Re: Upgrade wants too many packages (X and apache).
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:08:45 +0000, Nuno Magalhães <nunomagalhaes@eu.ipp.pt> wrote:
> Ok, i'm getting somewhere:
>
> # aptitude why apache2-mpm-prefork
> i php-mdb2 Depends php-pear (>= 5.2.0-8)
> p php-pear Depends php5-common (>=
> 5.2.12.dfsg.1-2)
> p A php5-common Recommends php5-suhosin
> i A php5-suhosin Depends phpapi-20060613
> p libapache2-mod-php5filter Provides phpapi-20060613
> p libapache2-mod-php5filter Depends apache2-mpm-prefork (>
> 2.0.52) | apache2-mpm-itk
>
> So in order to have sohosin i need to have apache?
You need to have package installed, that provides phpapi-20060613.
php5-cgi or php5-cli should also work. It seems that problem is in order
of resolving dependencies. You have installed php-suhosin and maybe php5-cgi
or php5-cli installed. But old versions provide old phpapi. And depencency
checking does not understand for some reason, that upgrading another package
would work and wants to install first package, that provides new phpapi (and
that is apache). If you have installed php5-cgi installed, then installing
upgrade by installing package ("apt-get -u install php5-cgi"/
"aptitude -P install php5-cgi") should resolve this.
>
> # aptitude why xserver-xorg-video-all
> i xserver-xorg Depends xserver-xorg-video-all | xserver-xorg-video-5
>
> Why is X now depending on a virtual package that provides a bunch of
> drivers, when all i need is one of them?! Anyway,
> xserver-xorg-video-nv provides xserver-xorg-video-5, so this shouldn't
> happen.
I guess, that it is pretty much the same thing. It requires either
xserver-xorg-video-all or xserver-xorg-video-5, already installed
xserver-xorg-video-nv provides older version. You could try to install
xserver-xorg-video-nv.
I am just speculating, but every time, I have upgraded Debian to new
release, I have prefered to use "aptitude safe-upgrade" and
"aptitude install" instead of "aptitude full-upgrade". Because dist-upgrade
seems to reccoment too wild changes.
--
Virgo Pärna
virgo.parna@mail.ee
Reply to: