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

Re: amd64: subversion_1.3.2-5~bpo1 broken(?)

Daniel Franke wrote:
> I tried to upgrade svn-1.1.4 (sarge) to 1.3.2-5 (sarge-backports). Due
> to incompatibilities this doesn't work:

Of course I am also looking forward to Norbert's updated version but
until then I see something really strange to me.

> $> sudo apt-get install -t sarge-backports libsvn0=1.3.2-5~bpo1
> subversion=1.3.2-5~bpo1
> [messages snipped]
> Unpacking libneon24 (from .../libneon24_0.24.7.dfsg-2_i386.deb) ...

Wow.  That really says _i386.deb there?  I am sure it does.  How is
that happening?

What does this say?

  apt-cache policy libneon24

My amd64 machine shows a version from http://amd64.debian.net in
sarge/main.  That is libneon24_0.24.7.dfsg-2_amd64.deb for me and is
definitely not an i386 version.  Seeing _i386.deb there seems like an
indication of a bigger problem.

> As shown above, I only have sudo privileges, thus fixing this won't be
> easy as I am not used to debian/apt-get.
> Is there an easy workaround for this? If not, any suggestions I could
> follow (besides getting the source, building on my own and messing
> with the system)?

Depending upon the configuration of the /etc/apt/sources.list file (if
it is correct or not) you could always manually download the correct
libneon24 and install it with sudo.

  $ aptitude download libneon24
  Reading Package Lists... Done
  Building Dependency Tree       
  Reading extended state information      
  Initializing package states... Done
  Reading task descriptions... Done  
  Get:1 http://amd64.debian.net sarge/main libneon24 0.24.7.dfsg-2 [87.1kB]
  Fetched 87.1kB in 1s (51.8kB/s)   

And then install it.

  $ sudo dpkg -i libneon24_0.24.7.dfsg-2_amd64.deb

But I am suspecting something is really strange somewhere because I do
not see the same behavior that you are seeing on my amd64 system.  But
I have not updated subversion there since 1.2.3dfsg1-2bpo1.


> P.S. Please CC me as I am not subscribed. Thanks.

Reply to: