Bug#267261: marked as done (priority problem?)
Your message dated Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:02:15 -0700
with message-id <20040828010215.GD16109@alcor.net>
and subject line Bug#267261: priority problem?
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; 21 Aug 2004 14:00:27 +0000
>From jashar@j--n.is-a-geek.org Sat Aug 21 07:00:27 2004
Return-path: <jashar@j--n.is-a-geek.org>
Received: from ool-44c72425.dyn.optonline.net (riker) [68.199.36.37] (Debian-exim)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1ByWPy-0002qU-00; Sat, 21 Aug 2004 07:00:26 -0700
Received: from jashar by riker with local (Exim 4.34)
id 1ByWPw-0008Hi-PX; Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:00:25 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jayen Ashar <jashar@picard.res.cmu.edu>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: priority problem?
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.63
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 10:00:24 -0400
Message-Id: <[🔎] E1ByWPw-0008Hi-PX@riker>
Sender: Jayen Ashar <jashar@j--n.is-a-geek.org>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
Package: apt
Version: 0.5.27
Severity: normal
I tried posting this to 258851@bugs.debian.org, but since that bug is
archived, it didn't go through. Please skim/read
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=258851&archive=yes
first, thanks.
Ok, I think I know what happenned. Now I am seeing similar problems with
esound. I have some weird combination of testing/unstable for the esound
packages. I see that I have esound-clients 0.2.34-1 installed. It
depends (I believe incorrectly) on libesd0 (>= 0.2.29-1). libesd0
0.2.29-1 is in testing, while 0.2.34-1 is in unstable. I have
libesd0/testing and esound-clients/unstable installed. I have testing as
a higher priority than unstable. So, for some reason now, I am having
problems when I do a "apt-get upgrade -u". It always upgrades and
replaces libesd0 0.2.29-1 with libesd0 0.2.29-1. I don't know why
esound-clients 0.2.34-1 depends on libesd0 (>= 0.2.29-1), but I think that
is problem #1. And I think that is exposing a problem #2 with apt and
its priorities. Does anyone have any other thoughts?
Thanks,
Jayen
-- Package-specific info:
-- apt-config dump --
APT "";
APT::Architecture "i386";
APT::Build-Essential "";
APT::Build-Essential:: "build-essential";
Dir "/";
Dir::State "var/lib/apt/";
Dir::State::lists "lists/";
Dir::State::cdroms "cdroms.list";
Dir::State::userstatus "status.user";
Dir::State::status "/var/lib/dpkg/status";
Dir::Cache "var/cache/apt/";
Dir::Cache::archives "archives/";
Dir::Cache::srcpkgcache "srcpkgcache.bin";
Dir::Cache::pkgcache "pkgcache.bin";
Dir::Etc "etc/apt/";
Dir::Etc::sourcelist "sources.list";
Dir::Etc::vendorlist "vendors.list";
Dir::Etc::vendorparts "vendors.list.d";
Dir::Etc::main "apt.conf";
Dir::Etc::parts "apt.conf.d";
Dir::Etc::preferences "preferences";
Dir::Bin "";
Dir::Bin::methods "/usr/lib/apt/methods";
Dir::Bin::dpkg "/usr/bin/dpkg";
DPkg "";
DPkg::Pre-Install-Pkgs "";
DPkg::Pre-Install-Pkgs:: "/usr/sbin/dpkg-preconfigure --apt || true";
DPkg::Post-Invoke "";
DPkg::Post-Invoke:: "if [ -x /usr/bin/debsums ]; then /usr/bin/debsums --generate=nocheck -sp /var/cache/apt/archives; fi";
-- /etc/apt/preferences --
Package: *
Pin: release a=testing
Pin-Priority: 980
Package: *
Pin: release a=unstable
Pin-Priority: 960
Package: *
Pin: release a=stable
Pin-Priority: 930
Package: *
Pin: release a=experimental
Pin-Priority: 900
-- /etc/apt/sources.list --
deb file:/var/cache/apt-build/repository apt-build main
deb http://security.debian.org stable/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free
deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-non-US stable/non-US main contrib non-free
deb-src http://security.debian.org stable/updates main contrib non-free
deb-src http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free
deb-src http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-non-US stable/non-US main contrib non-free
deb http://security.debian.org testing/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian testing main contrib non-free
deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-non-US testing/non-US main contrib non-free
deb-src http://security.debian.org testing/updates main contrib non-free
deb-src http://http.us.debian.org/debian testing main contrib non-free
deb-src http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-non-US testing/non-US main contrib non-free
deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free
deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable/non-US main contrib non-free
#deb http://security.debian.org unstable/updates main contrib non-free
deb-src http://http.us.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free
deb-src http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable/non-US main contrib non-free
#deb-src http://security.debian.org unstable/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian experimental main contrib non-free
#deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-non-US experimental/non-US main contrib non-free
#deb http://security.debian.org experimental/updates main contrib non-free
deb-src http://http.us.debian.org/debian experimental main contrib non-free
#deb-src http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian-non-US experimental/non-US main contrib non-free
#deb-src http://security.debian.org experimental/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://debian.crosslink.net/debian-archive potato main contrib non-free
deb-src http://debian.crosslink.net/debian-archive potato main contrib non-free
# for transcode
deb ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/ testing main
#deb-src ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/ testing main
deb ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/ stable main
#deb-src ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/ stable main
#deb http://www.coda.cs.cmu.edu/pub/coda/linux debian/binary-$(ARCH)/
#for java
#deb ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/linux/devel/lang/java/blackdown.org/debian/ testing main non-free
#deb ftp://ftp.tux.org/pub/java/debian/ testing main non-free
# for pine
deb http://src.braincells.com/debian woody/
deb-src http://src.braincells.com/debian woody/
# for xv & gatos
#deb ftp://debian.fifi.org/pub/debian-local stable/unofficial/
#deb-src ftp://debian.fifi.org/pub/debian-local stable/unofficial/
deb http://debian.fifi.org/debian-local stable/unofficial/
#deb-src http://debian.fifi.org/pub/debian-local stable/unofficial/
# duh! dri
#deb http://people.debian.org/~daenzer/dri-trunk/ ./
#deb http://dri.freedesktop.org/~daenzer/debian/dri-trunk-sid/ ./
#deb http://people.debian.org/~daenzer/dri-trunk-sid/ ./
#deb http://people.debian.org/~daenzer/dri-mach64/ ./
#deb http://people.debian.org/~daenzer/dri-mach64-sid/ ./
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (980, 'testing'), (960, 'unstable'), (900, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.7-1-k7
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Versions of packages apt depends on:
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-13 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libgcc1 1:3.4.1-4sarge1 GCC support library
ii libstdc++5 1:3.3.4-6sarge1 The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 267261-done) by bugs.debian.org; 28 Aug 2004 01:02:47 +0000
>From mdz@alcor.net Fri Aug 27 18:02:47 2004
Return-path: <mdz@alcor.net>
Received: from mta13.mail.adelphia.net (mta13.adelphia.net) [68.168.78.44]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1C0rcE-0008I8-00; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:02:46 -0700
Received: from mizar.alcor.net ([69.167.148.207]) by mta13.adelphia.net
(InterMail vM.6.01.03.02 201-2131-111-104-20040324) with ESMTP
id <20040828010215.TMWE24693.mta13.adelphia.net@mizar.alcor.net>;
Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:02:15 -0400
Received: from mdz by mizar.alcor.net with local (Exim 4.34)
id 1C0rbj-0005np-Vd; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:02:15 -0700
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:02:15 -0700
From: Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>
To: Jayen Ashar <jashar@picard.res.cmu.edu>, 267261-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#267261: priority problem?
Message-ID: <20040828010215.GD16109@alcor.net>
References: <[🔎] E1ByWPw-0008Hi-PX@riker>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] E1ByWPw-0008Hi-PX@riker>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040803i
Sender: Matt Zimmerman <mdz@alcor.net>
Delivered-To: 267261-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 10:00:24AM -0400, Jayen Ashar wrote:
> Ok, I think I know what happenned. Now I am seeing similar problems with
> esound. I have some weird combination of testing/unstable for the esound
> packages. I see that I have esound-clients 0.2.34-1 installed. It
> depends (I believe incorrectly) on libesd0 (>= 0.2.29-1). libesd0
> 0.2.29-1 is in testing, while 0.2.34-1 is in unstable. I have
> libesd0/testing and esound-clients/unstable installed. I have testing as
> a higher priority than unstable. So, for some reason now, I am having
> problems when I do a "apt-get upgrade -u". It always upgrades and
> replaces libesd0 0.2.29-1 with libesd0 0.2.29-1. I don't know why
> esound-clients 0.2.34-1 depends on libesd0 (>= 0.2.29-1), but I think that
> is problem #1. And I think that is exposing a problem #2 with apt and
> its priorities. Does anyone have any other thoughts?
Most likely, in your (long!) list of apt sources, you have more than one
distinct libesd0 package available, with the same version number but
different .debs.
--
- mdz
Reply to: