mess
I succeded alone to set up everything in order, wine included. No help needed
anymore.
francesco
_________________________
I forgot to present the problem of wine failure to launch also to the wine
list.
While my amd64 debian etch is in order, 32 bit debian etch has suffered much
and is now in a state of semi-mess.
Kernel booted is
linux-image-2.6-15-1-k7:
but
#aptitude
shows also a collection of kernels, partly broken:
BA linux-image-2.6-486
BA linux-image-2.6-686
BA linux-image-2.6-686-smp
iA linux-image-2.6-k7
BA linux-image-2.6-k7-smp
i linux-image-2.6-15-1-k7
unusued refuse to uninstall:
debian:/home/francesco# apt-get --purge remove linux-image-2.6-k7
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these:
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
linux-image-2.6-486: Depends: linux-image-2.6.15-1-486 (= 2.6.15-8) but it
is not going to be installed
linux-image-2.6-686: Depends: linux-image-2.6.15-1-686 (= 2.6.15-8) but it
is not going to be installed
linux-image-2.6-686-smp: Depends: linux-image-2.6.15-1-686-smp (= 2.6.15-8)
but it is not going to be installed
linux-image-2.6-k7-smp: Depends: linux-image-2.6.15-1-k7-smp (= 2.6.15-8)
but it is not going to be installed
nvidia-kernel-legacy-2.6-k7: Depends: linux-image-2.6-k7 but it is not going
to be installed
E: Unmet dependencies. Try 'apt-get -f install' with no packages (or specify a
solution).
debian:/home/francesco#
Also
#apt-get -f install (in an attempt to install so that it can be removed
later):
debian:/home/francesco# apt-get -f install
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Correcting dependencies... Done
The following extra packages will be installed:
linux-image-2.6.15-1-486 linux-image-2.6.15-1-686
linux-image-2.6.15-1-686-smp
linux-image-2.6.15-1-k7-smp
Suggested packages:
linux-doc-2.6.15 linux-source-2.6.15 lilo fdutils
The following NEW packages will be installed:
linux-image-2.6.15-1-486 linux-image-2.6.15-1-686
linux-image-2.6.15-1-686-smp
linux-image-2.6.15-1-k7-smp
0 upgraded, 4 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
12 not fully installed or removed.
Need to get 0B/63.0MB of archives.
After unpacking 182MB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]?
Yes resulting in warning for each installation:
You are attempting to install a kernel image (version 2.6.15-1-486) However,
the │
│ directory /lib/modules/2.6.15-1-486 still exists. If this directory
belongs to a │
│ previous linux-image-2.6.15-1-486 package, and if you have deselected some
│
│ modules, or installed standalone modules packages, this could be bad.
However, if │
│ this directory exists because you are also installing some stand alone
modules │
│ right now, and they got unpacked before I did, then this is pretty benign.
│
│ Unfortunately, I can not tell the difference.
│
│
│
│ If /lib/modules/2.6.15-1-486 belongs to a old install of
linux-image-2.6.15-1-486, │
│ then this is your last chance to abort the installation of this kernel
image │
│ (nothing has been changed yet).
│
│
│
│ If this directory is because of stand alone modules being installed right
now, or │
│ if it does belong to an older linux-image-2.6.15-1-486 package but you know
what │
│ you are doing, and if you feel that this image should be installed despite
this │
│ anomaly, Please answer n to the question.
│
│
│
│ Otherwise, I suggest you move /lib/modules/2.6.15-1-486 out of the way,
perhaps to │
│ /lib/modules/2.6.15-1-486.old or something, and then try re-installing this
image. │
│
│
│ Stop install since the kernel-image is already installed?
So that I stopped installing.
Something (probably libwine) was dependent of the 686 kernel and now wine
exits with error 127 (a known event that I remedied in the past by removing
libwine and reinstalling it: now any attempt at removing libwine results in
the problems above of broken packages.
What means "A" that appears for some packages on aptitude?
Should a remedy be conceivable from this messing desription, thank you
francesco pietra
Reply to: