+- Linux Lite Forums (https://www.freecinema2022.gq/forums)
+-- Forum: Software - Support (https://www.freecinema2022.gq/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Installing Software (https://www.freecinema2022.gq/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Thread: Holding back the base-files package (/showthread.php?tid=643)
Pages:
1
2
Holding back the base-files package - Valtam - 07-28-2014
It seems some people are getting confused whilst upgrading, when faced with the following options:
Code:
Configuration file '/etc/issue'
==> Modified (by you or by a script) since installation.
==> Package distributor has shipped an updated version.
What would you like to do about it ? Your options are:
Y or I : install the package maintainer's version
N or O : keep your currently-installed version
D : show the differences between the versions
Z : start a shell to examine the situation
The default action is to keep your current version.
*** issue (Y/I/N/O/D/Z) [default=N] ?
Configuration file '/etc/lsb-release'
==> Modified (by you or by a script) since installation.
==> Package distributor has shipped an updated version.
What would you like to do about it ? Your options are:
Y or I : install the package maintainer's version
N or O : keep your currently-installed version
D : show the differences between the versions
Z : start a shell to examine the situation
The default action is to keep your current version.
*** lsb-release (Y/I/N/O/D/Z) [default=N] ?This can be quite destructive as it effects the way your computer boots.
In the next version of Linux Lite I'm looking at holding back this package, in the meantime to do this open a terminal:
Code:
sudo apt-mark hold base-filesRe: Holding back the base-files package - Coastie - 07-29-2014
As one of the ones who got confused, I followed your instruction and appreciate you providing this solutions. I was helped to undo my mistake and haven't had any problems. I might have gotten confused again when confronted with those options. :-[
Re: Holding back the base-files package - Colin23erk - 07-29-2014
Hi
As a non-tech user I do not have the knowledge to make an informed choice. I assumed that because the updated package was included it was of benefit and installed it and fortunately had no problems .
Reading what you advised should I have opted for the default option and should I use your code to remove it .
My next question is why was it released in a general upgrade package if it requires the general user to make an informed choice. I assume by your statement "In the next version of Linux Lite I'm looking at holding back this package" you do not think it should be included.
Are you able to advise the " Techies " who make these decisions that you are trying to make Linux suitable for ordinary users .
Colin
Re: Holding back the base-files package - Valtam - 07-29-2014
Quote:Reading what you advised should I have opted for the default option and should I use your code to remove it.
The default option is the default option for a reason, you don't have to be a 'tech head' to understand a recommendation. You can use the code now if you like to hold that package back, so you're not faced with this again.
Quote:Are you able to advise the " Techies " who make these decisions that you are trying to make Linux suitable for ordinary users .
I don't have any sway over the people that make that package, thats why I'm offering to hold it back. From what I can tell, the package is fairly innocuous. Cheers.
Re: Holding back the base-files package - robert - 07-29-2014
I was also caught out with this but managed to work out the fix by myself
(pat on the back for me).Holding it back makes sense as it would definitely confuse people, in my opinion anyway.
Re: Holding back the base-files package - Colin23erk - 07-29-2014
Hi Valtam
A little harsh !
Quote:The default option is the default option for a reason, you don't have to be a 'tech head' to understand a recommendation
To you it may be as Clear as Day but as I am obviously a bit thick because I read it different .
If they provide something they expect it to be updated .
By asking me to decide they give me the option not to .
My understanding of a "Default" option is -- if I do nothing that is the option that will automatically provided .
It is not a recommendation of what I should do..
The simplest and least confusing is to have not provided it in the first place --- QED
Re: Holding back the base-files package - Valtam - 07-29-2014
(07-29-2014, 10:59 AM)robert link Wrote:I was also caught out with this but managed to work out the fix by myself
Holding it back makes sense as it would definitely confuse people, in my opinion anyway.
Cheers Robert
Re: Holding back the base-files package - Valtam - 07-29-2014
(07-29-2014, 12:07 PM)Colin23erk link Wrote:Hi Valtam
A little harsh !
Not meant to be harsh good sir
I recognize that people interpret the same information differently. With that in mind, you are not 'thick' and no one here thinks that you are. This thread simply explains that LL has it's users best interests at heart and recognizes all levels of understanding, and works towards making things easier for folks.
Re: Holding back the base-files package - gold_finger - 07-29-2014
(07-29-2014, 12:07 PM)Colin23erk link Wrote:To you it may be as Clear as Day but as I am obviously a bit thick because I read it different .
If they provide something they expect it to be updated .
@ Colin23erk,
I have to admit to thinking very same way during first couple of years of Linux for me. "If they've updated it, why should I not use it?" So, I'd alternate -- clicking "No" sometimes, clicking "Yes" other times. Nothing bad ever happened which ever choice I picked, so I never gave it much thought.
Over time, my thought process changed to: "Okay, they updated the package. Now they want to know if I want to use a new, generic configuration file for it, or keep the one I have?" When looked at that way, it makes more sense to keep the config file you have. So, I've generally picked "No" during last couple of years -- but I still never gave it a whole lot of thought.
During last few days of posts expressing confusion over this I've tried looking up why selecting "Yes" to this would pose any problem and I can't seem to come to any satisfactory (for me) conclusion. The only thing that seems to get changed if you go with the new, generic files (by clicking Yes) is the description line: "Ubuntu" instead of "Linux Lite".
My first couple of years in Linux, I used Ubuntu -- so maybe that's why I never had a problem with either choice. It just replace "Ubuntu" with another "Ubuntu". But then I switched to Mint and I'm virtually certain that there were times when I clicked "Yes" to this, and I still had no problems. (Have toyed with at least 10-15 other distros, similarly clicking "yes" and "no" on occations and don't recall having had any problems then either.) I'm relatively new to LL -- only used sporadically for about 6 months, then switched to it as main distro when 2.0 was released a couple of months ago. During that time, I'm virtually certain that I've never clicked "Yes" and always stayed with the already present config file; so I've not put myself in a position to maybe experience a problem. Since Valtam says it might pose a problem, I'll continue clicking "No" -- but I still don't really understand how that minor change in description could cause an issue. (I'm guessing it has to due with some customization made to grub which reads the file(s) during startup.)
So, Colin23erk, don't feel so bad. I'm not a newbie and I'm still confused by this! ???
Re: Holding back the base-files package - Colin23erk - 07-29-2014
Thanks Valtam and gold_finger
Brings me back to a General annoyance with computer software that I expressed to N4RPS a while ago
Quote: What I need is a better way to solve problems and not to just get error codes or messages that mean nothing and it is up to the user / administrator /technician to spend hours/days to find out what actually went wrong so they can sort it . With the vast amount of computing power in today's computers they should have self diagnostics built in .
In my clockwork working days it was accepted to get a simple fail message because of the limits of the technology. The problem was often a failure to get an input because of an error that happened several steps ago..
As you have seen it before this looks like a Generic message that is generated to suggest there is a potential problem . What it is and how it effects us and how to fix it , is for them to know and the recipients to puzzle out . There is not even a Web page link to point us in the right direction.
In these days when numerically more OS's are installed in PC's its not helpful to have messages saying *In case of difficulty consult your administrator *
Until computers talk directly to their users and in a comprehensible way they will still be considered as the province of geeks or expensive professionals
Colin