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

Bug#413226: marked as done (apt: Wrong (and bizarre) explanation for failure to install package)



Your message dated Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:12:39 +0200
with message-id <20150813141239.GA32577@crossbow>
and subject line Re: apt: Wrong (and bizarre) explanation for failure to install package
has caused the Debian Bug report #413226,
regarding apt: Wrong (and bizarre) explanation for failure to install package
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
413226: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=413226
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: apt
Version: 0.6.46.4-0.1
Severity: normal

When I try to install libgif4 on my etch system, which turns out to be no-go because it conflicts with libungif4, and hence with some packages that Require libungif4, apt-get says:

Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... 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:

The following packages have unmet dependencies.
  dictionary-el: Depends: emacs21 or
                          emacs-snapshot but it is not installable or
                          emacsen
E: Broken packages

which is odd, because I have both dictionary-el and emacs21 installed
happily.

-- 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::sourceparts "sources.list.d";
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/bin/apt-listchanges --apt || test $? -ne 10";
DPkg::Pre-Install-Pkgs:: "/usr/sbin/dpkg-preconfigure --apt || true";
DPkg::Tools "";
DPkg::Tools::Options "";
DPkg::Tools::Options::/usr/bin/apt-listchanges "";
DPkg::Tools::Options::/usr/bin/apt-listchanges::Version "2";
DPkg::Post-Invoke "";
DPkg::Post-Invoke:: "if [ -x /usr/bin/debsums ]; then /usr/bin/debsums --generate=nocheck -sp /var/cache/apt/archives; fi";
Unattended-Upgrade "";
Unattended-Upgrade::Allowed-Origins "";
Unattended-Upgrade::Allowed-Origins:: "Debian stable";

-- (no /etc/apt/preferences present) --


-- /etc/apt/sources.list --

# Debian
deb http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/ etch main non-free contrib
deb-src http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/ etch main non-free contrib

#deb http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/ experimental main non-free contrib

deb http://security.debian.org/ etch/updates main contrib non-free
deb-src http://security.debian.org/ etch/updates main contrib non-free

# Debian-volatile
#deb http://volatile.debian.net/debian-volatile etch/volatile main
#deb-src http://volatile.debian.net/debian-volatile etch/volatile main

# Various mostly non-free software
deb http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ etch main
deb-src http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ etch main

# Backports
#deb http://www.backports.org/debian/ etch-backports main contrib

# Skype
#deb http://download.skype.com/linux/repos/debian/ stable non-free

# Opera
deb http://deb.opera.com/opera/ etch non-free

# omega and xapian
deb http://www.xapian.org/debian unstable main
deb-src http://www.xapian.org/debian unstable main

# wine
#deb http://wine.sourceforge.net/apt/ binary/
#deb-src http://wine.sourceforge.net/apt/ source/

# freemind
#deb http://eric.lavar.de/comp/linux/debian/ experimental/

# freenx
deb http://packages.debianbase.de/etch/i386/nx/ ./

# psiconv, fat-epoc and a few others
#deb http://debian.frodo.looijaard.name/public/sarge sarge ultima4 fat-epoc
#deb-src http://debian.frodo.looijaard.name/public/sarge sarge ultima4 fat-epoc

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-4-686
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)

Versions of packages apt depends on:
ii  debian-archive-keyring      2007.02.19   GnuPG archive keys of the Debian a
ii  libc6                       2.3.6.ds1-11 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii  libgcc1                     1:4.1.1-21   GCC support library
ii  libstdc++6                  4.1.1-21     The GNU Standard C++ Library v3

apt recommends no packages.

-- no debconf information


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi

On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:45:29PM +0000, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> The following information may help to resolve the situation:
> 
> The following packages have unmet dependencies.
>   dictionary-el: Depends: emacs21 or
>                           emacs-snapshot but it is not installable or
>                           emacsen
> E: Broken packages

The messages changed in the last 8 years a bit, but in general apt is
talking here about the future if it would do what was requested from it,
not about what is currently the case (the message would be different in
that case).

So, this is a misinterpretation of the old messages, which may or may
not happen with the new messages in a new situation, who knows?

Probably best to wait for such a situation to appear and check then than
keeping this bugreport open just in case. That worked so well for
8 years so far after all…

I am therefore closing. If the messages generated nowadays are still not
bearable/understandable feel free to report a new bug!


Best regards

David Kalnischkies

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---

Reply to: