Your message dated Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:05:42 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line [Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh)] Bug#325710: libofx2: Tries to
replace libofx.so.2.0 which is part of libofx1c2
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; 30 Aug 2005 11:17:25 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Aug 30 04:17:25 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from smtp10.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.21]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1EA47J-00008I-00; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 04:17:25 -0700
Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mwinf1006.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 096CB30000B8
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:16:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from tangerine.coulon.evette (ADijon-256-1-1-22.w81-51.abo.wanadoo.fr
[81.51.8.22])
by mwinf1006.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id B709330000AE;
Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:16:53 +0200 (CEST)
X-ME-UUID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1])
by tangerine.coulon.evette with esmtp (Exim 4.52)
id 1EA46n-0006CB-0m; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:16:53 +0200
Received: from tangerine.coulon.evette ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (tangerine [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 22500-03; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:16:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from jean-luc by tangerine.coulon.evette with local (Exim 4.52)
id 1EA46d-0006Bx-5r; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:16:43 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: libofx2: Tries to replace libofx.so.2.0 which is part of libofx1c2
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.17
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:16:43 +0200
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at coulon.evette
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Package: libofx2
Version: 1:0.0.0-2
Severity: normal
Hi,
libofx2 is not instalable because it tries to overwrite /usr/lib/libofx.so.2.0.0
which is also aprt of libofx1c2.
(Reading database ... 186965 files and directories currently installed.)
Unpacking libofx2 (from .../libofx2_1%3a0.8.0-2_amd64.deb) ...
dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libofx2_1%3a0.8.0-2_amd64.deb
(--unpack):
trying to overwrite `/usr/lib/libofx.so.2.0.0', which is also in package
libofx1c2
dpkg-deb: subprocess paste killed by signal (Broken pipe)
Errors were encountered while processing:
/var/cache/apt/archives/libofx2_1%3a0.8.0-2_amd64.deb
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
Regards
Jean-Luc
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (900, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.12-k8-8
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15)
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 325710-done) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Sep 2005 19:05:46 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Sep 11 12:05:46 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from a-eskwadraat.nl [131.211.39.72]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1EEX97-0001FB-00; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:05:45 -0700
Received: from 220pc220.sshunet.nl
([145.97.220.220] helo=mordor.wolffelaar.nl ident=Debian-exim)
by a-eskwadraat.nl with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32)
(Exim 4.50)
id 1EEX94-0003Hv-Ki; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:05:42 +0200
Received: from jeroen by mordor.wolffelaar.nl with local (Exim 4.50)
id 1EEX94-0006by-9M; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:05:42 +0200
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:05:42 +0200
To: Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh)] Bug#325710: libofx2: Tries to replace
libofx.so.2.0 which is part of libofx1c2
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
From: Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 05:51:04PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> reassign 325710 ftp.debian.org
> retitle 325710 "Please delete version 1:0.8.0-1 version of libofx1c2 and
> libofx-dev"
> thanks
>
> Explanation:
>
> Version 1:0.8.0-1 of libofx failed to catch an soname bump (upstream
> didn't indicate, and I foolishly failed to check). So it contains a
> package named libofx1c2, but which install libofx2, not libofx1.
>
> Version 1:0.8.0-2 of libofx is correct: it installs libofx2, and
> doesn't install a libofx1c2 at all.
>
> But people who caught the 1:0.8.0-1 version and now upgrade to
> 1:0.8.0-2 find that libofx2-0.8.0-2 conflicts with libofx1c2-0.8.0-1,
> of course.
>
> It seems to me the correct course is to expunge the 0.8.0-1 packages
> entirely.
No, and besides, that happens automatically if you upload a newer
version.
libofx-dev | 1:0.8.0-3 | unstable | alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k,
mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
libofx2 | 1:0.8.0-3 | unstable | alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k,
mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
libofx | 1:0.8.0-3 | unstable | source
> It is perfectly fine for the 0.7.0-7.1 packages to stay in the
> archive.
Those are in sarge, and sarge doesn't change unless to fix a very
servere bug.
> If this is not the correct fix, please reassign the bug back to
> libofx2, and I would also appreciate instructions on the correct way
> to fix the bug.
You should either add conflicts to the latest packages so that there
comes no file conflict, or alternatively, forget about it, as it was a
snafu in a version no longer in the archive; and tell people who still
complain that they are running unstable and that breakeage like this can
happen from time to time -- after all, it's fixed now, and for upgrades
from stable/testing to unstable, right?
Assuming forgetting about it is what you want, I'm closing this bug.
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
