reassign 557570 apt
thanks
Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 15:58 -0500, Rick Thomas a écrit :
> On Nov 23, 2009, at 4:32 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > Le dimanche 22 novembre 2009 à 17:43 -0500, Rick Thomas a écrit :
> >> Package: esound-clients
> >> Version: 0.2.41-5
> >> Severity: normal
> >>
> >> esound-clients is one of 4 packages that patitude cannot upgrade ob
> >> my sid PowerPC testing machine.
> >>
> >> Here's the output...
> >>
> >> dillserver:~# aptitude -Pv full-upgrade
> >> epiphany-browser: Conflicts: swfdec-mozilla but 0.8.2-1 is
> >> installed.
> >> libesd-alsa0: Conflicts: libesd0 but 0.2.41-6 is to be installed.
> >> esound-common: Conflicts: libesd-alsa0 but 0.2.41-5 is installed.
> >> libesd0: Conflicts: libesd-alsa0 but 0.2.41-5 is installed.
> >> linux-image-2.6-powerpc: Depends: linux-image-2.6.31-1-powerpc
> >> which is a virtual package.
> >
> > The correct solution aptitude should choose is to remove swfdec-
> > mozilla,
> > remove libesd-alsa0 and install libesd0.
> >
> > Does "apt-get dist-upgrade" give correct results?
>
> Not really... Here's what I get from apt-get:
>
> > dillserver:~# apt-get -suV dist-upgrade
> > Reading package lists... Done
> > Building dependency tree
> > Reading state information... Done
> > Calculating upgrade... Done
> > The following packages will be REMOVED:
> > swfdec-mozilla (0.8.2-1)
> > The following packages have been kept back:
> > esound-clients (0.2.41-5 => 0.2.41-6)
> > esound-common (0.2.41-5 => 0.2.41-6)
> > linux-image-2.6-powerpc (2.6.30+21 => 2.6.31+22)
> > The following packages will be upgraded:
> > epiphany-browser (2.29.1-1 => 2.29.1-2)
> > 1 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove and 3 not upgraded.
> > Remv swfdec-mozilla [0.8.2-1]
> > Inst epiphany-browser [2.29.1-1] (2.29.1-2 Debian:unstable)
> > Conf epiphany-browser (2.29.1-2 Debian:unstable)
> > dillserver:~#
>
> With persistent trying, I was able to force "aptitude full-upgrade" to
> come around to the solution you recommend.
>
> After several iterations of
> > Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] n
>
> it eventually came up with this:
>
> > Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] n
> > The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
> >
> > Remove the following packages:
> > libesd-alsa0
> > swfdec-mozilla
> >
> > Keep the following packages at their current version:
> > linux-image-2.6-powerpc [2.6.30+21 (testing, now)]
> >
> > Tier: Remove packages (30000)
> >
> > Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] y
> > The following NEW packages will be installed:
> > libesd0{a}
> > The following packages will be REMOVED:
> > libesd-alsa0{a} swfdec-mozilla{a}
> > The following packages will be upgraded:
> > epiphany-browser esound-clients esound-common
> > The following packages are SUGGESTED but will NOT be installed:
> > esound pulseaudio-esound-compat
> > 3 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 2 to remove and 1 not
> > upgraded.
> > Need to get 511kB of archives. After unpacking 258kB will be freed.
> >
>
> But it clearly believes that libesd-alsa0 and swfdec-mozilla are in-
> use, and should not be removed.
Yes, and that’s the problem. I think it lies in APT if it is not able to
propose you an upgrade solution.
Some explanations for the APT maintainers:
* libesd-alsa0 doesn’t exist anymore. Now esound-common conflicts
with it, so upgrades should force libesd0 in.
* epiphany-browser has a conflict against swfdec-mozilla. APT
should propose to remove it.
If you think there are better ways to make these changes, in a way that
lets APT proceed with the upgrade, I’m open with ideas.
> Just out of curiosity, given that aptitude couldn't, how did you come
> up with that solution?
I did the relevant changes to esound.
Cheers,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
`- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=