Re: Installing OOo 2.2.1 from backports on Stable

[Glen Pfeiffer <glen@thepfeiffers.net>]

On 07/24/2007 08:40 AM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 11:51:28PM -0700, Glen Pfeiffer wrote:
>> Should I purge OOo first? This is my first attempt to install 
>> from backports, so I am not sure about this. I have searched, 
>> but did not find anything helpful.
> 
> If you want to see a cleaner output from aptitude, just for 
> fun, then yes, remove OO.o first, but I think it looks clean 
> and I would go ahead.
> 
>> ---- Begin Aptitude Output ----
>> The following packages are BROKEN:
>>   [snip package list]
> 
> aptitude likes to make you panic...

LOL! And it works too. I have seen output several times that has 
made me think hard before continuing. But it's silly the way it 
handles this scenario. It says the packages *are* broken, which 
is not true.


>> The following packages are unused and will be REMOVED:
>>   libcurl3 libxt-java 
> 
> I find this interesting. I would hold these packages for later
> investigation as to why they are being removed. 
 
Okay, thanks.

 
>> The following packages have been kept back:
>>   kdelibs-data kdelibs4c2a kdemultimedia-kio-plugins ktuberling 
>>   libarts1-akode libfinance-quote-perl libkcddb1 libkdegames1 
>>   libmysqlclient15off libpisock9 libpisync0 linux-image-2.6-486 
>>   mysql-client-5.0 mysql-common mysql-server-5.0 openoffice.org-help-en-us 
>>   ttf-opensymbol tuxpaint tuxpaint-config tuxpaint-data vim-common vim-full 
>>   vim-gui-common vim-runtime vim-tiny 
> 
> kept back means that new versions exist, but you are not 
> installing them. This is a side effect of having backports in 
> your sources.list. There are newer versions of all these 
> packages in backports, but you're not using them... which is 
> probably what you want at this point.
 
I see. I did not think it through it very well. If I use pinning 
to set the backports priority very low, should I still see that?

 
>> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>>   openoffice.org-gnome: Depends: openoffice.org-core (= 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1) but 2.2.1-1~bpo.1 is to be installed.
>>   openoffice.org-core: Conflicts: openoffice.org-calc (< 2.2.1-1~bpo.1) but 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 is installed and it is kept back.
>>                        Conflicts: openoffice.org-writer (< 2.2.1-1~bpo.1) but 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1 is installed and it is kept back.
>>   [snip more conflicts] 
>
> this just shows you what all the conflicts are. 
> 

I guess I was a little confused why aptitude reports those 
conflicts. I just assumed that because I am installing a new 
version, that it would not need to show me that the newer version 
conflicts with the older version.

Thanks for your explanation, it was helpful. I will go ahead with 
the install.

--
Glen