Re: zlib1g vs zlib1g-dev (potato)
will trillich <will@serensoft.com> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 08:24:09PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 03:26:40PM -0500, will trillich wrote:
> > > zlib1g-dev: Depends: zlib1g (= 1:1.1.3-5) but 1:1.1.3-9 is to be
> > > installed
> > Well, that's fairly self-explanatory.
> not on the level i'm looking at...
> "zlib1g-dev needs either zlib1g 1.1.3 or 1.1.4 or 1.1.5, whereas what's
> installed is 1.1.3 thru 1.1.9 ... so maybe zlib1g is 1.1.6 thru 1.1.9 in
Those version numbers don't specify ranges - Debian packages use
revision numbers of the form <epoch>:<upstream version>:<debian version>
so 1:1.1.3-9 actually works out as epoch 1, upstream version 1.1.3,
Debian revision 9.
The upstream version is the version number used by whoever distributes
the original package and the Debian revision is the version of the
packaging for this version of the upstream source. Epochs are used to
ensure that newer versions of the package have higher version numbers
than older ones if something about the numbering wouldn't do that
otherwise (eg, upstream changes version numbering schemes).
The upshot is that the above depends line specifies a dependancy on
exactly version 1:1.1.3-5 but that's not the version that's installed
and apt can't find the correct version.
> which case it'd be outside the range needed by the APPARENTLY OUTDATED
> 1.1.3-1.1.5 -dev module."
Yes, the -dev package in Potato is outdated WRT the package you're
trying to install.
> i'll keep trying with the hopes that you're right and that if you're
> right, that someone updates the links soon. (or should i file a bug?
You'll have to wait until Woody is released. The version of zlib in
Potato is 1:1.1.3-5, but you seem to have managed to install 1:1.1.3-9.
You should probably go to one of the FTP sites and manually download and
install (with dpkg -i) the potato version of the zlib1g package.
You could file a bug, but unless you can point out an actual current
error in one of the mirrors it's unlikely to be worth bothering. If
there was a mistake it's probably fixed now.
--
Mark Brown mailto:broonie@tardis.ed.ac.uk (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFS http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
Reply to: