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

Re: Very Large Package Set Upgrade, stage 1

On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 04:49:00AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 12:32:15PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Here the list of packages removed by aptitude that still exist in Etch:
> > amarok amarok-engines amarok-xine ardour-gtk bitscope bugsx jackd
> > libcurl3-dev netkit-inetd
> > and the following aspell packages:
> > aspell-br aspell-cy aspell-da aspell-de aspell-el aspell-en aspell-es
> > aspell-fi aspell-fo aspell-fr aspell-ga aspell-gl-minimos aspell-is
> > aspell-it aspell-lt aspell-nl aspell-no aspell-pl aspell-pt aspell-pt-br
> > aspell-sk aspell-sl aspell-sv aspell-tl aspell-ukr 
> > Please note that the sarge system was setup with the first thousand
> > packages by alphabetic order (and their dependencies), so packages
> > starting with 'a' are over-represented.  
> Wow, that's much better than it sounded from your earlier messages.  I was
> worried when you mentioned the x11-common conflict issue (a horrible upgrade
> path that I take full blame for), since I don't know what we could do to fix
> that...

I am afraid the x11-common issue affect us.

> I see an RC bug has already been filed on amarok for its circular deps, and
> I know that an NMU is already being prepared to break this circular dep,
> great!  Do we have an explanation yet for the other removals?  The aspell
> ones in particular seem like a big deal.

It looks like a cross-distribution circular dependencies:

sarge: aspell: Depends: aspell-bin, aspell-en | aspell6-dictionary
sarge: aspell-en: Depends: libaspell15 (>> 0.60)

etch: aspell: Depends: libaspell15 (>= 0.60), libc6 (>= 2.3.6-6), libgcc1 (>= 1:4.1.0), libncursesw5 (>= 5.4-5), libstdc++6 (>= 4.1.0), libaspell15 (= 0.60.4-4), dictionaries-common (>> 0.40)
etch: aspell-en Depends: aspell (>= 0.60.3-2)

But I did not go farther than that.

> Is there any chance the bugsx removal is caused by this package moving from
> main to non-free?

It is since I did not have non-free in my sources.list. With non-free
added it is not removed.

Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large blue swirl here. 

Reply to: