Your message dated Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:36:54 +0200
with message-id <20090416183654.ga...@rivendell>
and subject line Re: Bug#390698: aptitude: Shows wrong versions when installing
packages
has caused the Debian Bug report #390698,
regarding aptitude: Shows wrong versions when installing packages
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 [email protected]
immediately.)
--
390698: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=390698
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.2.15.9-6bpo3
Severity: normal
Hi, look at this. Maybe it's just cosmetics, but it might also point to
an underlying important problem:
Preparing to replace tex-common 0.29~bpo.1 (using
.../tex-common_0.30~bpo.1_all.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement tex-common ...
Preparing to replace tetex-base 3.0-21~bpo.1 (using
.../tetex-base_3.0-23~bpo.1_all.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement tetex-base ...
Preparing to replace tetex-doc 3.0-21~bpo.1 (using
.../tetex-doc_3.0-23~bpo.1_all.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement tetex-doc ...
Preparing to replace tetex-extra 3.0-21~bpo.1 (using
.../tetex-extra_3.0-23~bpo.1_all.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement tetex-extra ...
Setting up libpoppler-glib-dev (0.4.5-3bpo1) ...
Setting up tex-common (0.30~bpo.2) ...
Setting up tetex-base (3.0-23~bpo.1) ...
Note that in the first line, it says it is using version 0.30~bpo.1,
whereas when in the configure phase, it says 0.30~bpo.2.
And the second one must have been correct, because bpo.1 had an error in
its postinst, which would not run.
I uploaded both 30~bpo.* versions today, and it might have to do with
apt-proxy running between me and the actual mirrors. But still I think
this should never happen.
Regards, Frank
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (99, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-2-686
Locale: lang=de...@euro, lc_ctype=de...@euro (charmap=ISO-8859-15)
Versions of packages aptitude depends on:
ii apt [libapt-pkg-libc6 0.6.45~bpo.1 Advanced front-end for dpkg
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-22sarge4 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libgcc1 1:3.4.3-13sarge1 GCC support library
ii libncurses5 5.4-4 Shared libraries for terminal hand
ii libsigc++-1.2-5c102 1.2.5-4 type-safe Signal Framework for C++
ii libstdc++5 1:3.3.5-13 The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
-- no debconf information
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Hm, is it possible that you mixed up the file names when copying the
> > packages and that your ~bpo.2 package inadvertently became a
> > ~bpo.1_all.deb? That would be an explanation, and really the only one I
> > can think of. Can these packages be found anywhere today?
>
> That's my guess as well.
>
> > In the unlikely case that you have the aptitude and/or dpkg logs still
> > available, they could shed more light on the issue, but otherwise it
> > might be best to just close the bug, since there's probably nothing that
> > can be done about it (apart from improving dpkg's messages, which has
> > already been suggested -- see #71106, for instance).
>
> Yeah, marked now accordingly. Frank do you still have those around,
> otherwise will be probably just closing in a while.
Closing now.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny :
http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2009/03/02/contribuer-a-debian-gagner-un-livre/
--- End Message ---
