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

Bug#148834: marked as done (apt: Problem with problem solver)



Your message dated Sun, 02 Jun 2002 15:10:38 -0600 (MDT)
with message-id <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.96.1020602150354.11118A-100000@wakko.debian.net>
and subject line Bug#148834: apt: Problem with problem solver
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 2 Jun 2002 19:48:53 +0000
>From ray@zensunni.demon.nl Sun Jun 02 14:48:53 2002
Return-path: <ray@zensunni.demon.nl>
Received: from zensunni.demon.nl [212.238.195.120] (mail)
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 17EbLQ-00009v-00; Sun, 02 Jun 2002 14:48:52 -0500
Received: from ray by zensunni.demon.nl with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 17EbLJ-00028O-00; Sun, 02 Jun 2002 21:48:45 +0200
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 21:48:45 +0200
From: "J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)" <dm@zensunni.demon.nl>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: apt: Problem with problem solver
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20020602194845.GA8036@zensunni.demon.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-Reportbug-Version: 1.99.31
Organization: Ray at home
X-System: Debian GNU/Linux 3.0, kernel 2.4.19-pre9-ac2
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Package: apt
Version: 0.5.4
Severity: important
Justification: breaks 'pbuilder build' for woody packages that build-depend on debhelper

I have a system that has pbuilder installed which provides me with an up to
date woody chroot (using up to date sources
	deb http://ftp.debian.nl/debian woody main contrib non-free
	deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US woody/non-US main contrib non-free
):
	pbuilder update --distribution woody
	pbuilder login --distribution woody
In this environment, I get strange behaviour from apt:

bin/bash-2.05a# dpkg -l debconf
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
| Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err:
|uppercase=bad)
||/ Name           Version        Description
+++-==============-==============-============================================
ii  debconf        1.1.10         Debian configuration management system

bin/bash-2.05a# apt-get install debhelper
[...]
Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
  debhelper: Depends: debconf-utils but it is not going to be installed
E: Sorry, broken packages

bin/bash-2.05a# apt-get install debconf-utils
[...]
  debconf-utils: Depends: debconf (>= 0.9.59) but it is not going to be installed
E: Sorry, broken packages


apt-get -oDebug::pkgProblemResolver=yes install debhelper results in

	Reading Package Lists...
	Building Dependency Tree...
	Starting
	Starting 2
	Investigating debconf
	Package debconf has broken dep on debconf-utils
	  Considering debconf-utils 1 as a solution to debconf 69
	  Added debconf-utils to the remove list
	  Fixing debconf via keep of debconf-utils
	Investigating debhelper
	Package debhelper has broken dep on debconf-utils
	  Considering debconf-utils 1 as a solution to debhelper 9999
	  Re-Instated debconf-utils
	Investigating debconf
	Package debconf has broken dep on debconf-utils
	  Considering debconf-utils 1 as a solution to debconf 69
	  Added debconf-utils to the remove list
	  Fixing debconf via keep of debconf-utils
	Investigating debhelper
	Package debhelper has broken dep on debconf-utils
	  Considering debconf-utils 1 as a solution to debhelper 9999
	Done
	Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
	requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
	distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
	or been moved out of Incoming.

	Since you only requested a single operation it is extremely likely that
	the package is simply not installable and a bug report against
	that package should be filed.
	The following information may help to resolve the situation:

	Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
	  debhelper: Depends: debconf-utils but it is not going to be installed
	E: Sorry, broken packages

apt-get -oDebug::pkgProblemResolver=yes install debconf-utils results in

	Reading Package Lists...
	Building Dependency Tree...
	Starting
	Starting 2
	Investigating debconf
	Package debconf has broken dep on debconf-utils
	  Considering debconf-utils 9999 as a solution to debconf 69
	  Removing debconf rather than change debconf-utils
	Investigating console-common
	Package console-common has broken dep on debconf
	  Considering debconf 69 as a solution to console-common 15
	  Removing console-common rather than change debconf
	Investigating binutils
	Package binutils has broken dep on debconf
	  Considering debconf 69 as a solution to binutils 15
	  Removing binutils rather than change debconf
	Investigating ipchains
	Package ipchains has broken dep on debconf
	  Considering debconf 69 as a solution to ipchains 10
	  Removing ipchains rather than change debconf
	Investigating bsdmainutils
	Package bsdmainutils has broken dep on debconf
	  Considering debconf 69 as a solution to bsdmainutils 9
	  Removing bsdmainutils rather than change debconf
	Investigating netbase
	  Or group remove for netbase
	  Or group remove for netbase
	  Or group remove for netbase
	Package netbase has broken dep on debconf
	  Considering debconf 69 as a solution to netbase 8
	  Removing netbase rather than change debconf
	Investigating iptables
	Package iptables has broken dep on debconf
	  Considering debconf 69 as a solution to iptables 8
	  Removing iptables rather than change debconf
	Investigating console-data
	Package console-data has broken dep on debconf
	  Considering debconf 69 as a solution to console-data 5
	  Removing console-data rather than change debconf
	Investigating adduser
	Package adduser has broken dep on debconf
	  Considering debconf 69 as a solution to adduser 5
	  Removing adduser rather than change debconf
	Investigating dpkg-dev
	Package dpkg-dev has broken dep on binutils
	  Considering binutils 15 as a solution to dpkg-dev 5
	  Removing dpkg-dev rather than change binutils
	Investigating console-tools
	Package console-tools has broken dep on console-common
	  Considering console-common 15 as a solution to console-tools 4
	  Removing console-tools rather than change console-common
	Investigating ppp
	Package ppp has broken dep on netbase
	  Considering netbase 8 as a solution to ppp 4
	  Removing ppp rather than change netbase
	Investigating man-db
	  Or group remove for man-db
	Package man-db has broken dep on bsdmainutils
	  Considering bsdmainutils 9 as a solution to man-db 4
	  Removing man-db rather than change bsdmainutils
	Investigating setserial
	Package setserial has broken dep on debconf
	  Considering debconf 69 as a solution to setserial 3
	  Removing setserial rather than change debconf
	Investigating pppoe
	Package pppoe has broken dep on ppp
	  Considering ppp 4 as a solution to pppoe 1
	  Removing pppoe rather than change ppp
	Investigating pppconfig
	Package pppconfig has broken dep on ppp
	  Considering ppp 4 as a solution to pppconfig 0
	  Removing pppconfig rather than change ppp
	Investigating pppoeconf
	  Or group remove for pppoeconf
	Package pppoeconf has broken dep on pppoe
	  Considering pppoe 1 as a solution to pppoeconf 0
	  Removing pppoeconf rather than change pppoe
	Investigating base-config
	Package base-config has broken dep on debconf
	  Considering debconf 69 as a solution to base-config 0
	  Removing base-config rather than change debconf
	Investigating build-essential
	  Or group remove for build-essential
	Package build-essential has broken dep on dpkg-dev
	  Considering dpkg-dev 5 as a solution to build-essential 0
	  Removing build-essential rather than change dpkg-dev
	Investigating pcmcia-cs
	Package pcmcia-cs has broken dep on debconf
	  Considering debconf 69 as a solution to pcmcia-cs -1
	  Removing pcmcia-cs rather than change debconf
	Investigating debconf-utils
	Package debconf-utils has broken dep on debconf
	  Considering debconf 69 as a solution to debconf-utils 9999
	  Added debconf to the remove list
	  Fixing debconf-utils via keep of debconf
	Investigating debconf
	Package debconf has broken dep on debconf-utils
	  Considering debconf-utils 9999 as a solution to debconf 69
	  Removing debconf rather than change debconf-utils
	Investigating gcc-2.95
	Package gcc-2.95 has broken dep on binutils
	  Considering binutils 15 as a solution to gcc-2.95 22
	  Added binutils to the remove list
	  Fixing gcc-2.95 via keep of binutils
	Investigating binutils
	Package binutils has broken dep on debconf
	  Considering debconf 69 as a solution to binutils 15
	  Removing binutils rather than change debconf
	Investigating debconf-utils
	Package debconf-utils has broken dep on debconf
	  Considering debconf 69 as a solution to debconf-utils 9999
	  Added debconf to the remove list
	  Fixing debconf-utils via keep of debconf
	Investigating debconf
	Package debconf has broken dep on debconf-utils
	  Considering debconf-utils 9999 as a solution to debconf 9999
	  Removing debconf rather than change debconf-utils
	Investigating gcc-2.95
	Package gcc-2.95 has broken dep on binutils
	  Considering binutils 15 as a solution to gcc-2.95 22
	  Added binutils to the remove list
	  Fixing gcc-2.95 via keep of binutils
	Investigating binutils
	Package binutils has broken dep on debconf
	  Considering debconf 9999 as a solution to binutils 22
	  Removing binutils rather than change debconf
	Investigating debconf-utils
	Package debconf-utils has broken dep on debconf
	  Considering debconf 9999 as a solution to debconf-utils 9999
	  Considering debconf 9999 as a solution to debconf-utils 9999
	Investigating gcc-2.95
	Package gcc-2.95 has broken dep on binutils
	  Considering binutils 9999 as a solution to gcc-2.95 22
	  Removing gcc-2.95 rather than change binutils
	Investigating g++-2.95
	Package g++-2.95 has broken dep on gcc-2.95
	  Considering gcc-2.95 9999 as a solution to g++-2.95 11
	  Removing g++-2.95 rather than change gcc-2.95
	Investigating gcc
	Package gcc has broken dep on gcc-2.95
	  Considering gcc-2.95 9999 as a solution to gcc 10
	  Removing gcc rather than change gcc-2.95
	Investigating g++
	Package g++ has broken dep on g++-2.95
	  Considering g++-2.95 9999 as a solution to g++ 8
	  Removing g++ rather than change g++-2.95
	Investigating libstdc++2.10-dev
	Package libstdc++2.10-dev has broken dep on g++-2.95
	  Considering g++-2.95 9999 as a solution to libstdc++2.10-dev 7
	  Removing libstdc++2.10-dev rather than change g++-2.95
	Investigating debconf-utils
	Package debconf-utils has broken dep on debconf
	  Considering debconf 9999 as a solution to debconf-utils 9999
	  Considering debconf 9999 as a solution to debconf-utils 9999
	Done
	Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
	requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
	distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
	or been moved out of Incoming.

	Since you only requested a single operation it is extremely likely that
	the package is simply not installable and a bug report against
	that package should be filed.
	The following information may help to resolve the situation:

	Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
	  debconf-utils: Depends: debconf (>= 0.9.59) but it is not going to be installed
	E: Sorry, broken packages

-- System Information
[up to date pbuilder chroot of woody]
-- 
Obsig: developing a new sig

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 148834-done) by bugs.debian.org; 2 Jun 2002 21:11:10 +0000
>From jgg@debian.org Sun Jun 02 16:11:10 2002
Return-path: <jgg@debian.org>
Received: from h24-71-223-10.cg.shawcable.net (pd4mo3so.prod.shaw.ca) [24.71.223.10] 
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 17Ecd4-0004ZV-00; Sun, 02 Jun 2002 16:11:10 -0500
Received: from pd5mr2so.prod.shaw.ca
 (pd5mr2so-qfe3.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.141.233]) by l-daemon
 (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 12 2002))
 with ESMTP id <0GX300LEVK5RFV@l-daemon> for 148834-done@bugs.debian.org; Sun,
 02 Jun 2002 15:10:39 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from pn2ml2so.prod.shaw.ca
 (pn2ml2so-qfe0.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.121.146]) by l-daemon
 (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 12 2002))
 with ESMTP id <0GX300LN5K5RWV@l-daemon> for 148834-done@bugs.debian.org; Sun,
 02 Jun 2002 15:10:39 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from wakko.debian.net
 (h24-86-210-128.ed.shawcable.net [24.86.210.128])
 by l-daemon (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 12 2002))
 with ESMTP id <0GX300HQYK5Q9U@l-daemon> for 148834-done@bugs.debian.org; Sun,
 02 Jun 2002 15:10:38 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from localhost	([127.0.0.1] helo=wakko.debian.net ident=jgg)
	by wakko.debian.net with smtp (Exim 3.16 #1 (Debian))
	id 17EccY-0006Te-00; Sun, 02 Jun 2002 15:10:38 -0600
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 15:10:38 -0600 (MDT)
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#148834: apt: Problem with problem solver
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20020602194845.GA8036@zensunni.demon.nl>
X-Sender: jgg@wakko.debian.net
To: "J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)" <dm@zensunni.demon.nl>, 148834-done@bugs.debian.org
Cc: APT Development Team <deity@lists.debian.org>, apt@packages.qa.debian.org
Reply-to: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@debian.org>
Message-id: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.96.1020602150354.11118A-100000@wakko.debian.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Delivered-To: 148834-done@bugs.debian.org


On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:

> In this environment, I get strange behaviour from apt:

Er, how is this strange? This is what you get if you ask for something
impossible. It looks like (your) debconf, debconf-utils and debhelper have
mutually exclusive dependencies. 

You might try:
apt-get install debconf debconf-utils debhelper

And you may be able to better understand the exact nature of the problem.

> [up to date pbuilder chroot of woody]

Er, no it isn't. Debconf in woddy is 1.0.32, you have 1.1.10 installed.

Looks to me like you are trying to mix woody and sid package in a manner
that is not possible.

Jason


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deity-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org



Reply to: