Re: apt-get dummy installation
On 1 Oct 1999, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
> You are right (debian/rules binary did not work. $(BLD) was unset in
> the apt target).
Really? That's very very odd. AFAIK the build dir detection is the same
the make system works.. Did you not build into a subdirectory or
something?
> Package docbook-stylesheets-doc has broken dep on www-browser
> Considering xemacs20-mule 0 as a solution to docbook-stylesheets-doc 1
> Holding Back docbook-stylesheets-doc rather than change www-browser
> Package docbook-stylesheets-doc has broken dep on httpd
> Considering wn 0 as a solution to docbook-stylesheets-doc 1
> Holding Back docbook-stylesheets-doc rather than change httpd
> Package task-sgml has broken dep on docbook-stylesheets-doc
> Considering docbook-stylesheets-doc 1 as a solution to task-sgml 9999
> Reinst Failed because of www-browser
> task-sgml: Depends: docbook-stylesheets-doc but it is not going to be installed
> BTW: it fails on docbook-stylesheets-doc as it Depends: www-browser |
> httpd
Well, hmm, no its more complicated than that. It should have just
semi-randomly picked something to satisfy www-browser. See it tried to
pick xemacs20 above.
There is a subtle bug in the DoUpgrade routine, it was not handling |
groups correctly at all. With that fixed and support to that routine added
for or group handling I think it will be OK.
> AFAIK, depending on a virtual package without giving a real
> alternative first is discouraged (and should be fixed in this
> package), but not forbidden by policy?
Yes, this is correct.
Jason
Reply to: