APT 1.3 Released For Debian Linux Distributions

[sdack]

1) My old grandpa decides to update his system with his new package manager that works as you explain.
2) The package manager upgrades mutter-common, but another concurrent update breaks the connection, and mutter never gets downloaded. ...

I already said this cannot lead to a broken system by definition of the packaging system. Please tell me you understand this.

[franglais125]

I already said this cannot lead to a broken system by definition of the packaging system. Please tell me you understand this.

I will quote your own post from earlier, which contradicts you:

What then happens when mutter doesn't download is that you simply have mutter-common installed (to no effect) and it will show up as auto-removeable until you've finally installed mutter

Suppose I'm running Debian jessie, and decide to change my repos to testing. Now imagine this (with actual version numbers you understand):

1) I have mutter 3.14 and mutter-common 3.14
2) Change repos to testing
3) apt will now try to upgrade said packages to mutter 3.22 and mutter-common 3.22 (sure, 3.21.91, but they will migrate soon)
4) If apt tried to concurrently upgrade other packages from stable->testing, systemd, networkmanager, linux-image, etc., the connection might get killed, etc.
5) Now, finally, same situation as before: mutter-common installs first (by your own admission, it's the dependency, we agree there), but muter never finishes the download due to network issues.
6) Situation now: mutter-common is at 3.22, mutter is at 3.14.

I do understand that the system is NOT broken, I do understand that "apt-get install -f" might help solve the dependencies once I reboot and get an internet connection.

BUT

If it's my grandpa who is upgrading, he will boot up and probably not be able to log in. He doesn't care that a simple command might fix his problem, he doesn't know to hit Ctr+Alt+F(1-7).


========

I have to say this exercise is becoming pointless.
Your assumption that I'm an idiot also doesn't help. So this was my last post on this thread.

Cheers

[sdack]

I will quote your own post from earlier, which contradicts you...

This isn't a contradiction. You only took my comment out of context. If mutter hasn't been installed yet then mutter-common does indeed end up as auto-removable. It is no different from installing mutter-common manually on a new system where there is no mutter yet, only with the difference that you've installed it manually and so it doesn't get marked as auto-removable, because of the manual installation (you can mark it afterwards manually as auto-removable though).

Regarding your upgrade from stable to testing do I generally not recommend it. It does lead to a broken system and you have to manually fix it. You need to use dist-upgrade and not just upgrade (and even then can this lead to a broken system).

Just realize that the package management system is designed to avoid broken systems. That's one of the major points of having it in the first place. It's the reason why you have experimental, unstable, testing and stable distributions, why packages need crypto signatures, why packages undergo testing and need to be signed off by the distro maintainers. Package maintainers are required to abide the rules. You then cannot create scenarios where you imagine something could go wrong when really you just don't respect the rules.

[starshipeleven]

You still have not answered in any way about how installing stuff without having downloaded all first isn't a risk during upgrades. You keep repeating about how the dependencies will be checked before installing, but that's not what I'm arguing about.

In an update you have ALREADY packages 1 2 3 4 (all dependent on the next one) so when you launch an update to update all of them but after you updated say 1 and 2, internet connection breaks (happened) or the server plain does not have the packages (happened), or the system shuts down for other reasons (happened).

This leaves you with a system where 1 and 2 are of a newer version than packages 3 and 4, and packages 1 and 2 are dependencies of 3 and 4.
This does lead to breakage, or has a high risk of it.

No amount of dependency checking will solve this, because it's not an issue of dependencies, but of overwriting packages with newer ones without also overwriting their parents with newer ones as something broke.

And this is why you CANNOT start installation of dependent packages BEFORE you have downloaded all of the packages in that chain.
Sure you can install packages from other dependency chains, but it will be like in the scheme I depicted in my post above.

[sdack]

You still have not answered in any way about how installing stuff without having downloaded all first isn't a risk during upgrades. ...

I don't owe you an answer. What makes you think everyone would have to answer to you?! There is no reason to give you answer to your problem as you will already know the answer. You already know that any installation process, no matter how its done, can be interrupted. You then don't go onto the Internet and cry about how your connection got interrupted, instead, you fix your connection and your problem. I'm sure you are smart enough to do that. So what do you need an answer for?

[starshipeleven]

So what do you need an answer for?

You still have not answered in any way about how installing stuff without having downloaded everything first isn't a risk during upgrades.

Package managers don't do that, and there is a reason for it. Because in case you cannot get all packages you would end with a frankenstein situation, and likely breakage.

[sdack]

You still have not answered ...

And I don't need to.

APT doesn't do this currently, which is why I said *I* want it. The fact that it isn't being doing yet doesn't mean it's impossible. It is possible and you know it, but somehow can you not admit it to yourself and instead want me to believe I couldn't have it, that it was impossible.

And the longer this conversation goes on the more I wonder about what's wrong with you.

[starshipeleven]

And I don't need to.

Well, the idea was yours, who should answer criticism about it, my uncle?

APT doesn't do this currently, which is why I said *I* want it. The fact that it isn't being doing yet doesn't mean it's impossible. It is possible and you know it, but somehow can you not admit it to yourself and instead want me to believe I couldn't have it, that it was impossible.

I'm not saying it is impossible, I'm saying that on upgrades it would be unsafe, and I explained why. Learn to read.

I already told you a safe way, and I also said that by doing it like that you'd still get vastly faster install/update times without making it unsafe.

And the longer this conversation goes on the more I wonder about what's wrong with you.

Yeah, I like talking to people that cannot distinguish between package installation and package update, yet they think they know better. I must have something wrong in me.

[sdack]

Well, the idea was yours, who should answer criticism about it, my uncle?

I'm not saying it is impossible, I'm saying that on upgrades it would be unsafe, and I explained why. Learn to read.

I already told you a safe way, and I also said that by doing it like that you'd still get vastly faster install/update times without making it unsafe.

Yeah, I like talking to people that cannot distinguish between package installation and package update, yet they think they know better. I must have something wrong in me.

You seem to be forgetting that it's optional. Some people have no Internet at all. They still get updates with DVSs and USB sticks. Others use NFS mounts and Windows shares. Some have no disks at all - diskless clients. Everybody is different.

It's not criticism when it's unfounded. What you have are fears. I hope I could help you to get through them. Are we done here?

[starshipeleven]

You seem to be forgetting that it's optional.

Sure, a package manager with unsafe optional features, how has anyone yet thought that it was a good idea?

Some people have no Internet at all. They still get updates with DVSs and USB sticks. Others use NFS mounts and Windows shares. Some have no disks at all - diskless clients. Everybody is different.

Yeah, and most people need the update program to not fuck up because someone is a moron.

It's not criticism when it's unfounded. What you have are fears.

You can state that it is unfunded and that mine are fears when you demonstrate that with your system you won't fuck up a system if the internet connection fails while upgrading packages.

Package management is CRUCIAL part of the system, you cannot add features that add instability and turn Linux into Windows where a failed upgrade basically fucks up the whole system and requires a rescue from the install disk (or tool disks) without people calling you an idiot.

Are we done here?

No.