catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
60 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

Lisi Reisz
I ran
# aptitude install libreoffice-grammarcheck-en-gb
and aptitude just carried on without asking as is correct when there
is only one package; but it proceeded to uninstall my entire desktop
environment, hundreds of packages.  I couldn't believe it and used the
bash history to confirm that that was ALL I had typed.  Moreover, it
wouldn't respond to control-C.

Whatever happened?????

<groan.  Sinks head in hands>
And it isn't even my computer.

Lisi

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

Francesco Ariis
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 05:27:16PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> I ran
> # aptitude install libreoffice-grammarcheck-en-gb
> and aptitude just carried on without asking as is correct when there
> is only one package; but it proceeded to uninstall my entire desktop
> environment, hundreds of packages.

Is this Debian or FrankenDebian?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

Charlie Kravetz
In reply to this post by Lisi Reisz
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 17:27:16 +0100
Lisi Reisz <[hidden email]> wrote:

>I ran
># aptitude install libreoffice-grammarcheck-en-gb
>and aptitude just carried on without asking as is correct when there
>is only one package; but it proceeded to uninstall my entire desktop
>environment, hundreds of packages.  I couldn't believe it and used the
>bash history to confirm that that was ALL I had typed.  Moreover, it
>wouldn't respond to control-C.
>
>Whatever happened?????
>
><groan.  Sinks head in hands>
>And it isn't even my computer.
>
>Lisi
>


I believe that is one of the complaints from Gene, too.

--
Charlie Kravetz
Linux Registered User Number 425914
[http://linuxcounter.net/user/425914.html]
Never let anyone steal your DREAM.   [http://keepingdreams.com]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

Brian
In reply to this post by Lisi Reisz
On Thu 30 Jun 2016 at 17:27:16 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:

> I ran
> # aptitude install libreoffice-grammarcheck-en-gb
> and aptitude just carried on without asking as is correct when there
> is only one package; but it proceeded to uninstall my entire desktop
> environment, hundreds of packages.  I couldn't believe it and used the
> bash history to confirm that that was ALL I had typed.  Moreover, it
> wouldn't respond to control-C.
>
> Whatever happened?????
>
> <groan.  Sinks head in hands>
> And it isn't even my computer.

Here is what I would do:

1. Check sources.list and 'apt-get update'.

2. 'apt-get upgrade' followed by 'apt-get dist-upgrade. I'd not be
   expecting anything to be done here.

3. 'apt-get install --reinstall systemd-sysv' to ensure the init system
   is in place. (Cargo cult has its uses. :))

4. Reboot. Should be safe because you've done it earlier.

5. Assess the damage. Glance at the output of 'dpkg -l | less'. Is X
   still about? The desktop? Anything obvious missing? Look at the files
   in /var/log/apt. All packages removed and installed are recorded.
   Supposedly aptitude also logs?

6. Proceed to install anything which is you think is missing.

7. Keep the customer in the dark or spin them some tale.

8. Have a glass of sherry.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

Hans-J. Ullrich
> 5. Assess the damage. Glance at the output of 'dpkg -l | less'. Is X
>    still about? The desktop? Anything obvious missing? Look at the files
>    in /var/log/apt. All packages removed and installed are recorded.
>    Supposedly aptitude also logs?
>

I used the log file and edited it that way, that I took all the packagages from
it and made an "aptitude reinstall" in front of the package list.

So I can be sure, all packages, which were uninstalled are now reinstalled.
As you did not use the switch "purge", I suppose, all configuration files are
still existent.

For easy editing I am using kwrite, which has the ability to fill out vertical
rows, not only in horizontal (like normal editors do).

Large rows I do fill with a unusual sign (i.e. a "#"). Later, when there is a
"#" in each line, it can easily be successed with any other string you need,
for example "aptitude reinstall -y".

Maybe this is an unusual way to fix a broken system, but doing so makes it very
easy for me.

Just my 2 cents.....

Good luck

Hans

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

Hans-J. Ullrich
Correct myself:
> I used the log file and edited it that way, that I took all the packagages
> from it and made an "aptitude reinstall" in front of the package list.

Then I made a shellscript of it, just added the shebang line and made it
executable with root-permissions.
 
Hans

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

Brian
On Thu 30 Jun 2016 at 19:59:52 +0200, Hans wrote:

> Correct myself:
> > I used the log file and edited it that way, that I took all the packagages
> > from it and made an "aptitude reinstall" in front of the package list.
>
> Then I made a shellscript of it, just added the shebang line and made it
> executable with root-permissions.

This is a viable approach but let us not lose sight of the fact that the
situation is recoverable. It isn't as though something critical to the
system has been removed; just a few packages which are easily put back
on the existing system.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

Gene Heskett-4
In reply to this post by Lisi Reisz
On Thursday 30 June 2016 12:27:16 Lisi Reisz wrote:

> I ran
> # aptitude install libreoffice-grammarcheck-en-gb
> and aptitude just carried on without asking as is correct when there
> is only one package; but it proceeded to uninstall my entire desktop
> environment, hundreds of packages.  I couldn't believe it and used the
> bash history to confirm that that was ALL I had typed.  Moreover, it
> wouldn't respond to control-C.
>
> Whatever happened?????
>
> <groan.  Sinks head in hands>
> And it isn't even my computer.
>
> Lisi

I know that face in palm feeling well Lisi, it bit me in a similar manner
about 2 weeks ago. And was just as unstoppable.  Its a right PITA, and
aptitude has now be declared personna-non-grata on my 4 systems.  
apt-get was able to put me back together eventually.

Thats not excusable behavior, but whats worse is that debian's people are
denying there is a problem.  'scuse me? I swear, they couldn't smell
coffee with a nose full of it.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Thats not excusable behavior, but whats worse is that debian's people are
> denying there is a problem.  'scuse me? I swear, they couldn't smell
> coffee with a nose full of it.
>
> Cheers, Gene Heskett

Well, if either of you two (that suffered the runaway aptitude issue)
still have the /etc of the box that caused trouble, kindly do this:

grep -r Assume-Yes /etc

If it returns any match in the aptitude config files, there you have it.

--
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

Gene Heskett-4
On Thursday 30 June 2016 16:12:46 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:

> grep -r Assume-Yes /etc

100% missing here, but lemme see what happens when I use the recursive -R
since I can't ever recall using the lower case r for recursion.

That took at least 3 or 4 minutes to complete, whereas the -r was back in
500 milliseconds or so.

The only positive response should be a never mind:

/etc/httpd/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/aptdaemon/console.py:        if
(not apt_pkg.config.find_b("APT::Get::Assume-Yes") and

Everthing else is the ^&%$ binary file matches, or "no such file or
directory"

So I do not see anything that looks like its my problem, and that file is
a softlink to:
ls -l /usr/share/pyshared/aptdaemon/console.py
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 31055 Jun 11  
2012 /usr/share/pyshared/aptdaemon/console.py

Rather ancient and which doesn't look as if its ever been molested by me.

Next fishing holes address?  Nobody home at this one...

Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

Lisi Reisz
In reply to this post by Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Thursday 30 June 2016 21:12:46 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Thats not excusable behavior, but whats worse is that debian's people are
> > denying there is a problem.  'scuse me? I swear, they couldn't smell
> > coffee with a nose full of it.
> >
> > Cheers, Gene Heskett
>
> Well, if either of you two (that suffered the runaway aptitude issue)
> still have the /etc of the box that caused trouble, kindly do this:
>
> grep -r Assume-Yes /etc
>
> If it returns any match in the aptitude config files, there you have it.

Thank you, Henrique.  I still have access to the box. Not immediately - but
no-one will change anything unless I am there.  But whatever is or is not
assumed, it wasn't asked to remove anything.  It was asked to add one thing
which in now way depended on anything removed.  That is what puzzles me.  And
the rest of the time it was asking as one would expect!!  But I will look and
let the list know!

If there is, what then?

And why did ctrl-C have no effect at all?

Lisi

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

Lisi Reisz
In reply to this post by Brian
On Thursday 30 June 2016 20:27:03 Brian wrote:

> On Thu 30 Jun 2016 at 19:59:52 +0200, Hans wrote:
> > Correct myself:
> > > I used the log file and edited it that way, that I took all the
> > > packagages from it and made an "aptitude reinstall" in front of the
> > > package list.
> >
> > Then I made a shellscript of it, just added the shebang line and made it
> > executable with root-permissions.
>
> This is a viable approach but let us not lose sight of the fact that the
> situation is recoverable. It isn't as though something critical to the
> system has been removed; just a few packages which are easily put back
> on the existing system.

:-))  Thank you, Brian.  A comforting thought on which to go to bed.

Thanks to all of you who replied.  I am too shattered now to give considered
responses to all of you, that is assuming that you would like them to be
vaguely coherent!!

This was the desktop.  I am about to post in one of the of the threads about
the laptop and whether my despairing decision to reinstall that has been
misplaced.

Lisi

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

Lisi Reisz
In reply to this post by Francesco Ariis
On Thursday 30 June 2016 17:25:41 Francesco Ariis wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 05:27:16PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > I ran
> > # aptitude install libreoffice-grammarcheck-en-gb
> > and aptitude just carried on without asking as is correct when there
> > is only one package; but it proceeded to uninstall my entire desktop
> > environment, hundreds of packages.
>
> Is this Debian or FrankenDebian?

You might well ask!!

Lis

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
In reply to this post by Lisi Reisz
On Fri, 01 Jul 2016, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> assumed, it wasn't asked to remove anything.  It was asked to add one thing
> which in now way depended on anything removed.  That is what puzzles me.  And

I don't know why it would do that.  Well, it shouldn't ask about
deleting one thousand packages if you asked it to install one package...
but it certainly is supposed to ask about installing that one package
*after* informing you that it would remove one thousand packages in
order to do that.

Note that I am assuming neither of you did "aptitude -y", that would be
bad and would also explain what happened.

> And why did ctrl-C have no effect at all?

Try this when you open a root session (in a typical console, and
certainly in a typical graphical terminal):

        stty sane

--
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

Lisi Reisz
In reply to this post by Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Thursday 30 June 2016 21:12:46 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Thats not excusable behavior, but whats worse is that debian's people are
> > denying there is a problem.  'scuse me? I swear, they couldn't smell
> > coffee with a nose full of it.
> >
> > Cheers, Gene Heskett
>
> Well, if either of you two (that suffered the runaway aptitude issue)
> still have the /etc of the box that caused trouble, kindly do this:
>
> grep -r Assume-Yes /etc
>
> If it returns any match in the aptitude config files, there you have it.

I have this on my desktop at home:

root@Tux-II:/home/lisi# grep -R Assume-Yes /etc
grep: /etc/fonts/conf.d/70-no-bitmaps.conf: No such file or directory
Binary file /etc/alternatives/aptitude matches
root@Tux-II:/home/lisi

It rather looks as though I should be worried?

Lisi

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

Gene Heskett-4
On Thursday 30 June 2016 19:25:37 Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Thursday 30 June 2016 21:12:46 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > Thats not excusable behavior, but whats worse is that debian's
> > > people are denying there is a problem.  'scuse me? I swear, they
> > > couldn't smell coffee with a nose full of it.
> > >
> > > Cheers, Gene Heskett
> >
> > Well, if either of you two (that suffered the runaway aptitude
> > issue) still have the /etc of the box that caused trouble, kindly do
> > this:
> >
> > grep -r Assume-Yes /etc
> >
> > If it returns any match in the aptitude config files, there you have
> > it.
>
> I have this on my desktop at home:
>
> root@Tux-II:/home/lisi# grep -R Assume-Yes /etc
> grep: /etc/fonts/conf.d/70-no-bitmaps.conf: No such file or directory
> Binary file /etc/alternatives/aptitude matches
> root@Tux-II:/home/lisi
>
> It rather looks as though I should be worried?
>
> Lisi

No, thats just grep being grep, it says that of ANY binary file it tries
to read as text.  I have spent days pouring over the manpages for grep,
looking for a option to feed it to make grep quit that, simply because
its so verbose that what you are looking for can get lost in its
blathering about that.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

Lisi Reisz
In reply to this post by Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Friday 01 July 2016 00:14:34 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Jul 2016, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > assumed, it wasn't asked to remove anything.  It was asked to add one
> > thing which in now way depended on anything removed.  That is what
> > puzzles me.  And
>
> I don't know why it would do that.  Well, it shouldn't ask about
> deleting one thousand packages if you asked it to install one package...
> but it certainly is supposed to ask about installing that one package
> *after* informing you that it would remove one thousand packages in
> order to do that.

Yes.  I expressed myself badly.  I was having difficulty seeing the screen and
therefore typing.  If I ask for one thing and it asks no questions at all I
expect it to install only one thing.  If it wants to install a load of
dependencies, or, even worse, remove half the system, I expect it ot ask
me!!!

> Note that I am assuming neither of you did "aptitude -y", that would be
> bad and would also explain what happened.

I used bash's history to confirm that I had had no such mental aberration.  It
confirmed that, after the root screen prompt, I had typed:
aptitude install libreoffice-grammarcheck-en-gb
and nothing else - well, <enter>, of course.

Lisi

>
> > And why did ctrl-C have no effect at all?
>
> Try this when you open a root session (in a typical console, and
> certainly in a typical graphical terminal):
>
> stty sane

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

Lisi Reisz
In reply to this post by Gene Heskett-4
On Friday 01 July 2016 00:35:44 Gene Heskett wrote:

> On Thursday 30 June 2016 19:25:37 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Thursday 30 June 2016 21:12:46 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > Thats not excusable behavior, but whats worse is that debian's
> > > > people are denying there is a problem.  'scuse me? I swear, they
> > > > couldn't smell coffee with a nose full of it.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers, Gene Heskett
> > >
> > > Well, if either of you two (that suffered the runaway aptitude
> > > issue) still have the /etc of the box that caused trouble, kindly do
> > > this:
> > >
> > > grep -r Assume-Yes /etc
> > >
> > > If it returns any match in the aptitude config files, there you have
> > > it.
> >
> > I have this on my desktop at home:
> >
> > root@Tux-II:/home/lisi# grep -R Assume-Yes /etc
> > grep: /etc/fonts/conf.d/70-no-bitmaps.conf: No such file or directory
> > Binary file /etc/alternatives/aptitude matches
> > root@Tux-II:/home/lisi
> >
> > It rather looks as though I should be worried?
> >
> > Lisi
>
> No, thats just grep being grep, it says that of ANY binary file it tries
> to read as text.  I have spent days pouring over the manpages for grep,
> looking for a option to feed it to make grep quit that, simply because
> its so verbose that what you are looking for can get lost in its
> blathering about that.

Thanks, Gene. :-)

Lisi

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

David Wright-3
In reply to this post by Gene Heskett-4
On Thu 30 Jun 2016 at 19:35:44 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:

> On Thursday 30 June 2016 19:25:37 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Thursday 30 June 2016 21:12:46 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > Thats not excusable behavior, but whats worse is that debian's
> > > > people are denying there is a problem.  'scuse me? I swear, they
> > > > couldn't smell coffee with a nose full of it.
> > >
> > > Well, if either of you two (that suffered the runaway aptitude
> > > issue) still have the /etc of the box that caused trouble, kindly do
> > > this:
> > >
> > > grep -r Assume-Yes /etc
> > >
> > > If it returns any match in the aptitude config files, there you have
> > > it.
> >
> > I have this on my desktop at home:
> >
> > root@Tux-II:/home/lisi# grep -R Assume-Yes /etc
> > grep: /etc/fonts/conf.d/70-no-bitmaps.conf: No such file or directory
> > Binary file /etc/alternatives/aptitude matches
> > root@Tux-II:/home/lisi
> >
> > It rather looks as though I should be worried?
>
> No, thats just grep being grep, it says that of ANY binary file it tries
> to read as text.  I have spent days pouring over the manpages for grep,
> looking for a option to feed it to make grep quit that, simply because
> its so verbose that what you are looking for can get lost in its
> blathering about that.

I have no idea what that's meant to be the explanation for.

Why does Binary file /etc/alternatives/aptitude trigger a match?

What you were running was aptitude, obviously. On my laptop:

$ which aptitude
/usr/bin/aptitude
$ ls -l /usr/bin/aptitude
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 26 Oct 10  2012 /usr/bin/aptitude -> /etc/alternatives/aptitude
$ ls -l /etc/alternatives/aptitude
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 24 Oct 10  2012 /etc/alternatives/aptitude -> /usr/bin/aptitude-curses
$ ls -l /usr/bin/aptitude-curses
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4340528 Nov  8  2014 /usr/bin/aptitude-curses

(The last line might be different if you use some version other than curses.)

So the question becomes Why does the binary file
/usr/bin/aptitude-curses, that you actually run, match?

Well, in order to decide whether you have typed
aptitude --assume-yes
aptitude needs to contain the string "assume-yes" against which to
check your typing. Ditto Aptitude::CmdLine::Assume-Yes for checking
against the configuration file.

So a match here is no surprise and no worry.

However, you should also check for anything in /root/.aptitude/config
as that could override the /etc/ stuff. (Probably nothing.)
So your problem might boil down to why aptitude thought all those
packages should go, ie what happened to the package(s) at the top
of the dependency chain(s) whose job was to keep them all installed.

Sorry I don't have much experience of aptitude other than the
visual interface (ie no action given on the command line).
I'm really an apt-get user. In order to remove "unused" packages,
I have to type   apt-get autoremove   which I sometimes do in response
to its telling me there are such packages lying around. It's not
easy for me to tell from the documentation whether "Installed packages
will not be removed unless they are unused (see the section “Managing
Automatically Installed Packages” in the aptitude reference manual)¹"
means that they'll be removed automatically without any further
confirmation.

¹safe-upgrade in man aptitude.

Cheers,
David.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: catastrophe - but how? Aptitude goes mad

Gene Heskett-4
On Thursday 30 June 2016 20:51:37 David Wright wrote:

> On Thu 30 Jun 2016 at 19:35:44 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Thursday 30 June 2016 19:25:37 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > On Thursday 30 June 2016 21:12:46 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
wrote:

> > > > On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > Thats not excusable behavior, but whats worse is that debian's
> > > > > people are denying there is a problem.  'scuse me? I swear,
> > > > > they couldn't smell coffee with a nose full of it.
> > > >
> > > > Well, if either of you two (that suffered the runaway aptitude
> > > > issue) still have the /etc of the box that caused trouble,
> > > > kindly do this:
> > > >
> > > > grep -r Assume-Yes /etc
> > > >
> > > > If it returns any match in the aptitude config files, there you
> > > > have it.
> > >
> > > I have this on my desktop at home:
> > >
> > > root@Tux-II:/home/lisi# grep -R Assume-Yes /etc
> > > grep: /etc/fonts/conf.d/70-no-bitmaps.conf: No such file or
> > > directory Binary file /etc/alternatives/aptitude matches
> > > root@Tux-II:/home/lisi
> > >
> > > It rather looks as though I should be worried?
> >
> > No, thats just grep being grep, it says that of ANY binary file it
> > tries to read as text.  I have spent days pouring over the manpages
> > for grep, looking for a option to feed it to make grep quit that,
> > simply because its so verbose that what you are looking for can get
> > lost in its blathering about that.
>
> I have no idea what that's meant to be the explanation for.

For the fact that it claimed /etc/alternatives/aptitude was a match when
Lisi ran the correct grep as quoted in a previous email.

> Why does Binary file /etc/alternatives/aptitude trigger a match?

Because it is?

gene@coyote:/opt$ file /etc/alternatives/aptitude
/etc/alternatives/aptitude: symbolic link to /usr/bin/aptitude-curses
gene@coyote:/opt$ file /usr/bin/aptitude-curses
/usr/bin/aptitude-curses: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, Intel 80386,
version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter /lib/ld-linux.so.2,
for GNU/Linux 2.6.26,
BuildID[sha1]=3508f8a2610e542bc916835e4caea373c28eb8f0, stripped

> What you were running was aptitude, obviously. On my laptop:

Which "you" are you refering to, because Lisi and I have shared that same
leaky boat experience with aptitude.

> $ which aptitude
> /usr/bin/aptitude
> $ ls -l /usr/bin/aptitude
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 26 Oct 10  2012 /usr/bin/aptitude ->
> /etc/alternatives/aptitude $ ls -l /etc/alternatives/aptitude
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 24 Oct 10  2012 /etc/alternatives/aptitude ->
> /usr/bin/aptitude-curses $ ls -l /usr/bin/aptitude-curses
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4340528 Nov  8  2014 /usr/bin/aptitude-curses
>
> (The last line might be different if you use some version other than
> curses.)
>
> So the question becomes Why does the binary file
> /usr/bin/aptitude-curses, that you actually run, match?

Who knows, but grep, for this job, lies like a cheap rug.  file will tell
you more. And it gives a valid answer that aptitude-curses is in fact a
binary file.  And thats what worried Lisi, needlessly.

> Well, in order to decide whether you have typed
> aptitude --assume-yes
> aptitude needs to contain the string "assume-yes" against which to
> check your typing. Ditto Aptitude::CmdLine::Assume-Yes for checking
> against the configuration file.
>
> So a match here is no surprise and no worry.
>
> However, you should also check for anything in /root/.aptitude/config
> as that could override the /etc/ stuff. (Probably nothing.)
> So your problem might boil down to why aptitude thought all those
> packages should go, ie what happened to the package(s) at the top
> of the dependency chain(s) whose job was to keep them all installed.
>
> Sorry I don't have much experience of aptitude other than the
> visual interface (ie no action given on the command line).
> I'm really an apt-get user. In order to remove "unused" packages,
> I have to type   apt-get autoremove   which I sometimes do in response
> to its telling me there are such packages lying around. It's not
> easy for me to tell from the documentation whether "Installed packages
> will not be removed unless they are unused (see the section “Managing
> Automatically Installed Packages” in the aptitude reference manual)¹"
> means that they'll be removed automatically without any further
> confirmation.
>
> ¹safe-upgrade in man aptitude.
>
> Cheers,
> David.


Cheers David, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

123