[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: upgrading in sid

Daniel Burrows wrote:

On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 03:59:16PM -0500, charlie derr <cderr@simons-rock.edu> was heard to say:

Daniel Burrows wrote:

  It would be interesting to know what ldd /usr/lib/libxml2.so.2 says.

ni@delete:/var/cache/apt$ ldd /usr/lib/libxml2.so.2
        linux-gate.so.1 =>  (0xb7fb7000)
        libdl.so.2 => /lib/i686/cmov/libdl.so.2 (0xb7e7e000)
        libz.so.1 => /usr/local/lib/libz.so.1 (0xb7e6a000)

          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  You may not know it's there, but you have a local version of libz.so.1
that isn't binary-compatible with the Debian-supplied libz.  You're
probably better off just deleting this (or moving it to some other name,
like was-libz.1); as it is, you risk random breakage and security holes
(because you probably aren't getting security updates for your local
version of the library).

  You may want to check if anything else has been placed in
/usr/local/bin or /usr/local/lib, and what the timestamps are (run
"ls -l /usr/local/bin /usr/local/lib"), as any other files in there
will override the system libraries.
Thanks so very much to you and Florian both being patient with me and explaining in this sort of detail. The timestamp on the problematic libz.so.1.2.3 (where libz.so.1 was linked to told me that I'd installed it on 11-16-2006 which was long enough ago that I can understand forgetting that I'd done it (and also at a period of time, that I might very well have been trying to install new software (some of which I might not have been able to find in debian)). 


  Erk.  That means something is hosed in your apt cache.  I would guess
this isn't related to your earlier problems, but it would be interesting
to know whether running "aptitude update" fixes this problem, 
it hasn't yet (subsequent upgrades/removals won't all succeed (all of the gnome related stuff is foobared)) -- this is why i've


  Huh, interesting.


delete:~# apt-cache showpkg desktop-base shared-mime-info
Package: desktop-base
Versions:
4.0.4(/var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-i386_Packages)
4.0.3(/var/lib/dpkg/status)


  OK, apt believes that version 4.0.4 is available from unstable.  But
when it goes to actually install that version, it apparently blows up,
complaining that no file in the archive actually provides version 4.0.4.
At least, that's how I interpret that message
(pkgAcqArchive::pkgAcqArchive generates it if QueueNext
fails)...although from the source it looks like there are a few other
things it could be caused by, such as unusual trust errors.  You didn't
mention trust problems, though, so I assume that's not what's happening.

  I wonder what these commands will show:

    grep -A 1000 "^Package: desktop-base$" /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-i386_Packages | sed '/^$/,$d'

    apt-cache policy desktop-base

    apt-get -s install desktop-base

    apt-get -s install desktop-base=4.0.4

    aptitude -s install desktop-base=4.0.4

    aptitude -vvvv show desktop-base

  Actually, if you have a way to post large files on the internet, it
would be interesting if you could run
"aptitude-create-state-bundle snapshot.tar.bz2" and then let me know how
to get access to it; then I might be able to reproduce your problems
here and find out exactly what's happening.

  Daniel
With the removal of the problematic libz stuff, aptitude is humming along just fine. I now understand (I think) completely what the sequence of events was. 

In trying my upgrade the other day, there was a problem with 5 packages:
desktop-base gnome-session  libgnome2-common libgnomevfs2-common shared-mime-info
It was the gzopen64 error, but not understanding it, my first thought was that perhaps the downloaded files were maybe corrupted (I'd seen what I'd thought was a similar error in the past and forcing a redownload had apparently fixed it), so I deleted the .deb files out of /var/cache/apt/archives --- this part didn't go as well as I'd hoped because there was no immediate attempt to redownload anything (I just got the same error), and this is when I tried "apt-get -f install" which may or may not have screwed up the state of those 5 packages. 


	thanks again to everyone for the assistance, you're all great,
		~c
Reply to: