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

XEmacs broken in testing since yesterday?



Hello,

I am running "testing" and I do "apt-get update && apt-get
dist-upgrade" once in a while. So I did yesterday. Some packages were
downloaded and upgraded, on of them was XEmacs. But I got
this message:

,----[ hoenn:~# apt-get dist-upgrade ]
| Reading Package Lists... Done
| Building Dependency Tree... Done
| Calculating Upgrade... Done
| The following packages have been kept back
|   xemacs21-bin xemacs21-mule 
| 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 2 not upgraded.
`----

So I wanted to install it via apt-get install, but I just got:

,----[ hoenn:~# apt-get install xemacs21-bin ]
| 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:
| 
| Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
|   xemacs21-bin: Depends: xemacs21-support (= 21.4.1-2) but 21.1.10-4 is to be installed
|                 Depends: xemacs21 (= 21.4.1-2)
| E: Sorry, broken packages
`----

Seems to be a conflict between the 21.1er and 21.4er versions of
XEmacs. Maybe there is no longer a xemacs-support-package but people
have forgotten to remove the dependencie?

Anyway, 21.4 would be cool (I don't need the extra 1% of stability
only provided by 21.1 and could maybe help the XEmacs Team testing and
writing bugreports).

Any suggestions? Should I write a Bugreport for this one or is it just
because I'm too stupid to see the reason for the probelm?

Regards,

Henrik

-- 
GnuPG-Key now available on public keyservers  -  http://www.gnupg.org/



Reply to: