Re: xmms-vorbis install problems on woody
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 06:24:08PM +0100, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
> > > Is it only me? Does anybody else sees this weirdness?
> >
> > Why is this weird? One package obsoleted another. Try reading the latest
> > changelog entry for xmms.
>
> Obsoleted. Is that the meaning of this line?
>
> xmms-vorbis: Depends: xmms but it is not going to be installed
That's APT's way of telling you the same :)
> Do you refer to this, in xmms (1.2.4-1)
> /usr/share/doc/xmms/changelog.Debian.gz
>
> * Added libogg0-dev and libvorbis0-dev to Build-Depends: because of the
> new plugin. Added Conflicts: and Replaces: on xmms-vorbis, too.
>
> I might just gone stupid lately, but it is unclear to me what that
> means. So I'll just go on being stupid and ask another stupid question:
>
> Did xmms-vorbis ceased to exist? That is, xmms-vorbis is no more?
> xmms-vorbis is a former package? In thet case, why doesn't it say so?
xmms-vorbis needs to be removed from the archive, that's all. I've already
filed a bug report to get that done.
> If it still exists and conflicts with xmms, why doesn't it suggest
> removing xmms, as installing xmms removed xmms-vorbis?
This is different -- they don't conflict, xmms obsoletes xmms-vorbis.
When a package uses _both_ Conflicts and Replaces on another package, the
other package gets removed before installing. See Debian Packaging Manual,
section 8.3 "Alternative binary packages - Conflicts and Replaces".
> My opinion is that the message:
>
> "xmms-vorbis: Depends: xmms but it is not going to be installed"
>
> is plain stupid. I don't know what it might be meant to say, and I'm
> trying very hard to understand it's meaning.
It means "xmms-vorbis depends on xmms to get installed, but xmms won't get
installed". The problem is that it doesn't tell you the reason for the
latter.
> "... but it is not going to be installed" What? xmms or xmms-vorbis?
xmms.
> xmms is already installed, so that leaves xmms-vorbis as the candidate
> to not being installed. Note: I used the deductive part of my brain,
> all by myself, to do this analysis 8).
That's apt-get for you -- it has its own viewpoint, which is rather
different than the one simple for the user to understand. <sigh>
I had already filed a bug to get this wording changed, and Jason closed it
saying it can't be improved...
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: