[R-sig-Debian] [FORGED] r-base is already the newest version (3.5.2-1bionic)

[Rolf Turner]

On 1/31/19 1:47 AM, George N. White III wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 22:36, Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd using debian.org 
> <mailto:edd using debian.org>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     Rolf,
> 
>     Briefly as I don't have sufficient time to catch up on all these
>     wordy emails...
> 
>     On 30 January 2019 at 15:18, Rolf Turner wrote:
>     | On 1/30/19 2:03 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>     | > | Now *that* was a revealing suggestion!  I did that and got:
>     | > |
>     | > | > Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
>     | > | > |
>     Status=Not/Inst/Conf-files/Unpacked/halF-conf/Half-inst/trig-aWait/Trig-pend
>     | > | > |/ Err?=(none)/Reinst-required (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
>     | > | > ||/ Name             Version       Architecture  Description
>     | > | >
>     +++-================-=============-=============-======================================
>     | > | > ii  r-base-core      3.5.2-1bionic amd64         GNU R core
>     of statistical computation
>     | > |
>     | > | So indeed the installation had not actually been done.
>     | >
>     | > Why do you say that?  That is the __normal__ display after a
>     successful installation.
>     |
>     | I interpreted the "Status=Not/Inst ...." to mean that the package was
>     | not installed.  Which is consistent with what was actually the case.
> 
>     Simply false. Do 'dpkg -l | less' or 'dpkg -l somewildcardhere |
>     less' and
>     try to become more familiar with the output. There *is* legend
>     printed there.
> 
>     What matters most: The first two columns are 'ii'.  That is as
>     official to
>     "you're good" as you'll ever get.
> 
>     Again, I would consider familiarising myself with some
>     Debian/Ubuntu/Mate/...
>     tutorials.  It's not unlike becoming familiar with S/R terminology.
>     It will
>     pay back. With dividends.
> 
> 
> Roff -- you are right that the internet is full of misinformation.  
> There are many
> clickbait sites preying on people like you having problems with linux. 
> If you stick with
> official Debian documents you will avoid misinformation.   The Debian 
> Handbook <https://debian-handbook.info/get/now/>
> package is available from Ubuntu repositories as well as epub and PDF 
> versions
> and has sections on dpkg and apt.
> 
> Online forums where users can comment on the accuracy of posts are useful
> when you don't understand the sometimes terse explanations in the Debian
> documents, for instance, explanation of dpkg headers 
> <https://askubuntu.com/questions/18804/what-do-the-various-dpkg-flags-like-ii-rc-mean>.
> 
> It appears that the confused state of your system was due to installing 
> from source
> to /usr, which affects r-base-core and also the "recommended" packages.  
> The
> recovery from this state was confounded by your lack of familiarity with 
> package
> management.
> 
> Finally, it is important to recognize that much of the development of 
> linux and R is done
> by volunteers who bring deep expertise and whose time is a precious 
> resource.  Since
> you aren't paying for Ubuntu and R it is only fair that you make an 
> effort to learn the
> basics and eventually be in a position to help others.
> 
> You do, however, get points for persistence.  Many people in similar 
> circumstances
> have given up on R and linux as impossibly complicated and unreliable.

Thanks for this.  The information you provide looks useful.

cheers,

Rolf

-- 
Honorary Research Fellow
Department of Statistics
University of Auckland
Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276