Ubuntu 9.10 repeated dialogue: "Ubuntu is running in low-graphics mode"

[Leonard]

Markus Schönhaber wrote:
> 08.12.2009 05:05, Leonard Chatagnier:
>
>    
>> I agree you may have to change sources.list and I know it's not the
>> recommended/approved
>> method.  I only disagree that safe-upgrade wont do the same regarding
>> depends.
>>      
> And that's not correct. 'safe-upgrade' and 'dist-upgrade' are different.
> Only if 'safe-upgrade' will not keep back packages both will effectively
> do the same.
>    

Well, I had a good example to offer that the part "Only if 
'safe-upgrade' will not keep back
  packages both will effectively do the same." is incorrect but 
apparently safe-upgrade has already
installed it(samba-common was being held back but I can find no mention 
of it with either command).
Why? Because I have not used dist(or full)-upgrade to completion; I've 
always quit before the install.
So, apparently safe-upgrade has installed an upgrade of samba-common 
that was being held back.
Apt-cache policy did confirm that the installed version and the 
candidate were one and the same.
>    
>> I just ran
>> sudo aptitude update&&  sudo aptitude safe-upgrade with these results:
>>      
> [...]
>
> On Karmic there is indeed no dependency conflict, so 'safe-upgrade'
> won't keep back packages, so it will do the same as
> 'full-upgrade'/'dist-upgrade' *in this case*.
>    
Why is this case any different especially with my above evidence/statement?
> OTOH, on Hardy you'd see this:
>
> ~# LANG=C aptitude -s safe-upgrade
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> Reading extended state information
> Initializing package states... Done
> Building tag database... Done
> The following packages have been kept back:
>    bind9-host dnsutils libbind9-30 libdns35 libisc35 libisccfg30
> liblwres30 linux-image-server linux-server
> The following packages will be upgraded:
>    libisccc30 linux-libc-dev
> 2 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 9 not upgraded.
> Need to get 733kB of archives. After unpacking 0B will be used.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?] n
> Abort.
>
> But...
>
> ~# LANG=C aptitude -s dist-upgrade
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> Reading extended state information
> Initializing package states... Done
> Building tag database... Done
> The following NEW packages will be automatically installed:
>    libdns36
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>    libdns36 linux-image-2.6.24-26-server
> linux-ubuntu-modules-2.6.24-26-server
> The following packages will be upgraded:
>    bind9-host dnsutils libbind9-30 libdns35 libisc35 libisccc30
> libisccfg30 liblwres30 linux-image-server linux-libc-dev linux-server
> 11 packages upgraded, 3 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
> Need to get 25.3MB of archives. After unpacking 109MB will be used.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?] n
> Abort.
>    
Not fair-:o)  Now you throw in Hardy(which I haven't used for quite a 
while).  I thought we were
talking about Karmic; at least that's where I was coming from.  The 
Hardy situation does seem
to confirm your point but on Karmic I have doubts.
>    
>> I haven't actually did the upgrade yet but do I not have what you say
>> that today's update to bind is such a case? AAMOF, I rarely use
>> dist-upgrade.  I don't know
>> all the facts about aptitude but are you implying that upgrade didn't
>> get the hits for you on the bind upgrade and if so did you try
>> safe-upgrade? Maybe safe-
>> upgrade does what dist-upgrade is said
>> to do.
>>      
> No. Just look at aptitude's man page:
>
> |  safe-upgrade
> |      Upgrades installed packages to their most recent version.
> |      Installed packages will not be removed unless they are unused
> |      (see the section “Managing Automatically Installed Packages”
> |      in the aptitude reference manual). Packages which are not
> |      currently installed may be installed to resolve dependencies
> |      unless the --no-new-installs command-line option is supplied.
> |
> |      It is sometimes necessary to remove one package in order to
> |      upgrade another; this command is not able to upgrade packages
> |      in such situations. Use the full-upgrade command to upgrade as
> |      many packages as possible.
>    
So noted.  Safe-upgrade has removed packages for me but I can't say 
unequivocally that
they were used.  I think only apt knows that.

> |
> |  full-upgrade
> |      Upgrades installed packages to their most recent version,
> |      removing or installing packages as necessary. This command is
> |      less conservative than safe-upgrade and thus more likely to
> |      perform unwanted actions. However, it is capable of upgrading
> |      packages that safe-upgrade cannot upgrade.
> |
> |          Note
> |          This command was originally named dist-upgrade for
> |          historical reasons, and aptitude still recognizes
> |          dist-upgrade as a synonym for full-upgrade.
>    
Your probably right as the man indicates however, the mans all rarely 
up-t0-date and
wrong at times and admittedly I rarely read them as I find them 
unproductive and confused.
All I can say is that my experience is somewhat different as indicated 
on my replies.


-- 
Leonard
lenc5570 at sbcglobal.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: lenc5570.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 95 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20091208/c31acd5a/attachment.vcf>