Package Conflicts With Neither Package Installed
I apologize for not replying directly in the thread, but I'm still stuck with GMail until I deal with another issue and the "Reply to" function doesn't seem to be working. (So do you want to deride me for that, as well, Sánchez?)
On Friday 18 May 2007, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 03:20:39AM -0400, Knight Of Staves wrote:
> > I am having a problem with two packages, nvidia-glx-legacy and
> > nvidia-glx-new (and it's on an upgrade to Ubuntu Feisty -- I tried
> > a new driver). I tried to remove both of them so I could reinstall
> > them.
>
> $ apt-cache policy nvidia-glx-new
> W: Unable to locate package nvidia-glx-new
>
> The package you are talking about is not even in Debian. Please go
> ask your question on an Ubuntu list.
By about 4:30 I found the problem. It's not about what package it is,
it's about dpkg-divert. If you were interested in helping me, instead
of judging me negatively and "taking someone down" you would have read
the whole issue and perhaps, instead of being dismissive, you could
have actually said something helpful. For the record, and for those
who Google this list at some later time, I'll explain what happened
because it could help someone.
In my original e-mail, the one part you didn't quote is the most important part:
> > I get a message that it can't install it be installed because the diversion
> > for one library conflicts with the diversion specified in the nvidia-glx-new
> > package.
That is what's important here. Like most people (I suspect), I've
never worked much with apt other than just installing and
uninstalling. I have never heard of dpkg-divert or of diversions
before this. A diversion is a signal to other packages that a file is
not where it would be expected to be and tells other packages where to
look for that file. (At least that's how I understood it.) I kept
getting messages that it conflicted with the nvidia-glx-new package, so
I did this:
dpkg-divert --list *nvidia-glx*
and it gave me a listing of all diversions used in all packages with
nvidia-glx in their name. I was hesitant to do anything to directly
effect them, but I was able to use the same command to list any other
diversions effecting those same files. Fortunately, there weren't
any. I figured this meant that the only packages using those
particular diversions were nvidia-glx-legacy, nvidia-glx, and
nvidia-glx-new. I used:
dpkg-divert --remove --rename {path and name of file}
for each of the 5 diversions listed. That removed all 5 of them, then I tried:
apt-get install nvidia-glx-legacy
and it installed perfectly and worked. Then I removed it, installed
nvidia-glx, and it worked better. It's now working quite well.
> > And please don't respond to me. This is my "spam" account I use
> > for things likely to create spam, since I can't get to my email
> > program.
>
> Would that be the sort of "spam" created by asking a question about
> one Distro on another distro's list, while sending your message in
> HTML on that wrong text-only list and then to top it off sending your
> message twice? If so, you have succeeded quite nicely.
Uh, no. Actually spam that comes from sites I've had to temporarily
join for testing situations or something like that which are likely to
share my e-mail with other sites. And, since you seem more interested
in insulting me than in helping, I guess I should say that does not
include porn sites.
I hope, in the future, when you're up at 3:30 am, dealing with an issue
you need to resolve so your system will be ready when you need it by 9
am the next day, and you're asking for help from the most knowledgeable
group you know of, that you will actually get help from those people
instead of responses from people so myopic they give your problem
little thought and consider providing a helpful response instead of
using the opportunity to read only the parts you can be condescending
and negative about.
Thank you very much for taking the time and consideration for being so
helpful to someone who needed it at 3:30 am when they had to have their
system working early that morning for work instead of taking the chance to be petty and insulting.
Reply to: