sudo apt -a=armhf install bluez fails. Why?

AnneRanch · 03-17-2019, 09:35 PM

See title.

Is my syntax correct ?

Quote:

jim@jim-desktop:~$ sudo apt -a=armhf install bluez
E: Command line option 'a' [from -a=armhf] is not understood in combination with the other options.

According to man "-a" is a valid option.

Quote:

apt - command-line interface

SYNOPSIS
apt [-h] [-o=config_string] [-c=config_file] [-t=target_release]
[-a=architecture] {list | search | show | update |
install pkg [{=pkg_version_number | /target_release}]... |
remove pkg... | upgrade | full-upgrade | edit-sources |
{-v | --version} | {-h | --help}}

jsbjsb001 · 03-18-2019, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnneRanch

See title.
...
Is my syntax correct ?

No, your own output is plainly telling you that;

Code:

E: Command line option 'a' [from -a=armhf] is not understood in combination with the other options.

What part of that message is unclear ?

Quote:

...
According to man "-a" is a valid option.

And the above explains what the problem is. Just because something is a valid option, it doesn't mean that the software concerned isn't expecting it in a particular order. What makes you think otherwise ?

I'd suggest you re-read the relevant man pages, and try to actually understand them. Failing that, then do a search for some examples - as you've been repeatedly told in your other threads already.

berndbausch · 03-18-2019, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001

Code:

E: Command line option 'a' [from -a=armhf] is not understood in combination with the other options.

What part of that message is unclear ?

If I may intrude: To me, this message is unclear because the command that AnneRanch issued features no other options. So perhaps the absence of other options can be a problem? Then, while install is not an option, I wondered if -a is incompatible with install, but the man page is silent about any limitations.

My guess would be that armhf is not understood to be a valid architecture, and that the failing command issues a misleading error message. But I am curious if somebody has a better explanation.

pan64 · 03-18-2019, 01:52 AM

-a=armhf is superfluous, you are working on raspbian which is armhf. You can only install packages onto the current system, executing apt -a=<some-arch> install on <another arch> is just completely useless.
So -a and install are conflicting parameters/arguments (although specifying the actual/current architecture could have been accepted, but that is again superfluous and redundant).

jsbjsb001 · 03-18-2019, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by berndbausch

If I may intrude: To me, this message is unclear because the command that AnneRanch issued features no other options. So perhaps the absence of other options can be a problem? Then, while install is not an option, I wondered if -a is incompatible with install, but the man page is silent about any limitations.

My guess would be that armhf is not understood to be a valid architecture, and that the failing command issues a misleading error message. But I am curious if somebody has a better explanation.

Then you haven't understood the error message given either. I'd suggest you read pan64's reply above, as that's exactly what I was thinking the minute I read this thread (the quoted part of pan64's reply below). Still not sure what's unclear about it though

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan64

...
So -a and install are conflicting parameters/arguments (although specifying the actual/current architecture could have been accepted, but that is again superfluous and redundant).

berndbausch · 03-18-2019, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001

Then you haven't understood the error message given either. I'd suggest you read pan64's reply above, as that's exactly what I was thinking the minute I read this thread (the quoted part of pan64's reply below). Still not sure what's unclear about it though

And I don't understand why you don't understand

Perhaps this makes it clearer:

Strings that start with dashes are options. install is a subcommand, not an option.
Furthermore, the man page contains no information whatsoever about incompatibilities between -a and any other options, parameters, subcommands or whatever.

Can we settle on "this is another example of a useless or misleading error message"?

jsbjsb001 · 03-18-2019, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by berndbausch

And I don't understand why you don't understand

Perhaps this makes it clearer:

Strings that start with dashes are options. install is a subcommand, not an option.
Furthermore, the man page contains no information whatsoever about incompatibilities between -a and any other options, parameters, subcommands or whatever.

Can we settle on "this is another example of a useless or misleading error message"?

Oh, I understand what you're saying. While I don't see why you would lie about how clear or unclear the man page is (and this is why I also said in post #2 for the OP to look up some examples); I'm not talking about the man page, I'm talking about their error message. Which was;

Code:

E: Command line option 'a' [from -a=armhf] is not understood in combination with the other options.

The keyword there (which is why I underlined it in post #2) is "combination", which I read as: "You cannot use the "-a=armhf" in combination with the "install" parameter/argument" (the same as pan64 appears to). So I still find it difficult to understand how you nor the OP didn't read it as such (particularly the "is not understood in combination with the other options." part of it). I've seen far more "misleading" error messages than that (ever used gcc before?). So it's pretty clear in what it's getting at. Being picky about the wording of it is bound to lead to misunderstandings - I look at the meaning of it, not the specific wording of it.

The OP is trying to install a package by the looks of it, therefore you would know all that's needed is: "apt-get install <package name here>" (as pan64 was saying before), or "apt install <package name here>". So knowing that and looking at their error message, it should be fairly obvious what the error message is getting at.

pan64 · 03-18-2019, 07:28 AM

For me it looks like a different logic. Unfortunately if I want to use XXX I have to learn how does it really [planned to] work. If I don't know XXX and I assume/expect some kind of behavior - I can fail. I can misinterpret things easily. And yes, the documentation is often insufficient, ambiguous or just hard to understand.

Here I can only try to explain what I think about the logic of the original author.

rtmistler · 03-18-2019, 07:45 AM

I would go with pan64's first recommendation, although I use the older form of the command:

Code:

$ sudo apt-get install bluez

The reason is that this is presumably being typed on the system where the software is being installed. It knows the correct architecture for itself and it also should have access to proper repositories which match for that architecture. Remember always to preface that with:

Code:

$ sudo apt-get update

rtmistler · 03-18-2019, 07:48 AM

Also will add what others have said in other threads about this topic.

In order to properly detect what your repositories recognize, use the apt-cache search options. Here's what mine shows:

Code:

$ sudo apt-cache search bluez
bluez - Bluetooth tools and daemons
bluez-cups - Bluetooth printer driver for CUPS
bluez-dbg - Bluetooth tools and daemons (with debugging symbols)
bluez-obexd - bluez obex daemon
libbluetooth-dev - Development files for using the BlueZ Linux Bluetooth library
libbluetooth3 - Library to use the BlueZ Linux Bluetooth stack
libbluetooth3-dbg - Library to use the BlueZ Linux Bluetooth stack with debugging symbols
blueman - Graphical bluetooth manager
bluetooth - Bluetooth support
bluez-btsco - Bluez Bluetooth SCO tool
bluez-hcidump - Analyses Bluetooth HCI packets
bluez-tests - BlueZ test tools and scripts
bluez-tools - Set of tools to manage Bluetooth devices for linux
btscanner - ncurses-based scanner for Bluetooth devices
connman - Intel Connection Manager daemon
connman-dev - Development files for connman
connman-vpn - Intel Connection Manager daemon - VPN daemon
libbluedevil5 - Qt wrapper for bluez
libkf5bluezqt-data - data files for bluez-qt
libkf5bluezqt-dev - development files for bluez-qt
libkf5bluezqt6 - Qt wrapper for bluez
libkf5bluezqt6-dbg - debug symbols for bluez-qt
libnet-bluetooth-perl - Perl interface to Bluetooth libraries
libreoffice - office productivity suite (metapackage)
python-bluez - Python wrappers around BlueZ for rapid bluetooth development
qml-module-org-kde-bluezqt - QML wrapper for bluez

If I just wanted the application, then I'd pick the first one 'bluez'

AnneRanch · 03-18-2019, 10:18 AM

Would it be asking too much for somebody to actually tell me why

sudo apt -a=armhf install bluez

fails?

All the speculations / guesses etc. are nothing new - been there , done that!
Give me some credit , I can read / follow instructions as good or even better than some of you.

Since my post appears to be too complex , let me simplify and start with this:

Can anybody find and post a real document / link explaining how "-a" actually works in "apt" ?

apt man does not say much about the "-a", perhaps there are other resources SPECIFIC to "_a".
I have not found any specifics to "-a" usage , only generic "apt", or an example of "-a" in "apt".

Keep up the good work.
Cheers

pan64 · 03-18-2019, 10:30 AM

https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...9/#post5973903
read the source code

TB0ne · 03-18-2019, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnneRanch

Would it be asking too much for somebody to actually tell me why

Code:

sudo apt -a=armhf install bluez

fails?

All the speculations / guesses etc. are nothing new - been there , done that! Give me some credit , I can read / follow instructions as good or even better than some of you.

Obviously not, since not only the error message but many others have told you very plainly that you are not specifying things correctly. It is telling you it fails because you're not putting the command in correctly. Many examples covered in many how-to guides:
https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/HOWTO

Did you try "-a armhf", without the "="???

Quote:

Since my post appears to be too complex , let me simplify and start with this:
Can anybody find and post a real document / link explaining how "-a" actually works in "apt" ?

apt man does not say much about the "-a", perhaps there are other resources SPECIFIC to "_a". I have not found any specifics to "-a" usage , only generic "apt", or an example of "-a" in "apt".

Your post is far from complex, but the answers you've received (here and in the numerous other bluez threads you've started) seem to be too complex. I put "linux apt specify architecture", and found the link posted above. Very first hit, for 681,000 others.

rtmistler · 03-18-2019, 10:39 AM

Since you can read, then review this link and search for the section describing the -a option.

https://www.computerhope.com/unix/apt-get.htm

rtmistler · 03-18-2019, 10:54 AM

For further reading:

Building aptitude from source code

Main place I look when I have a question about some software where the information about it seems to be sparse.

Ask the author(s)
Download the source and read it

Seems as if the information you are looking for is rare knowledge.

Please update the forum if you happen to reach a conclusion after reviewing the code.

Note that the download link from that webpage contains different architecture based versions of aptitude, arm hard float is included in that list.