removed. (And if it's a metapackage... well, you get the idea.) Based on the OP's answer, I think that's what happened. — Eliah Kagan Oct 5 '14 at 17:33

yeah, that seems to point to apt doing conflict resolution, even as far back as Ubuntu 11.04

Seth

I suggested reinstallation at that point because 11.04 was so out of date it wasn't worth trying to fix only to have to upgrade through 11.10 and 12.04.

@Seth yes but that's an AU-specific way of “resolving” the question

it doesn't actually help people with a similar problem

Seth

@Gilles are you saying AU is the only sensible site? ;)

@Seth no, I'm saying AU sucks

3

Seth

@Gilles I'd argue (and I know @Braiam would agree) there are very few dependency questions that will ever help anyone else.

90% (or more) of cases are very specific situations.