On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:25:21PM -0700, Glen Pfeiffer wrote: > 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. not sure if that's a bug or a feature... I suspect, without spending a bunch of time reading all the deps, that you're dealing with a series of packages and/or meta-packages that may not exist in the bpo repository and so appear to _aptitude_ to be broken. [... kept back stuff] > > > > 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? Probably because the packages would still be held back, but IDK. > > > >> 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. yeah, okay. for example, above, openoffice.org-gnome probably doesn't exist in backports, just the core openoffice.org packages. So openoffice.org-gnome is broken and has unmet dependencies (= 2.0.4..). But I'm not going over to my archives to look at the moment... A little calm, measured, reading of the complete messages usually makes it at least vaguely clear (along with some apt-cache depends <package>). A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature