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

Bug#584293: Problem on upgrade: racoon



On 06-04 08:01, stefan.bauer@cubewerk.de wrote:
> > ii  ipsec-tools     1:0.7.3-6       IPsec tools for Linux
> > ii  racoon          1:0.7.3-6       IPsec IKE keying daemon
> > # LC_ALL=C apt-get dist-upgrade -V
> > Reading package lists... Done
> > Building dependency tree
> > Reading state information... Done
> > Calculating upgrade... Done
> > The following packages will be REMOVED:
> >    racoon (0.7.3-7)
> > The following packages will be upgraded:
> >    ipsec-tools (0.7.3-6 => 0.7.3-7)
> 
> Witold,
> 
> it jumps to my mind, that this could be a bug in apt. How is the output if
> you use aptitude? Its weird, dpkg shows correctly 0.7.3-6 installed. apt
> wants to get rid of 0.7.3-7 which is not even installed at the moment.


It is problem in racoon package description:


$ apt-get install racoon -V
...
The following extra packages will be installed:
   ipsec-tools (0.7.3-7)
The following packages will be REMOVED:
   network-manager-strongswan (1.1.2-1)
   strongswan-ikev2 (4.3.2-1.3)
   strongswan-nm (4.3.2-1.3)
The following packages will be upgraded:
   ipsec-tools (0.7.3-6 => 0.7.3-7)
   racoon (0.7.3-6 => 0.7.3-7)
$

Oh, strongswan removed?


$ apt-get install racoon strongswan-nm -V
...
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
  racoon: Conflicts: ike-server
E: Broken packages
$


$ apt-cache show racoon | grep -E '(Version|Packa|Conflict|Provide)'
Package: racoon
Version: 1:0.7.3-7
Provides: ike-server
Conflicts: ike-server

Package: racoon
Version: 1:0.7.3-6
Provides: ike-server
$


Conflicts section in versin 1:0.7.3-7 is strange. Is is supposed
to mean "we provide ike-server, but doesn't allow for any OTHER ike-server
package"? It looks that APT understand this as "we provide ike-server,
but we dosen't allow for any ike-server package, including me".

Regards.

-- 
Witold Baryluk
JID: witold.baryluk // jabster.pl

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: