I wan to update a  (biblatex-ieee) that I use. I do not want to update my whole system (I need to maintain specific versions for some SWs). How to retrieve the updates of that specific package without updating the whole system?
15711
Because of  I'd like to prevent apt-get upgrade and Update Manager from updating the "libgtk2.0-0" package.   How can this be achieved?
71594
I need to install a LaTeX package on my MikTeX system.  Specifically, I am trying to make biblatex work, but I always get the error message:    ! LaTeX Error: File `biblatex.sty' not found.   I have changed the options to have the "Quick Build" command that includes biblatex too.   Code/commands are correct because it's working under Overleaf.
18128
I need a newer version of glibc in my ubuntu version (precise, 12.04), but I don't seem to be able to go beyond version 2.15 using apt-get.  I tried to compile it by myself but I almost destroyed my distribution, so I was wondering if someone has gone through this process successfully and would be so kind to guide me.
112750
How to get information about .deb package archive?   Like: package information, version, installed-size, architecture, description and licensing information etc. from .deb package archive?
83747
I am getting really confused now. I installed Tex Live 2012 on my Xubuntu 12.04 with a backport and I installed TexMaker.  I could user PdfLatex right away and it generated everything I needed except my bibliography. I read that Tex Live 2012 comes with biblatex so I just changed the bibtex command in TexMaker from "bibtex" to "biblatex". However, that does not exist. So I did  sudo apt-get remove biblatex sudo apt-get install biblatex   The package is installed but I don't find the binary. Using bibtex the whole thing crashes. Which does not surprise me since I want to userbiber:  \usepackage[backend=biber]{biblatex}   Btw does biber come with biblatex? So far I couldn't get any clear explanation what biber and biblatex are to each other.  EDIT: I had to remove texlive completely and install it with the install script form . Apparently the newest version of biber does not work with the older version of biblatex I had.
6857
I'm trying out biblatex for the document I'm compiling, using the biber backend on my miktex distribution. Everything, including biber, should be up to date, assuming the MiKTeX repository currently holds the latest versions of everything.  This is what the biblatex documentation (p. 101) says about how often I have to run biber to update my .bbl file:     Whenever a reference to a work which has not been cited before is   added, this procedure must be repeated. This is also the case if the   last reference to a work which has been cited before is removed   because some citation labels may change in this case.   So if I make changes to my document (which is a very common activity in the process of writing a document), but leave the citations unchanged, I should not have to re-run biber before compiling the changes. However, every time I compile my document, regardless of the compiler or documentclass, the .bbl file is emptied. Consequently, the next time I compile the document without running biber, the bibliography is removed (seeing as the .bbl file contains nothing), and all my citations are broken. For this reason, I have to run biber before every time I compile the document, which largely counters the benefit of externalizing the bibliography in the first place.  How can I make the compilers stop overwriting my .bbl file and make everything behave as described in the biblatex manual?  Upon investigating the contents of the auxiliary files, I found that the .bbl file (after running biber, before compiling) begins with the following lines:  % $ biblatex auxiliary file $ % $ biblatex bbl format version 2.3 $   Does the biblatex version 2.8 still mark the .bbl files as version 2.3? If not, could this be the problem? And if so, why does my 2.8 version of biblatex (partly) behave as version 2.3?  Any help solving this problem would be much appreciated.
17408
According to , biblatex and natbib are packages while biber and bibtex are backends. If I don't specify either any package or any backend, it still compiles fine. Which package and backend combination is being used in this case?  demo.tex  \documentclass{article} \begin{document}  \nocite{*} \bibliographystyle{ieeetr} \bibliography{pub}  \end{document}   pub.bib  @article{janssen1996evaluation,     title={Evaluation of the DNA fingerprinting method AFLP as a new tool in bacterial taxonomy},     author={Janssen, Paul and Coopman, Renata and Huys, Geert and Swings, Jean and Bleeker, Marjo and Vos, Pieter and Zabeau, Marc and Kersters, Karel},     journal={Microbiology},     volume={142},     number={7},     pages={1881--1893},     year={1996},     publisher={Soc General Microbiol} }  @article{vos1995aflp,     title={AFLP: a new technique for DNA fingerprinting},     author={Vos, Pieter and Hogers, Rene and Bleeker, Marjo and Reijans, Martin and Van de Lee, Theo and Hornes, Miranda and Friters, Adrie and Pot, Jerina and Paleman, Johan and Kuiper, Martin and others},     journal={Nucleic acids research},     volume={23},     number={21},     pages={4407--4414},     year={1995},     publisher={Oxford Univ Press} }
19570
sudo apt update &amp;&amp; sudp apt upgrade -y now shows the error message E:The package linux-modules-5.4.0-56-generic needs to be reinstalled. But I can't find an archive for it.  and nothing proceeds. How can I fix this problem? Thanks.
19440
I'm trying to compile a document that only works with an up-to-date distribution, so I'd like to know: how do I update my distribution? Please provide screenshots where appropriate.  List of answers           To keep an eye on what’s going on at CTAN you may subscribe to the  or the RSS feed feed://www.mail-archive.com/ctan-ann@dante.de/maillist.xml
82418
Update: As of summer 2015 Biber is also included in the 64-bit repositories for MikTeX. There is no need to install Biber manually any more, it can simply be installed via the Package Manager just like other packages.   The question  describes how to use Biber with MiKTeX. But on the 64-bit version of MiKTeX Biber isn't installed.  How it is possible to install Biber on a 64-bit version of Windows?  Can I use this ?
808
describes how to get the changelog for a given package. However, it's the whole changelog.  What I'd like is a way to see what will be changed in whatever I'm about to upgrade. For example, I was imagining something like:  $ sudo apt-get upgrade --show-changelogs Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree        Reading state information... Done Calculating upgrade... Done The following packages will be upgraded:   foo     -- adds the bar feature for better snazziness     -- removes the deprecated baz feature  1 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 8,864 kB of archives. After this operation, 285 kB disk space will be freed. Do you want to continue [Y/n]?    Unfortunately, I don't see anything like that in the man pages for apt-get. Does this or something similar exist?  UPDATE: I've written a  talking about apt-listchanges and Debian changelogs in a little more depth that incorporates some of the feedback in this question.
55081
I suppose you could build a list of all packages that would be installed if you started with an empty apt database and installed everything that deborphan -a currently tells you. Then compare that with what's currently installed.  The difference would be packages that cannot be retrieved automatically with the current list of repositories.  I've no idea where to start with that though.
67160
As you can see in the image above, I tried to update to 19.10 and it says that   No new release found   I checked the /etc/update-manager/release-upgrades to see if the Prompt is LTS but it is still normal.  What would be your advice?  UPDATE: I already updated the system to 19.10. Thank you very much for the advices.
61688
I have Ubuntu 10 server and want to update a package to newer version (update rrdtool from 1.3.8 to current 1.4.5). What should I do? Download and build sources or get package from newer distribution? And how to do that?
88145
Since starting working where I am working now, I've been in an endless struggle with my boss and coworkers in regard to updating systems.  I of course totally agree that any update (be it firmware, O.S. or application) should not be applied carelessly as soon as it comes out, but I also firmly believe that there should be at least some reason if the vendor released it; and the most common reason is usually fixing some bug... which maybe you're not experiencing now, but you could be experiencing soon if you don't keep up with .  This is especially true for security fixes; as an examle, had anyone simply applied a patch that had already been available for months, the infamous SQL Slammer worm would have been harmless.  I'm all for testing and evaluating updates before deployng them; but I strongly disagree with the "if it's not broken then don't touch it" approach to systems management, and it genuinely hurts me when I find production Windows 2003 SP1 or ESX 3.5 Update 2 systems, and the only answer I can get is "it's working, we don't want to break it".  What do you think about this? What is your policy? And what is your company policy, if it doesn't match your own?  What about firmware updates (BIOS, storage, etc.)? What about main O.S. updates (service packs)? What about minor O.S. updates? What about application updates?  My main interest is of course in updating servers, as client patch management is usually more straightforward and there are well known tools and best practices to handle it.
113134
I want to save the list of packages that have installed. I figured it might be the best to list all and diff it with the default set.  Edit: Clarification: I don't want to get the list of installed packages that are installed at the moment. Rather I want to get the list of packages that I added since the default install.
123914
Every time I try to do some update (sudo apt-get update) it says:   Reading package lists ... ready W: Duplicate sources.list entry http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/ need /partner amd64 Packages (/var/lib/apt/lists/archive.canonical.com_ubuntu_dists_precise_partner_binary-amd64_Packages) W: Duplicate sources.list entry http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/ need /partner i386 Packages (/var/lib/apt/lists/archive.canonical.com_ubuntu_dists_precise_partner_binary-i386_Packages) W: You have to run apt-get update to correct these problems   sources.list:   ls /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ as requested:  milton@milton-HuronRiver-Platform:~$ ls /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ emesene-team-emesene-stable-precise.list precise-partner.list precise-partner.list.save upubuntu-com-chat-precise.list upubuntu-com-chat-precise.list.save