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

Bug#667047: [Debian Sid] unmet dependencies



severity 667047 important
reassign 667047 src:libreoffice
retitle 667047 no Base on powerpc
tag 667047 + wontfix
thanks

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 01:37:20PM -0400, Douglas Mencken wrote:
> Package: libreoffice-base

Ah. Base. 

> Version: unknown

Sure.. No, this is *NOT* a free text field. "unknown" isn't recognized
by the BTS

> I'm trying to install libreoffice-base after successfully dealing with
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=667041 using apt-get
> -f install.

Sure?

> # apt-get install libreoffice-base
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
> requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
> distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
> or been moved out of Incoming.
> The following information may help to resolve the situation:
> 
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>  libreoffice-base : Depends: libreoffice-core (= 1:3.4.6-2) but it is
> not going to be installed
>                     Depends: libreoffice-base-core (= 1:3.4.6-2) but
> it is not going to be installed
>                     Depends: libreoffice-java-common (>= 1:3.4.6~) but
> it is not going to be installed
> E: Broken packages

Yes, this *is* expected. Because Base is disabled because the database checks
in the testsuite failedi (since 3.5.0).

What you see (and try to install) here is remaints of the old 3.4.6-2 binaries,
which will get removed by the ftpmasters somewhen semi-automatically when all
architectures of LO are in sync.

> What I expected: successful installation of LibreOffice Base.

Unless you fix Base on powerpc - there won't be Base there anymore.

This still is no bug in libreoffice-base (as that doesn't exist anymore), but
of course there's the wish and/or the "bug" that Base isn't there for powerpc.

Regards,

Rene



Reply to: