On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 10:26:14PM -0700, David Fox wrote: > > The initial upgrade went well (some 400 megabytes worth of updates) but for > about a week now I am plagued with issues > that keep me from doing a full dist-upgrade. > > from aptitude run about a few minutes ago: > [... massive list of upgrades ...] > Retrieving bug reports... 0% Fail > > Error retrieving bug reports from the server with the following error > message: > W: unsupported proxy `false' > It could be because your network is down, or because of broken proxy > servers, or the BTS server itself is down. Check network configuration and > try again > while this is annoying, its certainly the least of your problems. In fact, I recommend you purge apt-listbugs until you fix the rest of this. This is based on the assumption that you're mid-transition and have to make the move, so bugs or not, your committed, so eliminate one problem for now. We can solve the listbugs issue later. > > (Ok, Here is a little glitch that actually has been going on for months, > don't know how to fix). > you have a broken package and its been going on for months? that's not good and could have repercussions throughout the system. eventually these errors could propogate through all kinds of stuff. > Setting up libgphoto2-2 (2.3.1-5) ... > /usr/lib/libgphoto2/print-camera-list: symbol lookup error: > /usr/lib/libgphoto2/print-camera-list: undefined symbol: > gpi_folder_operation_map > dpkg: error processing libgphoto2-2 (--configure): > subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 127 > dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of libgphoto2-2-dev: > libgphoto2-2-dev depends on libgphoto2-2 (= 2.3.1-5); however: > Package libgphoto2-2 is not configured yet. > dpkg: error processing libgphoto2-2-dev (--configure): > dependency problems - leaving unconfigured > dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of libsane: > libsane depends on libgphoto2-2 (>= 2.3.1); however: > Package libgphoto2-2 is not configured yet. > dpkg: error processing libsane (--configure): > dependency problems - leaving unconfigured > dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of sane-utils: > sane-utils depends on libsane (>= 1.0.11-3); however: > Package libsane is not configured yet. > dpkg: error processing sane-utils (--configure): > dependency problems - leaving unconfigured so here you've got a chain of dependency problems because of libgphoto2 not configuring. what is apt-cache policy libgphoto2 and why do you have libgphoto2-2-dev installed? are you building stuff? Again I recommend you remove libgphoto2 and the stuff that depends on it. You can always reinstall it later. Then you can complete your upgrade. > > (And here, some issues that have been going on for about a week as well, > pretty much on the back burner, more or less, since I don't' have the > hardware for scanning, but I use digital cameras - mostly digikam and direct > reads from the camera's memory card to bring the pictures in, and use gimp > for editing / printing). So it's not all that necessary, although if digikam > needs libgphoto as a back end, then updating these packages are desirable. > > > [... long list of upgrades ...] > The following packages have unmet dependencies: > tetex-extra: Depends: tetex-base (>= 3.0-11) but it is not installable > Depends: tetex-bin (>= 2.99) but it is not installable > texlive-base: Conflicts: tetex-extra but 3.0.dfsg.3-5 is installed. > texlive-base-bin: Conflicts: tetex-extra but 3.0.dfsg.3-5 is installed. > texlive-latex-base: Conflicts: tetex-extra but 3.0.dfsg.3-5 is installed. > texlive-pdfetex: Conflicts: tetex-extra but 3.0.dfsg.3-5 is installed. > Resolving dependencies... > The following actions will resolve these dependencies: > > Remove the following packages: > kde > kdegraphics these two packages are just metapackages. They don't matter all that much. Basically you're in a situation where some of the packages they pull in have drifted from the requirements set forth in those metapackages. That makes the metapackages not work anymore so they are removed. I see no real problem with this, at least in the short term. Again, you can reinstall them when its all done later and they may bring in some packages or upgrades that interest you. > kdvi > tetex-extra do you use tetex? specifically, do you use kdvi and tetex-extra? if not, then let them go. > > Install the following packages: > gnome-mount [0.5-3 (testing, testing)] > > Keep the following packages at their current version: > prosper [Not Installed] > spamassassin [3.1.7-2 (now)] > > Leave the following dependencies unresolved: > texlive-latex-recommended recommends prosper (>= 1.00.4+cvs.2006.10.22-1) > Score is -944 > > Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] > > And here it just goes positively haywire. I've obviously deferred doing the > Accept thing because it could easily break my system. this really doesn't look that bad to me. I have some questions for you: 1. WHich desktop are you using? You've got gnome, kde and xfce installed. If you use them all, great, but if not, you might remove one or more to help clean up this situation. The fewer packages you have to upgrade, the smoother things go. 2. You say you were running etch before, when it was in testing, but when was this? When did you start running etch? The reason I ask is etch had been very stable and usable for quite a while before the move to stable. Lenny, is another story altogether. Its early in its release cycle and is *not* recommended for someone who doesn't know how to handle these issues. 3. How do you normally upgrade your system? In testing and unstable, you should routinely be running dist-upgrades. There is a lot of package churn and if you stick with just upgrades, you'll get into trouble. Dist-upgrades allow the system to track along with package removals and replacements as well as upgrades all along. Unless you have some greater experience than your email suggests, then I recommend you either stick with stable, somehow, or perhaps move right up to unstable. testing is subject to breakages that can last for quite a while and if you aren't prepared to deal with that, then you shouldn't be there. Unstable is not as scary as it sounds. It does break, but it tends to fix up pretty quickly to. ymmv. A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature