Re: Failed upgrade to KDE 2.2.1
Oliver, I believe that you have it exactly.
I came to grief with similar overwrite problems. There are a number
of them in the upgrade, including between kdelibs3 and konqueror.
Your analysis that the problem arises from a different location of
files between versions 2.1.x and 2.2.1 is bolstered by my
experience that the problem didn't occur when I installed KDE 2.2.1
to a new ``minimal installation" Libranet system (on which KDE
had not previously been installed).
Note to Ivan Moore (maintainer of Debian KDE packages): this
situation is what led me to ask a question in public ten days about
the packaging. For users still on the learning curve of Debian
packaging (i.e. who don't know about dpkg -i --force-overwrite
<foobar>), it leaves them with a broken system. I would
recommend some remedial action, but should that be a bug report
against the package at debian.org or at kde.org?
On 13 Oct 2001, at 15:01, Oliver Johns wrote:
Dear Brian,
I'm not sure about this, but I think that the problem is that some
files have moved from one package to another one in the transition
from 2.1.2 to 2.2.1. Thus, from your information below, it appears
that /usr/lib/kde2/libkcm_screensaver.la is now in kdebase-libs
whereas it used to be in kscreensaver. Since you still have the old
kscreensaver installed when you try to install kdebase-libs, you get
an overwrite conflict.
The solution that worked for me is first to do
apt-get -d -t unstable install kde
which will just download everything for you. You probably have
everything already, so this step may not be needed.
Then, cd to /var/cache/apt/archives and do
dpkg --force-overwrite --install kdebase-libs_4%3a2.2.1.0-1_i386.deb
This will install kdebase-libs regardless of its overwriting a file
from the old version of kscreensaver.
You'll have to do that for several files, but you can pick them out of
your apt-get response below.
When the bad ones are resolved, then you can do
apt-get -t unstable install kde
again, and everything should go through correctly.
Hope this is a clue, at least.
O. Johns
Reply to: