Bug#195851: marked as done (tetex-extra: install of tetex-extra failes with unmet dependancies)
Your message dated Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:52:13 +0200
with message-id <20030605115212.GD29021@preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de>
and subject line Bug#195851: tetex-extra: install of tetex-extra failes with unmet dependanci
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 2 Jun 2003 21:03:19 +0000
>From dparting@hotmail.com Mon Jun 02 16:03:18 2003
Return-path: <dparting@hotmail.com>
Received: from law10-f56.law10.hotmail.com (hotmail.com) [64.4.15.56]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19MwSc-0001WK-00; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 16:03:18 -0500
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:03:17 -0700
Received: from 203.219.16.129 by lw10fd.law10.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
Mon, 02 Jun 2003 21:03:17 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [203.219.16.129]
X-Originating-Email: [dparting@hotmail.com]
From: "David Part" <dparting@hotmail.com>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Bcc:
Subject: tetex-extra: install of tetex-extra failes with unmet dependancies
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 07:03:17 +1000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <[🔎] LAW10-F56MrBA3Oyocf00006775@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jun 2003 21:03:17.0894 (UTC) FILETIME=[64060260:01C3294A]
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_01,HAS_PACKAGE
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_05_24
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_05_24 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: tetex-extra
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-06-03
Severity: important
Tags: sid
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: powerpc
Kernel: Linux dopey 2.2.20-pmac #1 Thu Mar 21 17:08:23 EST 2002 ppc
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
I think this is a versioning problem, tetex-extra seems to depend on an
earler version of tetex-base amd tetex-bin than is available.
The following shows 2 attempts to install the package, and the errors that
result.
dopey:~# apt-get install tetex-extra
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... 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.
Since you only requested a single operation it is extremely likely that
the package is simply not installable and a bug report against
that package should be filed.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
tetex-extra: Depends: tetex-bin (> 2.0.2-3) but it is not going to be
installed
E: Broken packages
dopey:~# apt-get install tetex-bin tetex-extra
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... 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:
tetex-bin: Depends: tetex-base (> 2.0.1-3) but it is not going to be
installed
tetex-extra: Depends: tetex-base (>= 2.0) but it is not going to be
installed
Depends: tetex-bin (> 2.0.2-3) but 2.0.2-3 is to be installed
E: Broken packages
_________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 195851-close) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Jun 2003 11:54:15 +0000
>From hille42@web.de Thu Jun 05 06:54:13 2003
Return-path: <hille42@web.de>
Received: from smtp02.web.de (smtp.web.de) [217.72.192.151]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19NtJr-0004cl-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 06:54:11 -0500
Received: from [213.7.25.80] (helo=preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de)
by smtp.web.de with asmtp (WEB.DE 4.98 #232)
id 19NtJp-000846-00; Thu, 05 Jun 2003 13:54:10 +0200
Received: by preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 1A36F4745; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:52:13 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:52:13 +0200
From: Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>
To: David Part <dparting@hotmail.com>, 195851-close@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#195851: tetex-extra: install of tetex-extra failes with unmet dependanci
Message-ID: <20030605115212.GD29021@preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de>
References: <[🔎] Law10-F63wYMrvGT0Tu0003bcd1@hotmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] Law10-F63wYMrvGT0Tu0003bcd1@hotmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Organization: Hilmar Preusse Inc.
X-Uptime: 13:12:14 up 27 days, 5:37, 2 users, load average: 1.96, 1.27, 1.09
X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.20 i686
X-www.distributed.net: OGR: 27 packets (5830.24 stats units) [2.37 Mnodes/s]
X-Confirmation-Request: yes
X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Hilmar Preusse" <hille42@web.de>
Sender: hille42@web.de
Delivered-To: 195851-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-20.6 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,IN_REP_TO,
QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,
USER_AGENT_MUTT
autolearn=ham version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_05_24
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_05_24 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
On 05.06.03 David Part (dparting@hotmail.com) wrote:
Hi,
> Atsuhito is correct. Waited a few days, tried to install again,
> and all is fine.
>
Great! So I close that bug.
H.
--
sigmentation fault
Reply to: