How do I get a list of obsolete packages?How to find what packages do not come from a repository?How to list installed packages in apt that are not backed by a repository?How can I tell whether I have unavailable versions installed?Find what packages are installed from a repositoryHow to get a summary of installed packages by repository and see differences from clean install?List installed packages that are no longer installable via repository?List packages by creation / modification (not install) date to find unmaintained onesRetrieve and delete obsoletes packagesKeep an Obsolete PackageHow to get a list of preinstalled packages?install/remove list of packages from command line with apt-getDowngrade all external packages to the official onesWhy installing packages without updates fails? Are original packages removed from repositories after update is available?Find which versions of Ubuntu a package in a 3rd-party repository is available for?
What is the rationale for single engine military aircraft?
Will a falling rod stay in contact with the frictionless floor?
If you're loaning yourself a mortgage, why must you pay interest? At the bank's posted rate?
In C#, is there a way to enforce behavior coupling in interface methods or is the fact that I am trying to do that a design smell?
In academic writing why do some recommend to avoid "announcing" the topic?
How much would we learn from observing an FTL starship fly by?
Why is a living creature being frozen in carbonite in “The Mandalorian” so common when it seemed so risky in “The Empire Strikes Back?”
How many flight hours do the first retiring A380s have?
What's the best way of typing the following 58 equations into LaTeX?
80s/90s sitcom with a girl who could stop time and spoke to her dad through a "gem thingy"
Why give an android emotions?
How does a human body spend energy on its organs?
Apollo CM heat shield burnt pattern around RCS thrusters
What stops one country from issuing another country's passports?
Baby's head always turned to one side: should I do anything?
What is the difference between normal mode and command line mode?
Students requesting to switch partners mid term
Is there any conceivable way to "turn off" a star?
Don't let this riddle put you in a foul mood
Not registering my US born child of 1 US parent as a US citizen
Router wont hold config
How to create a new file via touch if it is in a directory which doesn't exist?
Which Grows Faster: Factorial or Double Exponentiation
My passport's Machine Readable Zone is damaged. How do I deal with it?
How do I get a list of obsolete packages?
How to find what packages do not come from a repository?How to list installed packages in apt that are not backed by a repository?How can I tell whether I have unavailable versions installed?Find what packages are installed from a repositoryHow to get a summary of installed packages by repository and see differences from clean install?List installed packages that are no longer installable via repository?List packages by creation / modification (not install) date to find unmaintained onesRetrieve and delete obsoletes packagesKeep an Obsolete PackageHow to get a list of preinstalled packages?install/remove list of packages from command line with apt-getDowngrade all external packages to the official onesWhy installing packages without updates fails? Are original packages removed from repositories after update is available?Find which versions of Ubuntu a package in a 3rd-party repository is available for?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
I'm trying to figure out a way to get a list of the packages that are no longer available in the repositories that I have enabled. This workstation has been through quite a few versions of Ubuntu and has had many 3rd party repositories added and removed. I'd like to get a list of software that I have from these removed repositories, so I can clean it up or add back the appropriate repositories.
package-management
migrated from serverfault.com Jan 24 '12 at 19:43
This question came from our site for system and network administrators.
add a comment
|
I'm trying to figure out a way to get a list of the packages that are no longer available in the repositories that I have enabled. This workstation has been through quite a few versions of Ubuntu and has had many 3rd party repositories added and removed. I'd like to get a list of software that I have from these removed repositories, so I can clean it up or add back the appropriate repositories.
package-management
migrated from serverfault.com Jan 24 '12 at 19:43
This question came from our site for system and network administrators.
add a comment
|
I'm trying to figure out a way to get a list of the packages that are no longer available in the repositories that I have enabled. This workstation has been through quite a few versions of Ubuntu and has had many 3rd party repositories added and removed. I'd like to get a list of software that I have from these removed repositories, so I can clean it up or add back the appropriate repositories.
package-management
I'm trying to figure out a way to get a list of the packages that are no longer available in the repositories that I have enabled. This workstation has been through quite a few versions of Ubuntu and has had many 3rd party repositories added and removed. I'd like to get a list of software that I have from these removed repositories, so I can clean it up or add back the appropriate repositories.
package-management
package-management
edited Jan 24 '12 at 21:19
Jorge Castro
61.3k110 gold badges430 silver badges624 bronze badges
61.3k110 gold badges430 silver badges624 bronze badges
asked Jan 24 '12 at 19:19
SeanSean
6361 gold badge5 silver badges9 bronze badges
6361 gold badge5 silver badges9 bronze badges
migrated from serverfault.com Jan 24 '12 at 19:43
This question came from our site for system and network administrators.
migrated from serverfault.com Jan 24 '12 at 19:43
This question came from our site for system and network administrators.
migrated from serverfault.com Jan 24 '12 at 19:43
This question came from our site for system and network administrators.
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
aptitude search '~o'
Aptitude has some very powerful searching available. Unfortunately the syntax is a bit unwieldy and you have to dig past the manpage to find the documentation, but its worth it.
apt-show-versions can also be helpful:
apt-show-versions | grep 'No available version'
1
see a nice article about obsolete packages here: raphaelhertzog.com/2011/02/07/…
– Lluís
Mar 8 '14 at 11:02
Another useful list is generated byapt-show-versions | grep "newer than version in archive"
– Sean
Jan 6 '17 at 14:40
I think apt-show-versions is the best simply because the aptitude line is extremely counter-intuitive to remember. Every single time I need it I have to google it/look it up/save it/make a script/etc.
– j riv
Jun 17 '18 at 7:40
add a comment
|
To get a list of apps that are not in a Registered Repository or PPA do this:
sudo apt-get install apt-show-versions
apt-show-versions | grep 'No available version'
That should output text like this:
app1 1.0.0.14 installed: No available version in archive
app23 0.3.6 installed: No available version in archive
app332 7.0.9377 installed: No available version in archive
For me this worked and showed three apps I installed using DEB packages and weren't available in a Repo or PPA.
Do remember though that it's impossible to check for all programs, only the ones that went through dpkg
. For instance, some apps are installed by simply extracting them into the correct folders, or others use a standalone installer bin or script. So the best way is for you yourself to keep a list of apps you installed via any method other than APT.
Works for all my localdpkg
installed packages. One exception. It listsskype-bin
, whereasapt-cache policy skype-bin
clearly shows the Canonical partner repo. I'm not sure what is going on. Multiarch issue? Still +1 forapt-show-versions
!
– gertvdijk
Jan 5 '13 at 21:37
aptitude calls these 'obsolete' packages. See chronitis comment above.
– Henk Poley
Mar 5 '13 at 16:54
add a comment
|
If you have aptitude installed use,
aptitude search '?obsolete'
or its short form
aptitude search '~o'
Here it is a sample output
i A gcc-4.7-base - GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection (base package)
id libdb4.7 - Berkeley v4.7 Database Libraries [runtime]
i libudev0 - libudev shared library
The first character of each line indicates the current state of the package. The most common states are:
- p, meaning that no trace of the package exists on the system,
- c, meaning that the package was deleted but its configuration files
remain on the system, - i, meaning that the package is installed, and
- v, meaning that the package is virtual.
The second character indicates the stored action to be performed on the package, if any, otherwise a blank space is displayed.
The most common actions are:
- i, meaning that the package will be installed,
- d, meaning that the package will be deleted, and
- p, meaning that the package and its configuration files will be removed.
If the third character is A, the package was automatically installed.
For a complete list of the possible state and action flags, see the section Accessing Package Information in the aptitude reference guide.
1
aptitude search ?obsolete
may work in bash, but you should useaptitude search '?obsolete'
– A.B.
Jul 1 '15 at 18:28
could you add some detail on parsing the output?
– Elder Geek
Jul 2 '15 at 1:54
Is '?obsolete' different from '~o'?
– Sean
Jul 2 '15 at 18:20
@Sean No, they are not different. ~o is the short form for ?obsolete indeed.
– Demis Palma ツ
Jul 2 '15 at 23:00
The quotes are parsed out by the shell. I think what A.B. meant is that you shouldn't pass weird character unescaped on the command line because you don't know what your shell is going to do with them.
– Sean
Jul 3 '15 at 19:29
|
show 1 more comment
You could use the following Bash one-liner:
comm -23 <(dpkg-query -W -f '$db:Status-Abbrevt$Packagen' | grep '^.[^nc]' | cut -f2 | sort) <(apt-cache dumpavail | sed -rn 's/^Package: (.*)/1/p' | sort -u)
No need to install extra packages for this, plus this is relatively fast. This will also find partially installed packages (but will not find those that have only configuration files remaining; that could be changed easily, though). Note: this does not care of which architecture the packages are.
Even faster is to use modern apt:
apt list --installed | awk -F/ '/[installed,local]/print $1'
Yet another option is to run
ubuntu-support-status --show-unsupported
and read the obsolete package names under "No longer downloadable:" section.
‘apt list --manual-installed | grep -v cosmic‘ shows false positives. This answer is much better!
– TamusJRoyce
Sep 18 at 15:08
1
@TamusJRoyce, yes, I suppose so now after editing.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:18
I made a request for feature ofapt
that would make getting the list easy here; you may mark that the bug affects you.
– jarno
Sep 19 at 9:47
add a comment
|
More info to investigate.
ubuntu-support-status
echo "$(sudo apt-mark showmanual | wc -l) packages marked as 'manually installed'."
... ubuntu-support-status and apt-mark may require installation.
No need to usesudo
withapt-mark showmanual
.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:20
ubuntu-support-status
lists the number of obsolete packages, but not the package names.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:47
1
Read the output ofubuntu-support-status --help
– Hannu
Sep 19 at 17:16
Oh, thanks for the hint.
– jarno
Sep 20 at 5:26
add a comment
|
There may be a cleaner way, but off the top of my head you can do
dpkg -l | cut -f 3 -d ' ' > installed
xargs -n 1 --replace=X apt-cache search ^X$ < installed | cut -f 1 -d ' ' > available
diff installed available
Cleanup the first few lines of the installed
file: it will have headers.
Bonus if anyone can fix my syntax highlighting...
2
if you are going to use the output ofdpkg -l
to get a list of installed packages, you should limit the results to lines with 'i' in the second column, as dpkg will also list packages which are not installed (perhaps removed but not purged). as an example, altering your first command to bedpkg -l | grep '^.[^i]' | cut -f 3 -d ' '
it would return a list of packages, which are NOT installed. (but once were)
– stew
Jan 24 '12 at 19:46
1
also,apt-cache search someinstalledpackage
will return something even if the package isn't available from a repo, so I don't believe this will work at all.
– stew
Jan 24 '12 at 19:54
1
@stew I'll leave this up here to see if anybody reaches conclusions, but your answer is definitely far better. +1 to you.
– Jeff Ferland
Jan 24 '12 at 19:59
@stewdpkg -l | grep '^.[^i]' | cut -f 3 -d ' '
also prints some header lines.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 5:32
Even if this answer worked, it would be very slow as it would runapt-cache search
for each package separately.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:56
|
show 1 more comment
As mentioned apt-get search is not a good method to check if a package is still available. Additional I've added everything to just one line:
for i in `dpkg -l | grep '^i' | awk ' print $2 '`; do apt-cache show $i > /dev/null || echo $i; done
And whygrep '^i'
– A.B.
Sep 22 '15 at 11:24
@A.B. good point; that does not tell, if the package is installed, but that the package's desired action is to be installed. Seeman dpkg-query
for more information.
– jarno
Sep 17 at 10:26
This is very slow
– jarno
Sep 17 at 11:42
apt-cache show
does is neither good for checking if the package is availabe. If you disable the respective repository, and no other enabled repository has it, it still shows the package.
– jarno
Sep 21 at 10:18
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "89"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f98223%2fhow-do-i-get-a-list-of-obsolete-packages%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
aptitude search '~o'
Aptitude has some very powerful searching available. Unfortunately the syntax is a bit unwieldy and you have to dig past the manpage to find the documentation, but its worth it.
apt-show-versions can also be helpful:
apt-show-versions | grep 'No available version'
1
see a nice article about obsolete packages here: raphaelhertzog.com/2011/02/07/…
– Lluís
Mar 8 '14 at 11:02
Another useful list is generated byapt-show-versions | grep "newer than version in archive"
– Sean
Jan 6 '17 at 14:40
I think apt-show-versions is the best simply because the aptitude line is extremely counter-intuitive to remember. Every single time I need it I have to google it/look it up/save it/make a script/etc.
– j riv
Jun 17 '18 at 7:40
add a comment
|
aptitude search '~o'
Aptitude has some very powerful searching available. Unfortunately the syntax is a bit unwieldy and you have to dig past the manpage to find the documentation, but its worth it.
apt-show-versions can also be helpful:
apt-show-versions | grep 'No available version'
1
see a nice article about obsolete packages here: raphaelhertzog.com/2011/02/07/…
– Lluís
Mar 8 '14 at 11:02
Another useful list is generated byapt-show-versions | grep "newer than version in archive"
– Sean
Jan 6 '17 at 14:40
I think apt-show-versions is the best simply because the aptitude line is extremely counter-intuitive to remember. Every single time I need it I have to google it/look it up/save it/make a script/etc.
– j riv
Jun 17 '18 at 7:40
add a comment
|
aptitude search '~o'
Aptitude has some very powerful searching available. Unfortunately the syntax is a bit unwieldy and you have to dig past the manpage to find the documentation, but its worth it.
apt-show-versions can also be helpful:
apt-show-versions | grep 'No available version'
aptitude search '~o'
Aptitude has some very powerful searching available. Unfortunately the syntax is a bit unwieldy and you have to dig past the manpage to find the documentation, but its worth it.
apt-show-versions can also be helpful:
apt-show-versions | grep 'No available version'
edited Jan 24 '12 at 19:57
answered Jan 24 '12 at 19:38
stewstew
3461 silver badge4 bronze badges
3461 silver badge4 bronze badges
1
see a nice article about obsolete packages here: raphaelhertzog.com/2011/02/07/…
– Lluís
Mar 8 '14 at 11:02
Another useful list is generated byapt-show-versions | grep "newer than version in archive"
– Sean
Jan 6 '17 at 14:40
I think apt-show-versions is the best simply because the aptitude line is extremely counter-intuitive to remember. Every single time I need it I have to google it/look it up/save it/make a script/etc.
– j riv
Jun 17 '18 at 7:40
add a comment
|
1
see a nice article about obsolete packages here: raphaelhertzog.com/2011/02/07/…
– Lluís
Mar 8 '14 at 11:02
Another useful list is generated byapt-show-versions | grep "newer than version in archive"
– Sean
Jan 6 '17 at 14:40
I think apt-show-versions is the best simply because the aptitude line is extremely counter-intuitive to remember. Every single time I need it I have to google it/look it up/save it/make a script/etc.
– j riv
Jun 17 '18 at 7:40
1
1
see a nice article about obsolete packages here: raphaelhertzog.com/2011/02/07/…
– Lluís
Mar 8 '14 at 11:02
see a nice article about obsolete packages here: raphaelhertzog.com/2011/02/07/…
– Lluís
Mar 8 '14 at 11:02
Another useful list is generated by
apt-show-versions | grep "newer than version in archive"
– Sean
Jan 6 '17 at 14:40
Another useful list is generated by
apt-show-versions | grep "newer than version in archive"
– Sean
Jan 6 '17 at 14:40
I think apt-show-versions is the best simply because the aptitude line is extremely counter-intuitive to remember. Every single time I need it I have to google it/look it up/save it/make a script/etc.
– j riv
Jun 17 '18 at 7:40
I think apt-show-versions is the best simply because the aptitude line is extremely counter-intuitive to remember. Every single time I need it I have to google it/look it up/save it/make a script/etc.
– j riv
Jun 17 '18 at 7:40
add a comment
|
To get a list of apps that are not in a Registered Repository or PPA do this:
sudo apt-get install apt-show-versions
apt-show-versions | grep 'No available version'
That should output text like this:
app1 1.0.0.14 installed: No available version in archive
app23 0.3.6 installed: No available version in archive
app332 7.0.9377 installed: No available version in archive
For me this worked and showed three apps I installed using DEB packages and weren't available in a Repo or PPA.
Do remember though that it's impossible to check for all programs, only the ones that went through dpkg
. For instance, some apps are installed by simply extracting them into the correct folders, or others use a standalone installer bin or script. So the best way is for you yourself to keep a list of apps you installed via any method other than APT.
Works for all my localdpkg
installed packages. One exception. It listsskype-bin
, whereasapt-cache policy skype-bin
clearly shows the Canonical partner repo. I'm not sure what is going on. Multiarch issue? Still +1 forapt-show-versions
!
– gertvdijk
Jan 5 '13 at 21:37
aptitude calls these 'obsolete' packages. See chronitis comment above.
– Henk Poley
Mar 5 '13 at 16:54
add a comment
|
To get a list of apps that are not in a Registered Repository or PPA do this:
sudo apt-get install apt-show-versions
apt-show-versions | grep 'No available version'
That should output text like this:
app1 1.0.0.14 installed: No available version in archive
app23 0.3.6 installed: No available version in archive
app332 7.0.9377 installed: No available version in archive
For me this worked and showed three apps I installed using DEB packages and weren't available in a Repo or PPA.
Do remember though that it's impossible to check for all programs, only the ones that went through dpkg
. For instance, some apps are installed by simply extracting them into the correct folders, or others use a standalone installer bin or script. So the best way is for you yourself to keep a list of apps you installed via any method other than APT.
Works for all my localdpkg
installed packages. One exception. It listsskype-bin
, whereasapt-cache policy skype-bin
clearly shows the Canonical partner repo. I'm not sure what is going on. Multiarch issue? Still +1 forapt-show-versions
!
– gertvdijk
Jan 5 '13 at 21:37
aptitude calls these 'obsolete' packages. See chronitis comment above.
– Henk Poley
Mar 5 '13 at 16:54
add a comment
|
To get a list of apps that are not in a Registered Repository or PPA do this:
sudo apt-get install apt-show-versions
apt-show-versions | grep 'No available version'
That should output text like this:
app1 1.0.0.14 installed: No available version in archive
app23 0.3.6 installed: No available version in archive
app332 7.0.9377 installed: No available version in archive
For me this worked and showed three apps I installed using DEB packages and weren't available in a Repo or PPA.
Do remember though that it's impossible to check for all programs, only the ones that went through dpkg
. For instance, some apps are installed by simply extracting them into the correct folders, or others use a standalone installer bin or script. So the best way is for you yourself to keep a list of apps you installed via any method other than APT.
To get a list of apps that are not in a Registered Repository or PPA do this:
sudo apt-get install apt-show-versions
apt-show-versions | grep 'No available version'
That should output text like this:
app1 1.0.0.14 installed: No available version in archive
app23 0.3.6 installed: No available version in archive
app332 7.0.9377 installed: No available version in archive
For me this worked and showed three apps I installed using DEB packages and weren't available in a Repo or PPA.
Do remember though that it's impossible to check for all programs, only the ones that went through dpkg
. For instance, some apps are installed by simply extracting them into the correct folders, or others use a standalone installer bin or script. So the best way is for you yourself to keep a list of apps you installed via any method other than APT.
answered Dec 2 '12 at 4:24
japzonejapzone
1,2319 silver badges18 bronze badges
1,2319 silver badges18 bronze badges
Works for all my localdpkg
installed packages. One exception. It listsskype-bin
, whereasapt-cache policy skype-bin
clearly shows the Canonical partner repo. I'm not sure what is going on. Multiarch issue? Still +1 forapt-show-versions
!
– gertvdijk
Jan 5 '13 at 21:37
aptitude calls these 'obsolete' packages. See chronitis comment above.
– Henk Poley
Mar 5 '13 at 16:54
add a comment
|
Works for all my localdpkg
installed packages. One exception. It listsskype-bin
, whereasapt-cache policy skype-bin
clearly shows the Canonical partner repo. I'm not sure what is going on. Multiarch issue? Still +1 forapt-show-versions
!
– gertvdijk
Jan 5 '13 at 21:37
aptitude calls these 'obsolete' packages. See chronitis comment above.
– Henk Poley
Mar 5 '13 at 16:54
Works for all my local
dpkg
installed packages. One exception. It lists skype-bin
, whereas apt-cache policy skype-bin
clearly shows the Canonical partner repo. I'm not sure what is going on. Multiarch issue? Still +1 for apt-show-versions
!– gertvdijk
Jan 5 '13 at 21:37
Works for all my local
dpkg
installed packages. One exception. It lists skype-bin
, whereas apt-cache policy skype-bin
clearly shows the Canonical partner repo. I'm not sure what is going on. Multiarch issue? Still +1 for apt-show-versions
!– gertvdijk
Jan 5 '13 at 21:37
aptitude calls these 'obsolete' packages. See chronitis comment above.
– Henk Poley
Mar 5 '13 at 16:54
aptitude calls these 'obsolete' packages. See chronitis comment above.
– Henk Poley
Mar 5 '13 at 16:54
add a comment
|
If you have aptitude installed use,
aptitude search '?obsolete'
or its short form
aptitude search '~o'
Here it is a sample output
i A gcc-4.7-base - GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection (base package)
id libdb4.7 - Berkeley v4.7 Database Libraries [runtime]
i libudev0 - libudev shared library
The first character of each line indicates the current state of the package. The most common states are:
- p, meaning that no trace of the package exists on the system,
- c, meaning that the package was deleted but its configuration files
remain on the system, - i, meaning that the package is installed, and
- v, meaning that the package is virtual.
The second character indicates the stored action to be performed on the package, if any, otherwise a blank space is displayed.
The most common actions are:
- i, meaning that the package will be installed,
- d, meaning that the package will be deleted, and
- p, meaning that the package and its configuration files will be removed.
If the third character is A, the package was automatically installed.
For a complete list of the possible state and action flags, see the section Accessing Package Information in the aptitude reference guide.
1
aptitude search ?obsolete
may work in bash, but you should useaptitude search '?obsolete'
– A.B.
Jul 1 '15 at 18:28
could you add some detail on parsing the output?
– Elder Geek
Jul 2 '15 at 1:54
Is '?obsolete' different from '~o'?
– Sean
Jul 2 '15 at 18:20
@Sean No, they are not different. ~o is the short form for ?obsolete indeed.
– Demis Palma ツ
Jul 2 '15 at 23:00
The quotes are parsed out by the shell. I think what A.B. meant is that you shouldn't pass weird character unescaped on the command line because you don't know what your shell is going to do with them.
– Sean
Jul 3 '15 at 19:29
|
show 1 more comment
If you have aptitude installed use,
aptitude search '?obsolete'
or its short form
aptitude search '~o'
Here it is a sample output
i A gcc-4.7-base - GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection (base package)
id libdb4.7 - Berkeley v4.7 Database Libraries [runtime]
i libudev0 - libudev shared library
The first character of each line indicates the current state of the package. The most common states are:
- p, meaning that no trace of the package exists on the system,
- c, meaning that the package was deleted but its configuration files
remain on the system, - i, meaning that the package is installed, and
- v, meaning that the package is virtual.
The second character indicates the stored action to be performed on the package, if any, otherwise a blank space is displayed.
The most common actions are:
- i, meaning that the package will be installed,
- d, meaning that the package will be deleted, and
- p, meaning that the package and its configuration files will be removed.
If the third character is A, the package was automatically installed.
For a complete list of the possible state and action flags, see the section Accessing Package Information in the aptitude reference guide.
1
aptitude search ?obsolete
may work in bash, but you should useaptitude search '?obsolete'
– A.B.
Jul 1 '15 at 18:28
could you add some detail on parsing the output?
– Elder Geek
Jul 2 '15 at 1:54
Is '?obsolete' different from '~o'?
– Sean
Jul 2 '15 at 18:20
@Sean No, they are not different. ~o is the short form for ?obsolete indeed.
– Demis Palma ツ
Jul 2 '15 at 23:00
The quotes are parsed out by the shell. I think what A.B. meant is that you shouldn't pass weird character unescaped on the command line because you don't know what your shell is going to do with them.
– Sean
Jul 3 '15 at 19:29
|
show 1 more comment
If you have aptitude installed use,
aptitude search '?obsolete'
or its short form
aptitude search '~o'
Here it is a sample output
i A gcc-4.7-base - GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection (base package)
id libdb4.7 - Berkeley v4.7 Database Libraries [runtime]
i libudev0 - libudev shared library
The first character of each line indicates the current state of the package. The most common states are:
- p, meaning that no trace of the package exists on the system,
- c, meaning that the package was deleted but its configuration files
remain on the system, - i, meaning that the package is installed, and
- v, meaning that the package is virtual.
The second character indicates the stored action to be performed on the package, if any, otherwise a blank space is displayed.
The most common actions are:
- i, meaning that the package will be installed,
- d, meaning that the package will be deleted, and
- p, meaning that the package and its configuration files will be removed.
If the third character is A, the package was automatically installed.
For a complete list of the possible state and action flags, see the section Accessing Package Information in the aptitude reference guide.
If you have aptitude installed use,
aptitude search '?obsolete'
or its short form
aptitude search '~o'
Here it is a sample output
i A gcc-4.7-base - GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection (base package)
id libdb4.7 - Berkeley v4.7 Database Libraries [runtime]
i libudev0 - libudev shared library
The first character of each line indicates the current state of the package. The most common states are:
- p, meaning that no trace of the package exists on the system,
- c, meaning that the package was deleted but its configuration files
remain on the system, - i, meaning that the package is installed, and
- v, meaning that the package is virtual.
The second character indicates the stored action to be performed on the package, if any, otherwise a blank space is displayed.
The most common actions are:
- i, meaning that the package will be installed,
- d, meaning that the package will be deleted, and
- p, meaning that the package and its configuration files will be removed.
If the third character is A, the package was automatically installed.
For a complete list of the possible state and action flags, see the section Accessing Package Information in the aptitude reference guide.
edited Jul 4 '15 at 10:07
answered Jul 1 '15 at 17:44
Demis Palma ツDemis Palma ツ
3914 silver badges9 bronze badges
3914 silver badges9 bronze badges
1
aptitude search ?obsolete
may work in bash, but you should useaptitude search '?obsolete'
– A.B.
Jul 1 '15 at 18:28
could you add some detail on parsing the output?
– Elder Geek
Jul 2 '15 at 1:54
Is '?obsolete' different from '~o'?
– Sean
Jul 2 '15 at 18:20
@Sean No, they are not different. ~o is the short form for ?obsolete indeed.
– Demis Palma ツ
Jul 2 '15 at 23:00
The quotes are parsed out by the shell. I think what A.B. meant is that you shouldn't pass weird character unescaped on the command line because you don't know what your shell is going to do with them.
– Sean
Jul 3 '15 at 19:29
|
show 1 more comment
1
aptitude search ?obsolete
may work in bash, but you should useaptitude search '?obsolete'
– A.B.
Jul 1 '15 at 18:28
could you add some detail on parsing the output?
– Elder Geek
Jul 2 '15 at 1:54
Is '?obsolete' different from '~o'?
– Sean
Jul 2 '15 at 18:20
@Sean No, they are not different. ~o is the short form for ?obsolete indeed.
– Demis Palma ツ
Jul 2 '15 at 23:00
The quotes are parsed out by the shell. I think what A.B. meant is that you shouldn't pass weird character unescaped on the command line because you don't know what your shell is going to do with them.
– Sean
Jul 3 '15 at 19:29
1
1
aptitude search ?obsolete
may work in bash, but you should use aptitude search '?obsolete'
– A.B.
Jul 1 '15 at 18:28
aptitude search ?obsolete
may work in bash, but you should use aptitude search '?obsolete'
– A.B.
Jul 1 '15 at 18:28
could you add some detail on parsing the output?
– Elder Geek
Jul 2 '15 at 1:54
could you add some detail on parsing the output?
– Elder Geek
Jul 2 '15 at 1:54
Is '?obsolete' different from '~o'?
– Sean
Jul 2 '15 at 18:20
Is '?obsolete' different from '~o'?
– Sean
Jul 2 '15 at 18:20
@Sean No, they are not different. ~o is the short form for ?obsolete indeed.
– Demis Palma ツ
Jul 2 '15 at 23:00
@Sean No, they are not different. ~o is the short form for ?obsolete indeed.
– Demis Palma ツ
Jul 2 '15 at 23:00
The quotes are parsed out by the shell. I think what A.B. meant is that you shouldn't pass weird character unescaped on the command line because you don't know what your shell is going to do with them.
– Sean
Jul 3 '15 at 19:29
The quotes are parsed out by the shell. I think what A.B. meant is that you shouldn't pass weird character unescaped on the command line because you don't know what your shell is going to do with them.
– Sean
Jul 3 '15 at 19:29
|
show 1 more comment
You could use the following Bash one-liner:
comm -23 <(dpkg-query -W -f '$db:Status-Abbrevt$Packagen' | grep '^.[^nc]' | cut -f2 | sort) <(apt-cache dumpavail | sed -rn 's/^Package: (.*)/1/p' | sort -u)
No need to install extra packages for this, plus this is relatively fast. This will also find partially installed packages (but will not find those that have only configuration files remaining; that could be changed easily, though). Note: this does not care of which architecture the packages are.
Even faster is to use modern apt:
apt list --installed | awk -F/ '/[installed,local]/print $1'
Yet another option is to run
ubuntu-support-status --show-unsupported
and read the obsolete package names under "No longer downloadable:" section.
‘apt list --manual-installed | grep -v cosmic‘ shows false positives. This answer is much better!
– TamusJRoyce
Sep 18 at 15:08
1
@TamusJRoyce, yes, I suppose so now after editing.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:18
I made a request for feature ofapt
that would make getting the list easy here; you may mark that the bug affects you.
– jarno
Sep 19 at 9:47
add a comment
|
You could use the following Bash one-liner:
comm -23 <(dpkg-query -W -f '$db:Status-Abbrevt$Packagen' | grep '^.[^nc]' | cut -f2 | sort) <(apt-cache dumpavail | sed -rn 's/^Package: (.*)/1/p' | sort -u)
No need to install extra packages for this, plus this is relatively fast. This will also find partially installed packages (but will not find those that have only configuration files remaining; that could be changed easily, though). Note: this does not care of which architecture the packages are.
Even faster is to use modern apt:
apt list --installed | awk -F/ '/[installed,local]/print $1'
Yet another option is to run
ubuntu-support-status --show-unsupported
and read the obsolete package names under "No longer downloadable:" section.
‘apt list --manual-installed | grep -v cosmic‘ shows false positives. This answer is much better!
– TamusJRoyce
Sep 18 at 15:08
1
@TamusJRoyce, yes, I suppose so now after editing.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:18
I made a request for feature ofapt
that would make getting the list easy here; you may mark that the bug affects you.
– jarno
Sep 19 at 9:47
add a comment
|
You could use the following Bash one-liner:
comm -23 <(dpkg-query -W -f '$db:Status-Abbrevt$Packagen' | grep '^.[^nc]' | cut -f2 | sort) <(apt-cache dumpavail | sed -rn 's/^Package: (.*)/1/p' | sort -u)
No need to install extra packages for this, plus this is relatively fast. This will also find partially installed packages (but will not find those that have only configuration files remaining; that could be changed easily, though). Note: this does not care of which architecture the packages are.
Even faster is to use modern apt:
apt list --installed | awk -F/ '/[installed,local]/print $1'
Yet another option is to run
ubuntu-support-status --show-unsupported
and read the obsolete package names under "No longer downloadable:" section.
You could use the following Bash one-liner:
comm -23 <(dpkg-query -W -f '$db:Status-Abbrevt$Packagen' | grep '^.[^nc]' | cut -f2 | sort) <(apt-cache dumpavail | sed -rn 's/^Package: (.*)/1/p' | sort -u)
No need to install extra packages for this, plus this is relatively fast. This will also find partially installed packages (but will not find those that have only configuration files remaining; that could be changed easily, though). Note: this does not care of which architecture the packages are.
Even faster is to use modern apt:
apt list --installed | awk -F/ '/[installed,local]/print $1'
Yet another option is to run
ubuntu-support-status --show-unsupported
and read the obsolete package names under "No longer downloadable:" section.
edited Sep 19 at 20:29
answered Sep 17 at 22:32
jarnojarno
2,9453 gold badges24 silver badges54 bronze badges
2,9453 gold badges24 silver badges54 bronze badges
‘apt list --manual-installed | grep -v cosmic‘ shows false positives. This answer is much better!
– TamusJRoyce
Sep 18 at 15:08
1
@TamusJRoyce, yes, I suppose so now after editing.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:18
I made a request for feature ofapt
that would make getting the list easy here; you may mark that the bug affects you.
– jarno
Sep 19 at 9:47
add a comment
|
‘apt list --manual-installed | grep -v cosmic‘ shows false positives. This answer is much better!
– TamusJRoyce
Sep 18 at 15:08
1
@TamusJRoyce, yes, I suppose so now after editing.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:18
I made a request for feature ofapt
that would make getting the list easy here; you may mark that the bug affects you.
– jarno
Sep 19 at 9:47
‘apt list --manual-installed | grep -v cosmic‘ shows false positives. This answer is much better!
– TamusJRoyce
Sep 18 at 15:08
‘apt list --manual-installed | grep -v cosmic‘ shows false positives. This answer is much better!
– TamusJRoyce
Sep 18 at 15:08
1
1
@TamusJRoyce, yes, I suppose so now after editing.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:18
@TamusJRoyce, yes, I suppose so now after editing.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:18
I made a request for feature of
apt
that would make getting the list easy here; you may mark that the bug affects you.– jarno
Sep 19 at 9:47
I made a request for feature of
apt
that would make getting the list easy here; you may mark that the bug affects you.– jarno
Sep 19 at 9:47
add a comment
|
More info to investigate.
ubuntu-support-status
echo "$(sudo apt-mark showmanual | wc -l) packages marked as 'manually installed'."
... ubuntu-support-status and apt-mark may require installation.
No need to usesudo
withapt-mark showmanual
.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:20
ubuntu-support-status
lists the number of obsolete packages, but not the package names.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:47
1
Read the output ofubuntu-support-status --help
– Hannu
Sep 19 at 17:16
Oh, thanks for the hint.
– jarno
Sep 20 at 5:26
add a comment
|
More info to investigate.
ubuntu-support-status
echo "$(sudo apt-mark showmanual | wc -l) packages marked as 'manually installed'."
... ubuntu-support-status and apt-mark may require installation.
No need to usesudo
withapt-mark showmanual
.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:20
ubuntu-support-status
lists the number of obsolete packages, but not the package names.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:47
1
Read the output ofubuntu-support-status --help
– Hannu
Sep 19 at 17:16
Oh, thanks for the hint.
– jarno
Sep 20 at 5:26
add a comment
|
More info to investigate.
ubuntu-support-status
echo "$(sudo apt-mark showmanual | wc -l) packages marked as 'manually installed'."
... ubuntu-support-status and apt-mark may require installation.
More info to investigate.
ubuntu-support-status
echo "$(sudo apt-mark showmanual | wc -l) packages marked as 'manually installed'."
... ubuntu-support-status and apt-mark may require installation.
answered Dec 15 '18 at 18:08
HannuHannu
2,93116 silver badges31 bronze badges
2,93116 silver badges31 bronze badges
No need to usesudo
withapt-mark showmanual
.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:20
ubuntu-support-status
lists the number of obsolete packages, but not the package names.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:47
1
Read the output ofubuntu-support-status --help
– Hannu
Sep 19 at 17:16
Oh, thanks for the hint.
– jarno
Sep 20 at 5:26
add a comment
|
No need to usesudo
withapt-mark showmanual
.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:20
ubuntu-support-status
lists the number of obsolete packages, but not the package names.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:47
1
Read the output ofubuntu-support-status --help
– Hannu
Sep 19 at 17:16
Oh, thanks for the hint.
– jarno
Sep 20 at 5:26
No need to use
sudo
with apt-mark showmanual
.– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:20
No need to use
sudo
with apt-mark showmanual
.– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:20
ubuntu-support-status
lists the number of obsolete packages, but not the package names.– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:47
ubuntu-support-status
lists the number of obsolete packages, but not the package names.– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:47
1
1
Read the output of
ubuntu-support-status --help
– Hannu
Sep 19 at 17:16
Read the output of
ubuntu-support-status --help
– Hannu
Sep 19 at 17:16
Oh, thanks for the hint.
– jarno
Sep 20 at 5:26
Oh, thanks for the hint.
– jarno
Sep 20 at 5:26
add a comment
|
There may be a cleaner way, but off the top of my head you can do
dpkg -l | cut -f 3 -d ' ' > installed
xargs -n 1 --replace=X apt-cache search ^X$ < installed | cut -f 1 -d ' ' > available
diff installed available
Cleanup the first few lines of the installed
file: it will have headers.
Bonus if anyone can fix my syntax highlighting...
2
if you are going to use the output ofdpkg -l
to get a list of installed packages, you should limit the results to lines with 'i' in the second column, as dpkg will also list packages which are not installed (perhaps removed but not purged). as an example, altering your first command to bedpkg -l | grep '^.[^i]' | cut -f 3 -d ' '
it would return a list of packages, which are NOT installed. (but once were)
– stew
Jan 24 '12 at 19:46
1
also,apt-cache search someinstalledpackage
will return something even if the package isn't available from a repo, so I don't believe this will work at all.
– stew
Jan 24 '12 at 19:54
1
@stew I'll leave this up here to see if anybody reaches conclusions, but your answer is definitely far better. +1 to you.
– Jeff Ferland
Jan 24 '12 at 19:59
@stewdpkg -l | grep '^.[^i]' | cut -f 3 -d ' '
also prints some header lines.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 5:32
Even if this answer worked, it would be very slow as it would runapt-cache search
for each package separately.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:56
|
show 1 more comment
There may be a cleaner way, but off the top of my head you can do
dpkg -l | cut -f 3 -d ' ' > installed
xargs -n 1 --replace=X apt-cache search ^X$ < installed | cut -f 1 -d ' ' > available
diff installed available
Cleanup the first few lines of the installed
file: it will have headers.
Bonus if anyone can fix my syntax highlighting...
2
if you are going to use the output ofdpkg -l
to get a list of installed packages, you should limit the results to lines with 'i' in the second column, as dpkg will also list packages which are not installed (perhaps removed but not purged). as an example, altering your first command to bedpkg -l | grep '^.[^i]' | cut -f 3 -d ' '
it would return a list of packages, which are NOT installed. (but once were)
– stew
Jan 24 '12 at 19:46
1
also,apt-cache search someinstalledpackage
will return something even if the package isn't available from a repo, so I don't believe this will work at all.
– stew
Jan 24 '12 at 19:54
1
@stew I'll leave this up here to see if anybody reaches conclusions, but your answer is definitely far better. +1 to you.
– Jeff Ferland
Jan 24 '12 at 19:59
@stewdpkg -l | grep '^.[^i]' | cut -f 3 -d ' '
also prints some header lines.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 5:32
Even if this answer worked, it would be very slow as it would runapt-cache search
for each package separately.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:56
|
show 1 more comment
There may be a cleaner way, but off the top of my head you can do
dpkg -l | cut -f 3 -d ' ' > installed
xargs -n 1 --replace=X apt-cache search ^X$ < installed | cut -f 1 -d ' ' > available
diff installed available
Cleanup the first few lines of the installed
file: it will have headers.
Bonus if anyone can fix my syntax highlighting...
There may be a cleaner way, but off the top of my head you can do
dpkg -l | cut -f 3 -d ' ' > installed
xargs -n 1 --replace=X apt-cache search ^X$ < installed | cut -f 1 -d ' ' > available
diff installed available
Cleanup the first few lines of the installed
file: it will have headers.
Bonus if anyone can fix my syntax highlighting...
answered Jan 24 '12 at 19:30
Jeff FerlandJeff Ferland
1484 bronze badges
1484 bronze badges
2
if you are going to use the output ofdpkg -l
to get a list of installed packages, you should limit the results to lines with 'i' in the second column, as dpkg will also list packages which are not installed (perhaps removed but not purged). as an example, altering your first command to bedpkg -l | grep '^.[^i]' | cut -f 3 -d ' '
it would return a list of packages, which are NOT installed. (but once were)
– stew
Jan 24 '12 at 19:46
1
also,apt-cache search someinstalledpackage
will return something even if the package isn't available from a repo, so I don't believe this will work at all.
– stew
Jan 24 '12 at 19:54
1
@stew I'll leave this up here to see if anybody reaches conclusions, but your answer is definitely far better. +1 to you.
– Jeff Ferland
Jan 24 '12 at 19:59
@stewdpkg -l | grep '^.[^i]' | cut -f 3 -d ' '
also prints some header lines.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 5:32
Even if this answer worked, it would be very slow as it would runapt-cache search
for each package separately.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:56
|
show 1 more comment
2
if you are going to use the output ofdpkg -l
to get a list of installed packages, you should limit the results to lines with 'i' in the second column, as dpkg will also list packages which are not installed (perhaps removed but not purged). as an example, altering your first command to bedpkg -l | grep '^.[^i]' | cut -f 3 -d ' '
it would return a list of packages, which are NOT installed. (but once were)
– stew
Jan 24 '12 at 19:46
1
also,apt-cache search someinstalledpackage
will return something even if the package isn't available from a repo, so I don't believe this will work at all.
– stew
Jan 24 '12 at 19:54
1
@stew I'll leave this up here to see if anybody reaches conclusions, but your answer is definitely far better. +1 to you.
– Jeff Ferland
Jan 24 '12 at 19:59
@stewdpkg -l | grep '^.[^i]' | cut -f 3 -d ' '
also prints some header lines.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 5:32
Even if this answer worked, it would be very slow as it would runapt-cache search
for each package separately.
– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:56
2
2
if you are going to use the output of
dpkg -l
to get a list of installed packages, you should limit the results to lines with 'i' in the second column, as dpkg will also list packages which are not installed (perhaps removed but not purged). as an example, altering your first command to be dpkg -l | grep '^.[^i]' | cut -f 3 -d ' '
it would return a list of packages, which are NOT installed. (but once were)– stew
Jan 24 '12 at 19:46
if you are going to use the output of
dpkg -l
to get a list of installed packages, you should limit the results to lines with 'i' in the second column, as dpkg will also list packages which are not installed (perhaps removed but not purged). as an example, altering your first command to be dpkg -l | grep '^.[^i]' | cut -f 3 -d ' '
it would return a list of packages, which are NOT installed. (but once were)– stew
Jan 24 '12 at 19:46
1
1
also,
apt-cache search someinstalledpackage
will return something even if the package isn't available from a repo, so I don't believe this will work at all.– stew
Jan 24 '12 at 19:54
also,
apt-cache search someinstalledpackage
will return something even if the package isn't available from a repo, so I don't believe this will work at all.– stew
Jan 24 '12 at 19:54
1
1
@stew I'll leave this up here to see if anybody reaches conclusions, but your answer is definitely far better. +1 to you.
– Jeff Ferland
Jan 24 '12 at 19:59
@stew I'll leave this up here to see if anybody reaches conclusions, but your answer is definitely far better. +1 to you.
– Jeff Ferland
Jan 24 '12 at 19:59
@stew
dpkg -l | grep '^.[^i]' | cut -f 3 -d ' '
also prints some header lines.– jarno
Sep 18 at 5:32
@stew
dpkg -l | grep '^.[^i]' | cut -f 3 -d ' '
also prints some header lines.– jarno
Sep 18 at 5:32
Even if this answer worked, it would be very slow as it would run
apt-cache search
for each package separately.– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:56
Even if this answer worked, it would be very slow as it would run
apt-cache search
for each package separately.– jarno
Sep 18 at 16:56
|
show 1 more comment
As mentioned apt-get search is not a good method to check if a package is still available. Additional I've added everything to just one line:
for i in `dpkg -l | grep '^i' | awk ' print $2 '`; do apt-cache show $i > /dev/null || echo $i; done
And whygrep '^i'
– A.B.
Sep 22 '15 at 11:24
@A.B. good point; that does not tell, if the package is installed, but that the package's desired action is to be installed. Seeman dpkg-query
for more information.
– jarno
Sep 17 at 10:26
This is very slow
– jarno
Sep 17 at 11:42
apt-cache show
does is neither good for checking if the package is availabe. If you disable the respective repository, and no other enabled repository has it, it still shows the package.
– jarno
Sep 21 at 10:18
add a comment
|
As mentioned apt-get search is not a good method to check if a package is still available. Additional I've added everything to just one line:
for i in `dpkg -l | grep '^i' | awk ' print $2 '`; do apt-cache show $i > /dev/null || echo $i; done
And whygrep '^i'
– A.B.
Sep 22 '15 at 11:24
@A.B. good point; that does not tell, if the package is installed, but that the package's desired action is to be installed. Seeman dpkg-query
for more information.
– jarno
Sep 17 at 10:26
This is very slow
– jarno
Sep 17 at 11:42
apt-cache show
does is neither good for checking if the package is availabe. If you disable the respective repository, and no other enabled repository has it, it still shows the package.
– jarno
Sep 21 at 10:18
add a comment
|
As mentioned apt-get search is not a good method to check if a package is still available. Additional I've added everything to just one line:
for i in `dpkg -l | grep '^i' | awk ' print $2 '`; do apt-cache show $i > /dev/null || echo $i; done
As mentioned apt-get search is not a good method to check if a package is still available. Additional I've added everything to just one line:
for i in `dpkg -l | grep '^i' | awk ' print $2 '`; do apt-cache show $i > /dev/null || echo $i; done
answered Sep 22 '15 at 10:25
wofwof
91 bronze badge
91 bronze badge
And whygrep '^i'
– A.B.
Sep 22 '15 at 11:24
@A.B. good point; that does not tell, if the package is installed, but that the package's desired action is to be installed. Seeman dpkg-query
for more information.
– jarno
Sep 17 at 10:26
This is very slow
– jarno
Sep 17 at 11:42
apt-cache show
does is neither good for checking if the package is availabe. If you disable the respective repository, and no other enabled repository has it, it still shows the package.
– jarno
Sep 21 at 10:18
add a comment
|
And whygrep '^i'
– A.B.
Sep 22 '15 at 11:24
@A.B. good point; that does not tell, if the package is installed, but that the package's desired action is to be installed. Seeman dpkg-query
for more information.
– jarno
Sep 17 at 10:26
This is very slow
– jarno
Sep 17 at 11:42
apt-cache show
does is neither good for checking if the package is availabe. If you disable the respective repository, and no other enabled repository has it, it still shows the package.
– jarno
Sep 21 at 10:18
And why
grep '^i'
– A.B.
Sep 22 '15 at 11:24
And why
grep '^i'
– A.B.
Sep 22 '15 at 11:24
@A.B. good point; that does not tell, if the package is installed, but that the package's desired action is to be installed. See
man dpkg-query
for more information.– jarno
Sep 17 at 10:26
@A.B. good point; that does not tell, if the package is installed, but that the package's desired action is to be installed. See
man dpkg-query
for more information.– jarno
Sep 17 at 10:26
This is very slow
– jarno
Sep 17 at 11:42
This is very slow
– jarno
Sep 17 at 11:42
apt-cache show
does is neither good for checking if the package is availabe. If you disable the respective repository, and no other enabled repository has it, it still shows the package.– jarno
Sep 21 at 10:18
apt-cache show
does is neither good for checking if the package is availabe. If you disable the respective repository, and no other enabled repository has it, it still shows the package.– jarno
Sep 21 at 10:18
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Ubuntu!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f98223%2fhow-do-i-get-a-list-of-obsolete-packages%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown