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

Bug#865766: printer-driver-cups-pdf: Bdependenca problem - printer-driver-cups-pdf cannot be upgraded to 3.0.1



Greetings,

I'm really not sure I understand what the problem is. Removing the
transitional package 'cups-pdf' is entirely the job of whichever
package manager you use, typically 'apt' or 'aptitude'. This is never
handled by the packages themselves.

Martin-Éric

2017-06-24 19:31 GMT+03:00 Hans-J. Ullrich <hans.ullrich@loop.de>:
> Package: printer-driver-cups-pdf
> Version: 3.0.1-4
> Severity: normal
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> I am running debian/testing, and so I cannot upgrade to printer-driver-cups-pdf, which is a successor to the package cups-pdf.
>
> The problem is, that printer-driver-cups-pdf inhibits to upgrade, as the installer got a dependency problem with the installed cups-pdf.
>
> Workaround is, just to uninstall and purge cups-pdf, then install printer-driver-cups-pdf.
> However, the debian package should know the dependencies and uninstall cups-pdf automatically, then of course, install printer-driver-cups-pdf.
>
> I believe, you might want to inform the package team.
>
> Thank you for reading this.
>
> Best regards
>
> Hans
>
>
> -- System Information:
> Debian Release: 9.0
>   APT prefers testing
>   APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable')
> Architecture: i386 (i686)
>
> Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-3-686-pae (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
> Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE= (charmap=UTF-8)
> Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
> Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
>
> Versions of packages printer-driver-cups-pdf depends on:
> ii  cups            2.2.3-2
> ii  cups-client     2.2.3-2
> ii  ghostscript     9.20~dfsg-3.2
> ii  libc6           2.24-12
> ii  libcups2        2.2.3-2
> ii  libpaper-utils  1.1.24+nmu5
>
> printer-driver-cups-pdf recommends no packages.
>
> Versions of packages printer-driver-cups-pdf suggests:
> ii  system-config-printer  1.5.7-3
>
> -- no debconf information
>


Reply to: