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

Re: Strange aptitude behaviour and crashes

On 6/5/06, Florian Kulzer <florian@molphys.leidenuniv.nl> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 13:48:09 -0400, Henk Boom wrote:
> On 6/4/06, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> >On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 17:50:51 -0400, Henk Boom wrote:
> >> Hi, ever since dist-upgrading from sarge to etch, I have been having
> >> some issues with aptitude. Here's an example:
> >>
> >> When I look at the entries for the gimp (which I do not have
> >> installed) in aptitude, the entry on the main list is (approximately):
> >> p gimp      <none> <none>
> >> and when I hit enter on this entry I get a page without a description,
> >> with only an entry for "Packages which depend on gimp" and for
> >> "Versions". Although there is no version listed at the top of this
> >> page, there _is_ a version listed as
> >> p 2.2.11-1
> >> in this Versions entry.
> >>
> >> When I hit enter on that version, I get a new page which is more
> >> complete. The version at the top right of the page is still listed as
> >> <none>, but there is a description of the package and the usual
> >> dependency information. I can't install by hitting plus at the top of
> >> this page, but it lets me do so when I select the entry in the
> >> Versions node.
> >>
> >> However, when try to install, aptitude tells me "Suggest 2 keeps" and
> >> gives me three choices, to leave both gimp and gimp-data at their
> >> current versions (which is [UNINST]), to install gimp-data and
> >> gimp-svg, or to install just gimp-data. When I pick either of the last
> >> two, it appears to work OK, but when I hit go and confirm, aptitude
> >> dies with a segfault. It might be helpful to know that when I am not
> >> logged in as root, it crashes after asking whether I want to become
> >> root, but before giving me the password prompt.
> >>
> >> My sources.list reads:
> >> deb ftp://mirror.direct.ca/pub/linux/debian/ etch main
> >> deb-src ftp://mirror.direct.ca/pub/linux/debian/ etch main
> >>
> >> deb ftp://mirror.direct.ca/pub/linux/debian/ etch non-free
> >> deb ftp://mirror.direct.ca/pub/linux/debian/ etch contrib
> >>
> >> I have an identical problem with trying to install inkscape. These are
> >> both programs which I had installed from backports before
> >> dist-upgrading from sarge, but uninstalled when I upgraded.
> >
> >I would check if the problem is with aptitude or if it occurs at a
> >"lower" level in the packaging system. Try if the following commands
> >produce reasonable output:
> >
> >apt-cache policy gimp
> >apt-cache show gimp


> It would appear that the apt-get install gimp inkscape command gives
> me the most indicative information.
> Here's the output of all three commands:
> ====================================
> henk-linux:~# apt-cache policy gimp
> gimp:
>  Installed: (none)
>  Candidate: (none)
>  Package pin: (not found)
That is not good.

>  Version table:
>     2.2.11-1 999
>        500 ftp://mirror.direct.ca etch/main Packages

[ snipped: output of "apt-cache show gimp", looked OK ]

> henk-linux:~# apt-get install gimp inkscape


> Package gimp is not available, but is referred to by another package.
> This may mean that the package is missing, has been obsoleted, or
> is only available from another source
> However the following packages replace it:
>  gimp-python gimp-helpbrowser gimp-data
> E: Package gimp has no installation candidate

My guess is that you still have the package pins which are normally used
in conjunction with the backports repository. This can be expected to
confuse apt(itude) if you have removed the backports lines from your
/etc/apt/sources.list, since it can no longer find the version that you
pinned to. Have a look at your /etc/apt/preferences and remove all
package pins that refer to backported packages.

If this turns out to be the case, then we should maybe file a bug
against aptitude (segfaulting because of a misconfiguration). Comments
anyone? (I can't connect to bugs.debian.org at the moment, therefore I
can't check if this is a known issue.)


This seems to have fixed the issue, thanks!
       Henk Boom

Reply to: