On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 11:14:23PM +0000, Digby Tarvin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 02:45:56PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > > Is that last line what is needed to get aptitude back into > > > sync? If not, how is that achieved? > > > > no, it won't. there are a variety of ways to do this. I prefer the > > method below where you watch for problems and fix them as they > > appear. There are several threads on this int he recent archives that > > detail other methods of solving this problem (I think they essentially > > mark *everything* as manual). > > Ah, ok. I'll guess I will just have to keep an eye on what aptitude > says it wants to do and intervene if it isn't what I want... > > I think it was my initial ignorance of the problems of mixing > apt-get and aptitude that lead to my initial inability to > understand why aptitude wanted to do what it threatened to > do, so I am glad I asked... seems to be a common problem. > > > > > Then I can try running aptitude and hopefully it will have stopped > > > > > crashing and can tell me what else it thinks is left to be done.... > > > > > > > > I missed the bit about it crashing. what's happening? > > > > > > It only started happening after I had tried an 'apt-get install aptitude' > > > to upgrade to the latest version (and co-incidentally after I had done > > > the 'apt-get install' of the pgp keyring - so I am not certain which > > > was responsible). > > > > > > What happens now is that after any attempt to issue a 'u' command in > > > aptitude, I get an abort leaving me back in the command line (with a > > > garbled display) and the error message: > > > aptitude: symbol lookup error: aptitude: undefined symbol: _ZN9pkgPolicyD2Ev > > > > yuck. that sounds like a bug. does it do the same from command line? > > > > aptitude update > > Not sure, but the 'apt-get upgrade' which just finished seems to > have fixed it - whew!. see Joey's message. yay! one down! > > I'm still stuck with the big red warning box complaining about the > missing public key for multimedia.org after an update, and I'm still > not clear if this is normal and expected (which would be annoying), or > something specific to me (which would be worrying). > > If it is the former, I would have thought it would be better to > just have some way of just not signing packages rather than signing > with a key that can't be checked. so this is really a minor problem. basically, it prevents you from knowing for sure that you're getting the right, uncorrupted packages. you can solve this problem later. > > Anway, guess its time to hold my breath and see if the system > still boots after the initial upgrade... go baby go! A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature