Upgrade not completed: but package still there.
- To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Upgrade not completed: but package still there.
- From: Alan Eugene Davis <adavis@kuentos.guam.net>
- Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 15:11:57 +1000 (GST)
- Message-id: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960421151010.12583A-100000@saba.kuentos.guam.net>
At least three package upgrades were stalled out because of
dependency on a newer version of libc5. For example:
electra:/home/mercury# dpkg -i mtools*
(Reading database ... 12149 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace mtools (using mtools-2.5.4-1.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement mtools ...
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of mtools:
mtools depends on libc5 (>=5.2.18-4); however:
Version of libc5 on system is 5.2.18-1.
dpkg: error processing mtools (--install):
dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
Errors were encountered while processing:
mtools
For example with par I found that the upgraded package version still
ran. This is in fact a commonly recurring event (feature?): packages
that have been unpacked but not "configured" may actually run,
depending on how sophisticated the setup involved in (and required by
the package) in the configuration.
I think it is especially important that such half installed packages
be backed out. Isn't this actually supposed to be the case?
Otherewise, I can envision problems where I have tried to upgrade a
package, the upgrade failed because of a depends (which perphaps, like
libc5, I haven't bothered to FTP yet), and I am hung up until such
time as I get around to getting the depended-upon package.
This is a BUG.
I would appreciate instructions as to how to back out
of a partially completed REPLACE (upgrade).
Alan Davis
"Look after truth and goodness. Beauty looks after herself."
---Eric Gill
(What difference does it matter whether the installation script is
SVGA or X or even just a text-based script? Even dialog seems
somewhat elaborate. After a few minutes it's over, and you install
what you need. Look after truth and goodness...
Reply to: