Re: Problems with Provides/Replaces/Conflicts
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 09:36:30AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > That's what it does, and since it does the problem occured. Was I unclear > in my first mail? I must have been looking at tetex-base rather than tetex-bin, which only replaces dvipdfm. > Indeed when updating apt first the problem vanishes, and I guess if I'd > used dselect in the first place, it just wouldn't have occurred (at least > this is my impression from woody's release notes). Yes, upgrading apt first is a good idea for woody->sarge. -- - mdz
Re: Problems with Provides/Replaces/Conflicts
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 09:36:30AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > That's what it does, and since it does the problem occured. Was I unclear > in my first mail? I must have been looking at tetex-base rather than tetex-bin, which only replaces dvipdfm. > Indeed when updating apt first the problem vanishes, and I guess if I'd > used dselect in the first place, it just wouldn't have occurred (at least > this is my impression from woody's release notes). Yes, upgrading apt first is a good idea for woody->sarge. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems with Provides/Replaces/Conflicts
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 02:52:59PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > >> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Does anybody have an idea why apt decides "Holding Back tetex-bin rather >> > than change dvipdfm"? >> >> It seems it's an apt bug; after I put the tetex stuff on hold and >> dist-upgrade the rest, it works fine. > > It looks like tetex-bin obsoletes dvipdfm. It should conflict, provide and > replace it. That's what it does, and since it does the problem occured. Was I unclear in my first mail? Indeed when updating apt first the problem vanishes, and I guess if I'd used dselect in the first place, it just wouldn't have occurred (at least this is my impression from woody's release notes). Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Re: Problems with Provides/Replaces/Conflicts
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 02:52:59PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > >> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Does anybody have an idea why apt decides "Holding Back tetex-bin rather >> > than change dvipdfm"? >> >> It seems it's an apt bug; after I put the tetex stuff on hold and >> dist-upgrade the rest, it works fine. > > It looks like tetex-bin obsoletes dvipdfm. It should conflict, provide and > replace it. That's what it does, and since it does the problem occured. Was I unclear in my first mail? Indeed when updating apt first the problem vanishes, and I guess if I'd used dselect in the first place, it just wouldn't have occurred (at least this is my impression from woody's release notes). Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Re: Problems with Provides/Replaces/Conflicts
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 02:52:59PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Does anybody have an idea why apt decides "Holding Back tetex-bin rather > > than change dvipdfm"? > > It seems it's an apt bug; after I put the tetex stuff on hold and > dist-upgrade the rest, it works fine. It looks like tetex-bin obsoletes dvipdfm. It should conflict, provide and replace it. -- - mdz
Re: Problems with Provides/Replaces/Conflicts
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 02:52:59PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Does anybody have an idea why apt decides "Holding Back tetex-bin rather > > than change dvipdfm"? > > It seems it's an apt bug; after I put the tetex stuff on hold and > dist-upgrade the rest, it works fine. It looks like tetex-bin obsoletes dvipdfm. It should conflict, provide and replace it. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems with Provides/Replaces/Conflicts
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does anybody have an idea why apt decides "Holding Back tetex-bin rather > than change dvipdfm"? It seems it's an apt bug; after I put the tetex stuff on hold and dist-upgrade the rest, it works fine. Is there yet a draft for Release Notes for sarge? TIA, Frank -- Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Problems with Provides/Replaces/Conflicts
Hi, tetex-bin previously only declared Replaces:... dvipdfm Provides: ... dvipdfm but no Conflicts. This has the effect that dvipdfm is not removed when tetex-bin is installed, and trying to remove afterwards fails because of some dpkg-divert stuff (see #269235). Note that dvipdfm does no longer exist in sarge or sid. So I thought the natural thing would be to add a Conflicts, as described in Policy, Section 7.5.2. But when testing this, the dist-upgrade from woody does no longer work, which I don't understand: bin/bash-2.05a# apt-get dist-upgrade Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done Calculating Upgrade... Starting Starting 2 Investigating libconsole Package libconsole has broken dep on console-tools-libs Considering console-tools-libs 4 as a solution to libconsole 9 Added console-tools-libs to the remove list Fixing libconsole via remove of console-tools-libs Investigating tetex-bin Or group remove for tetex-bin Package tetex-bin has broken dep on dvipdfm Considering dvipdfm 0 as a solution to tetex-bin 0 Holding Back tetex-bin rather than change dvipdfm Investigating tetex-base Package tetex-base has broken dep on tetex-bin Considering tetex-bin 0 as a solution to tetex-base 3 Added tetex-bin to the remove list Fixing tetex-base via remove of tetex-bin dvipdfm itself has the following Dependency lines: Depends: tetex-base, libc6 (>= 2.1.97), libkpathsea3 (>= 1.0.7+2807-6), libpaperg (>= 1.0.4), libpng2, zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.3) Suggests: gs sarge's tetex-base declares a Replaces for dvipdfm (which is correct), and a Conflict with woody's tetex-bin (which is also necessary), and the new tetex-bin depends on the new tetex-base. Does anybody have an idea why apt decides "Holding Back tetex-bin rather than change dvipdfm"? tetex-bin also Replaces/Conflicts/Provides: texdoctk, and there's no problem with it. There's a similar problem with cweb, which still exists in sarge. How could I debug this? Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Re: Problems with Provides/Replaces/Conflicts
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does anybody have an idea why apt decides "Holding Back tetex-bin rather > than change dvipdfm"? It seems it's an apt bug; after I put the tetex stuff on hold and dist-upgrade the rest, it works fine. Is there yet a draft for Release Notes for sarge? TIA, Frank -- Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Problems with Provides/Replaces/Conflicts
Hi, tetex-bin previously only declared Replaces:... dvipdfm Provides: ... dvipdfm but no Conflicts. This has the effect that dvipdfm is not removed when tetex-bin is installed, and trying to remove afterwards fails because of some dpkg-divert stuff (see #269235). Note that dvipdfm does no longer exist in sarge or sid. So I thought the natural thing would be to add a Conflicts, as described in Policy, Section 7.5.2. But when testing this, the dist-upgrade from woody does no longer work, which I don't understand: bin/bash-2.05a# apt-get dist-upgrade Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done Calculating Upgrade... Starting Starting 2 Investigating libconsole Package libconsole has broken dep on console-tools-libs Considering console-tools-libs 4 as a solution to libconsole 9 Added console-tools-libs to the remove list Fixing libconsole via remove of console-tools-libs Investigating tetex-bin Or group remove for tetex-bin Package tetex-bin has broken dep on dvipdfm Considering dvipdfm 0 as a solution to tetex-bin 0 Holding Back tetex-bin rather than change dvipdfm Investigating tetex-base Package tetex-base has broken dep on tetex-bin Considering tetex-bin 0 as a solution to tetex-base 3 Added tetex-bin to the remove list Fixing tetex-base via remove of tetex-bin dvipdfm itself has the following Dependency lines: Depends: tetex-base, libc6 (>= 2.1.97), libkpathsea3 (>= 1.0.7+2807-6), libpaperg (>= 1.0.4), libpng2, zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.3) Suggests: gs sarge's tetex-base declares a Replaces for dvipdfm (which is correct), and a Conflict with woody's tetex-bin (which is also necessary), and the new tetex-bin depends on the new tetex-base. Does anybody have an idea why apt decides "Holding Back tetex-bin rather than change dvipdfm"? tetex-bin also Replaces/Conflicts/Provides: texdoctk, and there's no problem with it. There's a similar problem with cweb, which still exists in sarge. How could I debug this? Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
