On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 02:35:29AM +0000, Walt L. Williams wrote: ...
> > I kind of got the impression while working to load these that Debian > offer these Sun Java packages so they can say they offer them but > try to discourage people from using what they consider propietory > software by placing the interdependencies on three or four of the > packages to make them difficult to load. For hell sakes who makes > a group of packages that require the others to be installed first! with all due respect, and bearing in mind that I don't use backports, this really looks more like a mistake or transition in the backports packages. In reality, it's not that the other packages need to be installed *first* so much as installed at the same time. It seems fairly common for packages to depend on each other. So long as they are installed simultaneously, then it's not a problem. > > YEP, the cridders in question !!!!!!!!!!!!! They are interdependent. > > > The following packages have unmet dependencies: > > sun-java6-bin: Depends: sun-java6-jre (= 6-00-2~bpo.1) but > > 6-06-1~bpo40+1 is to be installed > > sun-java6-demo: Depends: sun-java6-jre (= 6-00-2~bpo.1) but > > 6-06-1~bpo40+1 is to be installed > > sun-java6-jdk: Depends: sun-java6-jre (= 6-00-2~bpo.1) but > > 6-06-1~bpo40+1 is to be installed > > sun-java6-jre: Depends: sun-java6-bin (= 6-06-1~bpo40+1) but > > 6-00-2~bpo.1 is to be installed or > > ia32-sun-java6-bin (= 6-06-1~bpo40+1) but it is > > not going to be installed > > E: Broken packages this look specifically like the jre has been pushed to version 6-06-1~bpo40+1 but the other packages, which need the jre in order to function, are still at version 6-00-2~bpo.1. I don't know if there is a bug system for backports, but I'd call that a packaging bug for sure. A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
