Re: Debian Stretch package conflicts... libnettle4 libarchive13 libgnutls-deb0-28 libgnutls30

[Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de>]

On 2016-05-13 18:43 -0700, Rick Thomas wrote:


> When I try to do aptitude full-upgrade on my Stretch Apple G4 PowerMac, I get conflicts.
>
> These do not seem to be transient — they have been there for several days.
>
> Anybody know what’s going on?
>
>> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>> libnettle4{a} 
>> The following packages will be upgraded:
>> gir1.2-packagekitglib-1.0 libarchive13 libasyncns0 libavcodec57
>> libavfilter6 libavformat57 libavresample3 libavutil55
>> libc-bin libc-l10n libc6 libkpathsea6 libpackagekit-glib2-18 libpam-systemd libpostproc54 libptexenc1 librest-0.7-0 
>> libswresample2 libswscale4 libsynctex1 libsystemd0 libtexlua52 libtexluajit2 libudev1 libx264-148 locales 
>> multiarch-support mythes-en-us packagekit packagekit-tools systemd systemd-sysv texlive-base texlive-binaries 
>> texlive-fonts-recommended texlive-fonts-recommended-doc texlive-latex-base texlive-latex-base-doc udev x11-apps 
>> x11-xkb-utils 
>> 41 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
>> Need to get 442 kB/104 MB of archives. After unpacking 16.6 MB will be freed.
>> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>> libgnutls-deb0-28 : Conflicts: libnettle4 but 2.7.1-5+deb8u1 is to be installed
>> libgnutls30 : Conflicts: libnettle4 but 2.7.1-5+deb8u1 is to be installed
>> open: 45; closed: 112; defer: 39; conflict: 46
>> 
>> The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
>> 
>>    Keep the following packages at their current version:
>> 1)     libarchive13 [3.1.2-11+b1 (now, testing, unstable)]
>> 2)     libnettle4 [Not Installed]                         

The problem is that libarchive13 has a higher version in stable-security
than in testing, and that version is not installable in Stretch:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=823984.

If you desperately need a fixed libarchive, there's a patch at the end
of that bug report which you could apply.  Otherwise use
"aptitude safe-upgrade" instead of "aptitude full-upgrade".

Cheers,
       Sven