[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#336416: acknowledged by developer



On 10/30/2005 05:48:13 AM, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
#336416: upgrade-reports: 'Conflicts/Pre-Depends' error when upgrading
e2fsprogs,
which was filed against the upgrade-reports package.

It has been closed by one of the developers, namely
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>.

Their explanation is attached below.  If this explanation is
unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate
message then please contact the developer, by replying to this email.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Received: (at 336416-done) by bugs.debian.org; 30 Oct 2005 10:38:21
+0000
From vorlon@debian.org Sun Oct 30 02:38:21 2005
Return-path: <vorlon@debian.org>
Received: from dsl093-039-086.pdx1.dsl.speakeasy.net
(tennyson.dodds.net) [66.93.39.86]
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
	id 1EWAZx-0001Ij-00; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:38:21 -0800
Received: by tennyson.dodds.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 87A387002; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:38:20 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:38:20 -0800
From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
To: Yitzhak Grossman <celejar@gmail.com>,
	336415-done@bugs.debian.org, 336416-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#336415: upgrade-reports: 'Conflicts/Pre-Depends'
error when upgrading e2fsprogs
Message-ID: <20051030103820.GB13701@tennyson.dodds.net>
References: <[🔎] E1EW5y5-0002Fg-BB@localhost.localdomain>
<[🔎] E1EW5qC-0002Dp-4c@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="SqGHvGqRphKoTacN"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] E1EW5y5-0002Fg-BB@localhost.localdomain>
<[🔎] E1EW5qC-0002Dp-4c@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Delivered-To: 336416-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
	autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02


--SqGHvGqRphKoTacN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 01:34:47AM -0400, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> Package: upgrade-reports
> Severity: grave
> Justification: renders package unusable

> Trying to upgrade e2fsprogs from version 1.35-6 to version 1.38-2
failed
> with a 'Pre-Depends / Conflicts' error and a suggestion that
enabling
> APT::Force-LoopBreak might work. According to man apt.conf(5):

> I therefore report this 'GRAVE BUG' :).

This bug does not occur when upgrading from sarge.  The version of
e2fsprogs
shipped with sarge is 1.37-2sarge1, not 1.35-6.  Upgrading to etch
directly
=66rom pre-releases of sarge is not supported; you should upgrade to a
clean
version of sarge before upgrading to testing again.

> I subsequently enabled Force-LoopBreak and the upgrade proceeded
smoothly.

This is definitely not recommended.

Regards,
--=20
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a
Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the
world.
vorlon@debian.org
http://www.debian.org/

--SqGHvGqRphKoTacN
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDZKKcKN6ufymYLloRArukAKCV+t1+E6NEtkYRSHYCdACbOsfWXQCgxaCv
+3ZItksk7jbUP77BuxG5VyU=
=ydKT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--SqGHvGqRphKoTacN--




Thanks for the reply. I have been tracking Testing since several months before the Sarge freeze and have been gradually upgrading packages (slowly, since my net connection is dialup). Was there some need to do a dist-upgrade along the way, or something else I should have done that I missed? Apologies in advance if I overlooked some basic documentation.




Reply to: