Bug#645713: fails to upgrade a default GNOME desktop installation from squeeze → sid
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Adam D. Barratt
<adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote:
> [-openoffice dropped from Cc, added Andreas]
>
> On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 17:51 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> In the mean time I've applied the following change to the release notes:
>>
>> Author: jcristau <jcristau@313b444b-1b9f-4f58-a734-7bb04f332e8d>
>> Date: Fri Apr 19 15:47:54 2013 +0000
>>
>> upgrading: mention the 'Could not perform immediate configuration' issue
> [...]
>> I'm leaving this bug open for now because of the issue brought up by
>> Andreas, but if you want to reassign to release-notes that would be fine
>> with me.
>
> Any opinions / thoughts on how we progress / resolve this welcome.
[ just to have something on public record ]
As I said Julien already on IRC the option isn't going to prevent this
bug from happening. It might work for some cases, but not for all.
(or: the bug still happens - which is not a problem per se -, you just might
be lucky to not hit the other bug down the road to which this message
actually belongs)
What works heavily depends on "random" things like at which point a package
stanza was encountered while parsing (thats why openoffice.org-core worked for
me, or why it works sometimes just by still having the "squeeze"
sources.list entry – or not having it in others).
Possibly every remove in the solution can cause this and as its unlikely that
removes can be avoided you have a variate of options which might or might not
help you out of the misery:
Try 'apt-get dist-upgrade' with option enabled (default) and disabled after:
* If not done already: "apt-get upgrade" (= no removes).
* apt-get install apt
* apt-get install <package mentioned in the error> (rinse and repeat)
* apt-get remove <package which dist-upgrade wants to remove> (^)
All of them having their own set of downsizes and depending on who the user
is (and how the machine looks like) I would suggest a different order for
trying them out.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
Reply to: