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

Re: HAMM: Recomended for update?




On Mon, 23 Mar 1998, Bob Nielsen wrote:

> I got through the initial part using the ftp method and had only one file
> missed (libc5).  I downloaded that and re-ran the script and it went very
> smoothly.  Dselect didn't report any missing dependencies, which looks
> promising.
> 
> I'm now letting dselect grab a bunch of other stuff and will then reboot.
> It looks very good so far.  The test will come when I reboot.

The saga continues after several hours of downloading.  I got all the
updates selected by dselect, but had a bunch of errors.

Repeating the installation process a few times got several other packages
installed, but there were still some errors which didn't resolve:

dpkg: regarding .../base/sysvinit_2.74-3.deb containing sysvinit:
 sysvinit conflicts with kbd (<< 0.95-2)
  kbd (version 0.92-3.1) is installed.
dpkg: error processing
debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/base/sysvinit_2.74-3.deb
(--install):
 conflicting packages - not installing sysvinit
(Reading database ... 16678 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace kbd 0.92-3.1 (using .../base/kbd_0.95-6.deb) ...
Moving local data files for kbd from /usr/lib/kbd/ to /usr/local/share/
...
rmdir: /usr/lib/kbd: Directory not empty
dpkg: error processing
debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/base/kbd_0.95-6.deb (--install):
 subprocess pre-installation script returned error exit status 1
Unpacking lesstifg (from .../libs/lesstifg_0.83-2.deb) ...
dpkg: error processing
debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/libs/lesstifg_0.83-2.deb
(--install):
 trying to overwrite `/usr/X11R6/lib/libXm.so.0', which is also in package
lesstif
dpkg-deb: subprocess paste killed by signal (Broken pipe)
dpkg: considering removing libdb1-dev in favour of libc6-dev ...
libdb1-dev is not properly installed - ignoring any dependencies on it.
dpkg: yes, will remove libdb1-dev in favour of libc6-dev.
dpkg: regarding .../libc6-dev_2.0.7pre1-4.deb containing libc6-dev:
 libc6-dev conflicts with libgdbm1-dev
  libgdbm1-dev (version 1.7.3-19) is broken due to postinst failure.
dpkg: error processing
debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/devel/libc6-dev_2.0.7pre1-4.deb
(--install):
 conflicting packages - not installing libc6-dev
dpkg: considering removing xlib6 in favour of xlib6g ...
dpkg: yes, will remove xlib6 in favour of xlib6g.
dpkg: regarding .../x11/xlib6g_3.3.1-2.deb containing xlib6g:
 xlib6g conflicts with xlib6-dev (<< 3.3-5)
  xlib6-dev (version 3.3-4) is installed.
dpkg: error processing
debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/x11/xlib6g_3.3.1-2.deb (--install):
 conflicting packages - not installing xlib6g
Errors were encountered while processing:
 debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/base/sysvinit_2.74-3.deb
 debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/base/kbd_0.95-6.deb
 debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/libs/lesstifg_0.83-2.deb
 debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/devel/libc6-dev_2.0.7pre1-4.deb
 debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/x11/xlib6g_3.3.1-2.deb
DPKG ERROR
 
I then ran the [R]emove process in dselect, which removed a few of the
conflicting packages, and ended up with only the kbd and sysvinit
problems.  I deleted /usr/lib/kbd and ran [I]nstall again.  kbd
installed but wouldn't configure because of dependency problems, while
sysvinit still didn't install.  Running [I]nstall once more installed
sysvinit.

I then ran [C]onfig, which configure kbd plus a whole lot more.

At this point everything looked clean, except for several packages which
are listed as "Obsolete/Local".  I assume that this is because they are
packages which existed in bo, but not in hamm.

The bottom line is that I was able to update successfully, but not
quite painlessly.  It will still be a while before hamm goes from
frozen to stable and I expect that things will be made a bit easier during
this period.

Bob



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


Reply to: