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

Re: "Conflicts/Pre-Depends loop" & "APT::Force-LoopBreak"



celejar@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I run a somewhat out of date installation of Testing. When trying to 
> update
> some packages, apt-get fails with the following message:
>
> ---
> E: This installation run will require temporarily removing the essential
> package e2fsprogs due to a Conflicts/Pre-Depends loop. This is often 
> bad, but
> if you really want to do it, activate the APT::Force-LoopBreak option.
> E: Internal Error, Could not early remove e2fsprogs"
> ---
>
> From 'man apt-get':
>
> ---
> Force-LoopBreak
>               Never Enable this option unless you -really- know what 
> you are
> doing. It  per-
>               mits  APT to temporarily remove an essential package to 
> break a
> Conflicts/Con-
>               flicts or Conflicts/Pre-Depend loop between two   essential
> packages.  SUCH  A
>               LOOP  SHOULD  NEVER  EXIST  AND  IS  A GRAVE BUG. This 
> option
> will work if the
>               essential packages are not tar, gzip, libc, dpkg, bash or
> anything that  those
>               packages depend on.
> ---
>
> I do -not- really know what I am doing :). How / where should I
> report  this
> "GRAVE BUG", and how might I solve this problem? Is it safe to do a 
> 'Force-
> LoopBreak' in this case?
>
> I can supply the output of 'dpkg -l' and the exact list of packages 
> that I was
> attempting to install / upgrade upon request.
>
>
I've run into this on my last two installs, using an older pre-Sarge
netinstall CD, and then trying to upgrade to current Sid.

In both cases, I was able to get around the problem by creating the file
"/etc/apt/apt.conf" and putting in it the line:

    APT::Force-LoopBreak "true";

After doing my upgrade, I remove/rename that file to avoid potential
issues in the future.

I'm not sure where to file a bug report; probably against apt-get. I
believe the package "reportbug" might help in this process.

-- 
Kent



Reply to: