Re: Apt-pinning confusion
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:55:13 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:15:10 +0000, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to put the MythTV PVR XBMC version on my Shuttle box. I need
>> a newer alsa version than the one from Squeeze because the stable
>> version doesn't see the soundcard. So I wanted to install alsa from
>> testing.
>> And because I use a SSD I thought it would be a good idea to use the
>> squeeze-backports kernel.
>>
>> What do you think it would be better to completely go with testing.
>
> Testing is currently quite stable but there are significant differences
> between wheezy and squeeze, like the gnome environment.
I think this won't make any difference for me because I will only use the
base system with xorg and xbmc without any window manager.
>> There are two reasons why I didn't want to do this:
>>
>> First I need to compile the jme module manually to be able to use the
>> network interface. So I thought the less changes to the kernel makes me
>> less often compile that module again.
>
> My wild guess is that wheezy kernel is not going to change much since
> now (3.2.12 is the current one) and IIRC, wheezy will be relased with
> this (3.2.x) branch but well... this can change at any time so yes, you
> will have to recompile the kernel module for every kernel change.
Ok, so at least I don't have to expect kernel changes every day :-)
>> Second the XBMC version I want to install needs libboost version 1.47
>> or older.
>
> Any specific reason for you to stick with a specific version of XBMC?
> :-?
Yes, I want to use xbmc as a frontend for mythtv. And there's a branch of
xbmc pvr that can connect to mythbackend:
http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=110694
>> Unfortunately this doesn't work. I suppose my problem are wrong apt-
>> preferences numbers or something like this.
>>
>> Here's my sources.list: http://pastebin.com/5SQhvDqw And apt
>> preferences: http://pastebin.com/VcndLA6C
>
> (tip: when sending a pastebin link, I prefer to use the "raw" mode, it
> reads better, i.e.: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=VcndLA6C)
Didn't know that. Thanks for the tip I will post it like this from now
on :-)
> I'm not going to make any comments about pinning because I've never used
> but just a question: have you considered in using pinning only for the
> packages you want to be kept for a specific flavour? That is, being more
> "selective" to avoid additional problems or messing up too many
> packages.
This sounds good.
I thought I can do that by installing via "apt-get -t wheezy alsa-utils".
>> And here's the error I get when I try to install linux-headers-686-pae
>> from squeeze-backports: http://pastebin.com/RcAPE36t
>>
>> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>> linux-headers-686-pae : Depends: linux-headers-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae
>> but
>> it is not going to be installed
>> E: Broken packages
>
> Mmm... "linux-headers-686-pae" is a metapackage that has to pull "linux-
> headers-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae" automatically, I would open Sypatic to
> see what's going on with this although manually installing "linux-
> headers-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae" in addition to the metacpake should work.
I installed the two metapackages linux-headers-686-pae and linux-
image-686-pae so that I always have the newest backport kernel with the
matching headers.
Unfortunately I don't have synaptic. I only have the terminal since I
don't want to use any window manager for xbmc.
I can't as well install build-essential. There are many dependencies
which usually are solved automatically.
I think this is something that shouldn't be. When I want to install build-
essential it asks for libc6-dev which depends on libc but a newer version
is to be installed:
http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=FCBUeaVg
It seems as if I made a mess because there already is a libc6 package
from testing installed.
>> Yesterday I had the problem with alsa but today witchcraft made the
>> problem with alsa disappear but the one with the kernel header and as
>> well build-essential appear.
>>
>> Is this really a problem of the apt pinning numbers? Or what can you
>> suggest me to do?
>> Maybe stick with the stable kernel and compile alsa from source?
>
> Your first plan seems good, it may just need to be polished a bit :-)
Ok, thanks.
I will try to again maybe with a clean install again. Like that the mess
with the package dependencies should be gone.
Best regards
Ramon
Reply to: