Re: Unmet dependencies on Sparc when building wordnet and fslview
On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:32:02AM +0100, Michael Hanke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 07:40:52AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > if you look at the buildd report for latest wordnet on sparc at
> >
> > http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?&pkg=wordnet&ver=1%3A3.0-6&arch=sparc&stamp=1194923732&file=log
> >
> > you see:
> >
> > The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> > man-db: Depends: bsdmainutils but it is not going to be installed
> > E: Broken packages
> > apt-get failed.
> I'm having a similar problem with the 'fslview' package. If you look at
>
> http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?&pkg=fslview&ver=3.0%2B4.0.2-2&arch=sparc&stamp=1195437172&file=log
>
> it says:
>
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> libqwt-dev: Depends: libqwt4c2 (= 4.2.0-4) but it is not going to be installed
> Depends: libqt3-mt-dev but it is not going to be installed
> libvtk5-qt3-dev: Depends: libvtk5-qt3 but it is not going to be installed
> qt3-apps-dev: Depends: libqt3-mt-dev but it is not going to be installed
> E: Broken packages
>
>
> Sparc is the only architecture that fails to build and I cannot easily
> see the reason. All packages mentioned above seem to be available for
> sparc.
This is, in fact, one of the hardest parts of being a good buildd
administrator: figuring out where exactly in the dependency chain
something is broken.
You won't see any of the above errors if an architecture is fully
up-to-date, which means that people using the most mainline architecture
(i386 in the past, probably amd64 now) will most likely never see
something like that.
When you get a message from apt in the style of "Depends: foo (version)
but it is not going to be installed", it doesn't mean that foo isn't
available at the required version; it only means that foo is currently
not installable, due to something somewhere down its dependency chain.
Over two years ago, I filed a wishlist bug against apt to ask for a more
verbose way to see what's going on (#325786), but it hasn't even
received an answer from the developers.
In most cases, buildd administrators know exactly what's going on when
they see a "but it is not going to be installed" message, since these
tend to be repeated among a number of packages, and they tend to look
into the issue. However, you can always poke them if you're sure the
dependency is fixed now and your package still isn't in Needs-Build.
--
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
-- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22
Reply to: