Packages That Can Be Upgraded

[JeffRedd]

When I did a recent update (apt update) in the terminal it came back with the message: "2 packages can be upgraded.” Run “apt list --upgradable” to see them. So I ran the “apt list --upgradable” command and it came back with:

alsa-ucm-conf/noble-updates ,noble-updates 1.2.10-1ubuntu5.3 all [upgradable from: 1.2.10-1ubuntuS.2]

Firmware-sof-signed/noble-updates ,noble-updates 2023.12.1-1ubuntu1.2 all [upgradable from: 2023.12.1-1ubuntu1]

So my question is this; How do I upgrade and should I upgrade? I’m running Kubuntu 24.04.1 LTS x86_64. Would this update make my system unstable? I keep getting messages from software that says packages can be upgraded which may help me with some of my other issues with outdated runtimes. I’ve tried:

sudo apt installalsa-ucm-conf/noble-updates ,noble-updates 1.2.10-1ubuntu5.3 all
and
apt update && sudo apt upgrade

and it says it couldn’t locate the package. I’ve tried to fix this with internet searches to no avail. Any help you can offer me would be greatly appreciated.

[skyfishgoo]

you can just ignore those ... they are currently being held back for some reason by your distro maintainers and when they are released, then the normal update process will take care of them.

im currently looking at both of those and one additional package.

i wouldn't stress.

[jlittle]

apt --list upgradable has not learned about phased updates.

IMO that's bad; it's a long time since phased updates started, and the message given by apt update is misleading.

Instead, you can sudo apt full-upgrade --dry-run (or sudo apt full-upgrade -s) and that explains what has been held back due to phasing.

[Snowhog]

IMO that's bad; it's a long time since phased updates started, and the message given by apt update is misleading.

I understand where your sentiment comes from, but the message isn't really misleading; the identified packages are upgradeable, just may not yet be available for you. Yeah, potayto, potahto. But I do agree that a more complete message could/should be presented, if only to minimize confusion.

[JeffRedd]

Thanks to everyone who responded to my post. In terminal I wrote what John had suggested "sudo apt full-upgrade --dry-run” and got back the following message: “The following upgrades have been deferred due to phasing: alsa-ucm-conf firmware-sof-signed”.

I guess I’ll just have to wait until the packages become available like everyone said. Thanks for the help.

[claydoh]

sudo apt installalsa-ucm-conf/noble-updates ,noble-updates 1.2.10-1ubuntu5.3 all

Use the correct format with apt.

sudo apt install alsa-ucm-conf

That's all you need. "alsa-ucm-conf/noble-updates" correctly shows as not-found as there is no package with this exact string as a name.

For phased packages, manually installing them like this is the 'workaround' if you want the update now.
But even hyper-impatient folks, such as moi, often let it phase.
I have 52 in the phased list, mainly for Libreoffice.

[JeffRedd]

Use the correct format with apt.

sudo apt install alsa-ucm-conf

That's all you need. "alsa-ucm-conf/noble-updates" correctly shows as not-found as there is no package with this exact string as a name.

It just showed an update for that one a few minutes ago in Discover Software Center and I was able to update that one. I just did this:

jeff@Kubuntu:~$ apt list --upgradable -a
Listing... Done
firmware-sof-signed/noble-updates,noble-updates 2023.12.1-1ubuntu1.2 all [upgradable from: 2023.12.1-1ubuntu1]
firmware-sof-signed/noble,noble,now 2023.12.1-1ubuntu1 all [installed,upgradable to: 2023.12.1-1ubuntu1.2]

I think It will be alright but I might have to wait for a little while. Maybe I could update this too with the right syntax? I appreciate your help claydoh.

[claydoh]

You just use the package name, not the extended info. firmware-sof-signed for example.

It IS confusing.

But if you want a bit more info (and a lot of confusing numbers and versions)

apt policy packagename

$ apt policy firmware-sof-signed
firmware-sof-signed:
Installed: 2023.12.1-1ubuntu1.2
Candidate: 2023.12.1-1ubuntu1.2
Version table:
*** 2023.12.1-1ubuntu1.2 500 (phased 20%)
500 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu noble-updates/main amd64 Packages
500 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu noble-updates/main i386 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
2023.12.1-1ubuntu1 500
500 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu noble/main amd64 Packages
500 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu noble/main i386 Packages

[JeffRedd]

Claydoh, that finally did it for me. The "sudo apt install firmware-sof-signed" worked but I thought I tried that before and it didn't work but it worked just now. Now I don't have anything holding me back in that regard. Many thanks for your help.

[jlittle]

There is a small side effect to using "apt install" to get around the phasing: the packages are marked as "manually installed", and so in the future if they become no longer required by other packages, "apt autoremove" won't remove them. For a few packages that would be unlikely to be significant, but doing it habitually every time something is held back by phasing would accumulate cruft.

The purpose of phased updates is to lessen the effect of a bad update; if problems are found by the users who do get the update, chosen at random IIUC, the update can be stopped and fixed. Security updates are never phased. I usually lack patience for this sort of thing, but I use laziness as a substitute, and let the phasing do its thing.

[JeffRedd]

There is a small side effect to using "apt install" to get around the phasing: the packages are marked as "manually installed", and so in the future if they become no longer required by other packages, "apt autoremove" won't remove them.

Really? I never knew this. Is there anything that will remove them?

For a few packages that would be unlikely to be significant, but doing it habitually every time something is held back by phasing would accumulate cruft.

The purpose of phased updates is to lessen the effect of a bad update; if problems are found by the users who do get the update, chosen at random IIUC, the update can be stopped and fixed. Security updates are never phased. I usually lack patience for this sort of thing, but I use laziness as a substitute, and let the phasing do its thing.

Yes, I agree. I should just be more patient and just let the phasing do its thing also but I was thinking (and I could be wrong) that this was part of a bigger problem that was effecting other programs because I was getting runtime error messages that were “end of life”. I guess that those runtime errors are just another issue. Thanks for your help and information. I’m unable to get these answers anywhere else on the internet (and believe me I try).