Re: dpkg bugs?
On Sun, Sep 28, 1997 at 02:15:03AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> I've been debugging some deity code (depends analysis), and have come
> across the rather inexplicable case that I have packages installed that
> cannot be installed - ie currently their dependancies are not met.
> The list for my machine is:
> fvwm - Depends on elf-x11r6lib but this is not installed or provided
> mfbin - Same as fvwm
> libreadline2-dev - Depends line says:
> libreadline2 (= 2.1-2), libc5 (>= 5.4.0-0), ncurses3.0
> but I have libreadline2 2.1-5 installed!
> AFAIK None of these should exist in an installed system, I can't think of
> how dpkg could allow this, unless there is a bug. If I were to remove
> these packages I should not be able to re-install them (with the possible
> exception of libreadline2)
> The fvwm problem would suggest that it doesn't check for reverse virtual
> package depends when removing a package. Ie the new xlib6 does not provide
> elf-x11r6lib, I should not have been able to upgrade to it without
> removing mfbin and fvwm
Yes, this is correct.
> The libreadline problem suggests that dpkg does not properly parse the
> single = (shouldn't it be == ?)
> Should I file a bug report (against dpkg, because these item are in active
> use), or some someone see any obvious reason why this can exist? Should
> my depends code allow any of these to exist?
I would file a bug against dpkg for not complaining about the single '='.
The virtual package problem should be put on wishlist, because it can only
become a problem indirectly.
> I'm going to get a few others to run the sniffer program to see if anymore
> abnormalities turn up.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .