Re: update messages
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...
> > > > 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!.
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.
Anway, guess its time to hold my breath and see if the system
still boots after the initial upgrade...
Thanks,
DigbyT
--
Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com
http://www.digbyt.com
Reply to: