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

Bug#404525: upgrade-reports: sarge->etch upgrade



Hi Kurt,

On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 01:10:48AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> >   xlibmesa-glu: Depends: xfree86-common but it is not installable
> >                 Conflicts: libglu1 which is a virtual package.
> >   libglu1-mesa: Conflicts: libglu1 which is a virtual package.
> >   libfam0: Conflicts: libfam0c102 (< 2.7.0-11) but 2.7.0-6sarge1 is installed and it is kept back.
> >   libfam0c102: Conflicts: libfam0 but 2.7.0-11 is to be installed.

> So, I tried this to try and resolve it: "aptitude install libfam0", which
> results in:
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>   gcc-4.1-base libfam0 libstdc++6 tzdata
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
>   initrd-tools kernel-image-2.6.8-3-386
> The following packages will be upgraded:
>   libc6 libc6-dev libfam0c102 libgcc1
> 4 packages upgraded, 4 newly installed, 2 to remove and 695 not upgraded.

> so, I didn't do that, and instead I tried:
> "aptitude install libfam0 initrd-tools", and got:
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>   gcc-4.1-base libdevmapper1.02 libfam0 libsepol1 libstdc++6 tzdata
> The following packages will be upgraded:
>   initrd-tools libc6 libc6-dev libfam0c102 libgcc1 libselinux1
> 6 packages upgraded, 6 newly installed, 0 to remove and 694 not upgraded.

I've bumped the urgency on fam 2.7.0-12 so we can get some testing with it;
it should be available in etch within the next 24h.  Would you mind testing
then whether this gets you past needing to manually install libfam0?

I think we're stuck with having to manually upgrade initrd-tools, the
conflicts from glibc isn't really something we can remove.

Cheers,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/



Reply to: