Bug#351262: graphicsmagick: Fails to install, common file with imagemagick
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:56:08PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 02:39:57PM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote: To clarify: You want us to support having imagemagick from sarge installed + pulling in graphicsmagick from etch, but pulling graphicsmagick from etch + later installing imagemagick from sarge is intentionally left broken? For now I've added the Replaces, but I think that's a half-baked solution. It's not broken; current dpkg understands that Replaces: should take effect even if the replaced package is installed after the package that replaces it. Current dpkg does, but the feature was added post-sarge in 1.13.2. As far as I understand, it should only be relied upon post-etch? Regards, Daniel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#351262: graphicsmagick: Fails to install, common file with imagemagick
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 07:03:30PM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote: On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 04:56:08PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 02:39:57PM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote: To clarify: You want us to support having imagemagick from sarge installed + pulling in graphicsmagick from etch, but pulling graphicsmagick from etch + later installing imagemagick from sarge is intentionally left broken? For now I've added the Replaces, but I think that's a half-baked solution. It's not broken; current dpkg understands that Replaces: should take effect even if the replaced package is installed after the package that replaces it. Current dpkg does, but the feature was added post-sarge in 1.13.2. As far as I understand, it should only be relied upon post-etch? Well, I consider this a bugfix, not a new feature, and don't see a point here in trying to work around the dpkg bug using Conflicts. YMMV, and it's your decision to make. For the record, the tradeoff here is that using Conflicts+Replaces is incorrect per policy and means that it's ok to remove imagemagick as part of an upgrade -- which apt may attempt to do, or it may simply bind trying to find an upgrade solution, and neither of those is what you want. I personally think that being able to install sarge packages on top of an etch system is an order of magnitude less important than installing etch packages on a sarge system. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#351262: graphicsmagick: Fails to install, common file with imagemagick
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 01:51:48PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 07:03:30PM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote: Current dpkg does, but the feature was added post-sarge in 1.13.2. As far as I understand, it should only be relied upon post-etch? Well, I consider this a bugfix, not a new feature, and don't see a point here in trying to work around the dpkg bug using Conflicts. YMMV, and it's your decision to make. For the record, the tradeoff here is that using Conflicts+Replaces is incorrect per policy and means that it's ok to remove imagemagick as part of an upgrade -- which apt may attempt to do, or it may simply bind trying to find an upgrade solution, and neither of those is what you want. I personally think that being able to install sarge packages on top of an etch system is an order of magnitude less important than installing etch packages on a sarge system. I'm quite happy to use the simple Replaces. I was just surprised that using this relatively new features has RM blessing. Regards, Daniel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#351262: graphicsmagick: Fails to install, common file with imagemagick
tag 351262 + pending thanks On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 04:15:48PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 05:49:06PM +0100, Braun Gabor wrote: Trying to install the package failed: dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/graphicsmagick_1.1.7-2_i386.deb (--unpack): trying to overwrite `/usr/share/man/man4/miff.4.gz', which is also in package imagemagick This is not the version of imagemagick in either unstable or current testing, where miff.4 (and quantize.5) are no longer present. As graphicsmagick was only just introduced, there shouldn't be any upgrade issues from sarge to etch, either, so I don't think this bug is release critical. Sorry, it is. Partial upgrades from sarge to etch must be supported, including installing new packages from etch on a sarge system. Anyway, I'll add a conflict with the sarge version to facilitate backports. A simple Replaces: would probably be better for the upgrade path. To clarify: You want us to support having imagemagick from sarge installed + pulling in graphicsmagick from etch, but pulling graphicsmagick from etch + later installing imagemagick from sarge is intentionally left broken? For now I've added the Replaces, but I think that's a half-baked solution. Regards, Daniel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#351262: graphicsmagick: Fails to install, common file with imagemagick
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 02:39:57PM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote: tag 351262 + pending thanks On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 04:15:48PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 05:49:06PM +0100, Braun Gabor wrote: Trying to install the package failed: dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/graphicsmagick_1.1.7-2_i386.deb (--unpack): trying to overwrite `/usr/share/man/man4/miff.4.gz', which is also in package imagemagick This is not the version of imagemagick in either unstable or current testing, where miff.4 (and quantize.5) are no longer present. As graphicsmagick was only just introduced, there shouldn't be any upgrade issues from sarge to etch, either, so I don't think this bug is release critical. Sorry, it is. Partial upgrades from sarge to etch must be supported, including installing new packages from etch on a sarge system. Anyway, I'll add a conflict with the sarge version to facilitate backports. A simple Replaces: would probably be better for the upgrade path. To clarify: You want us to support having imagemagick from sarge installed + pulling in graphicsmagick from etch, but pulling graphicsmagick from etch + later installing imagemagick from sarge is intentionally left broken? For now I've added the Replaces, but I think that's a half-baked solution. It's not broken; current dpkg understands that Replaces: should take effect even if the replaced package is installed after the package that replaces it. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#351262: graphicsmagick: Fails to install, common file with imagemagick
Package: graphicsmagick Version: 1.1.7-2 Severity: grave Justification: renders package unusable *** Please type your report below this line *** Trying to install the package failed: dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/graphicsmagick_1.1.7-2_i386.deb (--unpack): trying to overwrite `/usr/share/man/man4/miff.4.gz', which is also in package imagemagick This is unexpected, especially because package description says: Therefore, GraphicsMagick and ImageMagick can be used in parallel. Best wishes, Gabor Braun -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 APT prefers testing APT policy: (650, 'testing'), (600, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.14-2-686 Locale: LANG=hu_HU.iso88592, LC_CTYPE=hu_HU.iso88592 (charmap=ISO-8859-2) (ignored: LC_ALL set to hu_HU.iso88592) Versions of packages graphicsmagick depends on: ii libbz2-1.0 1.0.2-7 high-quality block-sorting file co ii libc6 2.3.5-8 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libfreetype6 2.1.10-1 FreeType 2 font engine, shared lib ii libgraphicsmagick1 1.1.7-2 format-independent image processin ii libice66.8.2.dfsg.1-11 Inter-Client Exchange library ii libjpeg62 6b-10 The Independent JPEG Group's JPEG ii liblcms1 1.13-1Color management library ii libpng12-0 1.2.8rel-1PNG library - runtime ii libsm6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-11 X Window System Session Management ii libtiff4 3.7.2-3 Tag Image File Format (TIFF) libra ii libwmf0.2-70.2.8.3-2 Windows metafile conversion librar ii libx11-6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-11 X Window System protocol client li ii libxext6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-11 X Window System miscellaneous exte ii libxml22.6.23.dfsg.1-0.1 GNOME XML library ii zlib1g 1:1.2.2-4.sarge.2 compression library - runtime -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#351262: graphicsmagick: Fails to install, common file with imagemagick
severity 351262 wishlist thanks On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 05:49:06PM +0100, Braun Gabor wrote: Trying to install the package failed: dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/graphicsmagick_1.1.7-2_i386.deb (--unpack): trying to overwrite `/usr/share/man/man4/miff.4.gz', which is also in package imagemagick This is not the version of imagemagick in either unstable or current testing, where miff.4 (and quantize.5) are no longer present. As graphicsmagick was only just introduced, there shouldn't be any upgrade issues from sarge to etch, either, so I don't think this bug is release critical. Anyway, I'll add a conflict with the sarge version to facilitate backports. Regards, Daniel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#351262: graphicsmagick: Fails to install, common file with imagemagick
severity 351262 serious thanks On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 06:32:05PM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote: severity 351262 wishlist thanks On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 05:49:06PM +0100, Braun Gabor wrote: Trying to install the package failed: dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/graphicsmagick_1.1.7-2_i386.deb (--unpack): trying to overwrite `/usr/share/man/man4/miff.4.gz', which is also in package imagemagick This is not the version of imagemagick in either unstable or current testing, where miff.4 (and quantize.5) are no longer present. As graphicsmagick was only just introduced, there shouldn't be any upgrade issues from sarge to etch, either, so I don't think this bug is release critical. Sorry, it is. Partial upgrades from sarge to etch must be supported, including installing new packages from etch on a sarge system. Anyway, I'll add a conflict with the sarge version to facilitate backports. A simple Replaces: would probably be better for the upgrade path. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
