Re: apt (intentionally?) brain dead?
The following packages have unmet dependencies: gconf2: Depends: gconf2-common (= 2.10.1-6) but it is not going to be installed Conflicts: libgconf2-4 ( 2.10.1-3) but 2.10.1-1 is to be installed gnome-core: Depends: bug-buddy (= 2.10.0) but 2.8.0-3 is to be installed E: Unmet dependencies. Try 'apt-get -f install' with no packages (or specify a solution). Try without --simulate, and you should see. And maybe try digging a little deeper before calling something 'brain dead'... apt could try to be a bit smarter about reporting precisely how the conflict (or uninstallable package way down in the dependency chain) arose. Among other things, that would make the job of buildd admins a lot easier :-) I concede the above example looks easy, but it's still hard to guess what package needs to be updated (or even built) from that output alone. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt (intentionally?) brain dead?
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 18:24 +0200, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 03:15:24PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 15:09 +0200, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 01:04:59PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 00:13 +0200, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote: Again: Is it brain dead software or a feature? Or what did I miss? Try without --simulate, Sure. And risk that apt will remove essential packages? ... :) Apt being removing stuff is a well-known behavior currently in unstable Debian, Without asking for confirmation first? That's news to me, definitely hasn't done that here. Ever. If you explicitly tell it not to ask first, maybe... so clearly, Michel, with all due respect: No way. :) So you don't want to see for yourself that there's no problem with apt but instead with the packages you're trying to install. Fine. Please: Read the message where I pasted apt's error messages *and* the output of my manual intervention shortly after: If you do you can see that there was no problem with the packages I was trying to install. Instead it was a problem with apt not automatically being able or willing to suggest a solution. I had to do it myself. As we've been telling you for days now, that's only because there's actually a problem with the packages you're trying to install. The only arguable problem with apt is that it doesn't seem to realize the problem itself with --simulate. This is not the right place to discuss that though. My words may have been too harsh, but I'm not sure what else to say to someone who repeatedly refuses to follow suggestions that would allow him to see the actual problem for himself but instead makes ludicrous complaints based on incorrect assumptions. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer Libre software enthusiast| http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Re: apt (intentionally?) brain dead?
Hi Michel Hi All On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 12:59:24PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 18:24 +0200, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 03:15:24PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: [ ] Please: Read the message where I pasted apt's error messages *and* the output of my manual intervention shortly after: If you do you can see that there was no problem with the packages I was trying to install. Instead it was a problem with apt not automatically being able or willing to suggest a solution. I had to do it myself. As we've been telling you for days now, that's only because there's actually a problem with the packages you're trying to install. The only arguable problem with apt is that it doesn't seem to realize the problem itself with --simulate. This is not the right place to discuss that though. My words may have been too harsh, Calling software brain dead as I did is much harsher, so please don't worry ... :) but I'm not sure what else to say to someone who repeatedly refuses to follow suggestions that would allow him to see the actual problem for himself but instead makes ludicrous complaints based on incorrect assumptions. Probably simply a misunderstanding, due to my very first message in this thread perhaps where my question possibly was not precise enough: I knew relatively well what was happening with apt as its output was verbose (tho not very helpful as I expected, perhaps). What I wanted to clarify here was whether the shown apt behavior was usual and well-known behavior in these circumstances or whether someone thought that there might be a bug with apt. The reason behind it was simply that I didn't want to write a bug report against a bug that actually is no bug, but usual and expected apt behavior. I'll try try to write more to the point next time ... :) Nice weekend, Michel Best Regards Wolfgang -- Wolfgang Pfeiffer http://profiles.yahoo.com/wolfgangpfeiffer Key ID: E3037113 Key fingerprint = A8CA 9D8C 54C4 4CC1 0B26 AA3C 9108 FB42 E303 7113 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt (intentionally?) brain dead?
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 00:13 +0200, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote: [root@ 19:04:02]# apt-get --simulate install gconf2 Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... 0% Building dependency tree... Done You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these: The following packages have unmet dependencies: gconf2: Depends: gconf2-common (= 2.10.1-6) but it is not going to be installed Conflicts: libgconf2-4 ( 2.10.1-3) but 2.10.1-1 is to be installed gnome-core: Depends: bug-buddy (= 2.10.0) but 2.8.0-3 is to be installed E: Unmet dependencies. Try 'apt-get -f install' with no packages (or specify a solution). [root@ 19:17:06]# [root@ 19:17:06]# apt-get --simulate install gconf2 bug-buddy gconf2-common libgconf2-4 Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done The following NEW packages will be installed: gconf2-common The following packages will be upgraded: bug-buddy gconf2 libgconf2-4 3 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 173 not upgraded. Inst gconf2-common (2.10.1-6 Debian:unstable) [gnome-core ] Inst libgconf2-4 [2.10.1-1] (2.10.1-6 Debian:unstable) [gnome-core ] Inst bug-buddy [2.8.0-3] (2.10.0-3 Debian:unstable) Inst gconf2 [2.10.1-1] (2.10.1-6 Debian:unstable) Conf gconf2-common (2.10.1-6 Debian:unstable) Conf libgconf2-4 (2.10.1-6 Debian:unstable) Conf bug-buddy (2.10.0-3 Debian:unstable) Conf gconf2 (2.10.1-6 Debian:unstable) [root@ 19:17:54]# Again: Is it brain dead software or a feature? Or what did I miss? Try without --simulate, and you should see. And maybe try digging a little deeper before calling something 'brain dead'... -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer Libre software enthusiast| http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Re: apt (intentionally?) brain dead?
Hi Michel Hi All On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 01:04:59PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 00:13 +0200, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote: [ ... ] Again: Is it brain dead software or a feature? Or what did I miss? Try without --simulate, Sure. And risk that apt will remove essential packages? ... :) Apt being removing stuff is a well-known behavior currently in unstable Debian, so clearly, Michel, with all due respect: No way. :) and you should see. And maybe try digging a little deeper before calling something 'brain dead'... As you wrote: something brain dead ... things usually don't have feelings ... If previously good software is behaving brain-dead we should say/write that very clearly. After all I'm on Linux, and not on Windows 98 or Mac OS X, or so ... And please think about this current apt behavior where you don't want to install just one package as mentioned, but dozens or more instead - a typical situation for someone running unstable, I believe. I'd be definitely lost if apt would tell me then to resolve the dependencies myself, and manually ... Additionally: Given the current Debian/unstable situation it's more than crucial that apt works: http://www.debian.org/releases/unstable/: sid is subject to massive changes and in-place library updates. This can result in a very unstable system which contains packages that cannot be installed due to missing libraries, dependencies that cannot be fulfilled etc. This new apt behavior isn't that new to me .. IIRC I saw it the first time about 6 or 8 weeks ago. I didn't bother much then. But as it happened again I simply want to know whether this situation - i.e. apt says it cannot install although it can do it - is part of a new feature that I missed or a bug. If it's a bug I can live with it ... for some time ... :) ... If it's a well-known feature now please let me know. Best Regards Wolfgang -- Wolfgang Pfeiffer http://profiles.yahoo.com/wolfgangpfeiffer Key ID: E3037113 Key fingerprint = A8CA 9D8C 54C4 4CC1 0B26 AA3C 9108 FB42 E303 7113 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt (intentionally?) brain dead?
Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 13.10.2005, 15:09 +0200 schrieb Wolfgang Pfeiffer: Try without --simulate, Sure. And risk that apt will remove essential packages? ... :) Apt being removing stuff is a well-known behavior currently in unstable Debian, so clearly, Michel, with all due respect: No way. :) a simple apt-get install foo will report you, which packages will be remove, new installed and upgraded and ask for permission. Only when foo ist the only package which will be installed, it starts immediately. If you use unstable it's normal that sometimes the dependencies don't match correctly and apt is unsure what to do. If you didn't like it, use stable ;-) Regards, Keywan -- Keywan Najafi Tonekaboni http://www.prometoys.net PGP Fingerprint: D5A1 A22E 3758 C9B4 57D2 3CAF EE52 1A78 C6A0 6934 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/# apt-get --purge remove dominion After unpacking world will be freed. You are about to do something potentially beneficial To continue type in the phrase 'Yes, do as We say!' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt (intentionally?) brain dead?
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 15:09 +0200, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 01:04:59PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 00:13 +0200, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote: Again: Is it brain dead software or a feature? Or what did I miss? Try without --simulate, Sure. And risk that apt will remove essential packages? ... :) Apt being removing stuff is a well-known behavior currently in unstable Debian, Without asking for confirmation first? That's news to me, definitely hasn't done that here. Ever. If you explicitly tell it not to ask first, maybe... so clearly, Michel, with all due respect: No way. :) So you don't want to see for yourself that there's no problem with apt but instead with the packages you're trying to install. Fine. But please save yourself and everybody else some precious time and spare us your pointless rants. Thanks. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer Libre software enthusiast| http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Re: apt (intentionally?) brain dead?
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 03:15:24PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 15:09 +0200, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 01:04:59PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 00:13 +0200, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote: Again: Is it brain dead software or a feature? Or what did I miss? Try without --simulate, Sure. And risk that apt will remove essential packages? ... :) Apt being removing stuff is a well-known behavior currently in unstable Debian, Without asking for confirmation first? That's news to me, definitely hasn't done that here. Ever. If you explicitly tell it not to ask first, maybe... so clearly, Michel, with all due respect: No way. :) So you don't want to see for yourself that there's no problem with apt but instead with the packages you're trying to install. Fine. Please: Read the message where I pasted apt's error messages *and* the output of my manual intervention shortly after: If you do you can see that there was no problem with the packages I was trying to install. Instead it was a problem with apt not automatically being able or willing to suggest a solution. I had to do it myself. And I repeat from my previous message, what you ignored in your response: And please think about this current apt behavior where you don't want to install just one package as mentioned, but dozens or more instead - a typical situation for someone running unstable, I believe. I'd be definitely lost if apt would tell me then to resolve the dependencies myself, and manually ... Yes, I made a grammar mistake. Instead of: And please think about this current apt behavior where you don't want to install just one package it should have said: And please think about this current apt behavior if you don't want to install just one package ['if' instead of 'where'] But you understood me in spite of it, right? And yes: Later I thought perhaps the ProblemResolver argument would have helped ... But given the probs I had the last time with apt even with this argument I doubt it would have helped. But not having tried it was a mistake. Indeed. In spite of the fact it was me who found it :) But please save yourself and everybody else some precious time and spare us your pointless rants. Thanks. [ ... ] Wow. So far I thought putting a finger to problems might help. Even if I do that without the soft words of a priest, and in spite of the technical mistakes I make. But I'm able to learn. Especially if even people like you don't see anything else than pointless rants in my postings. Regards Wolfgang -- Wolfgang Pfeiffer http://profiles.yahoo.com/wolfgangpfeiffer Key ID: E3037113 Key fingerprint = A8CA 9D8C 54C4 4CC1 0B26 AA3C 9108 FB42 E303 7113 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt (intentionally?) brain dead?
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 18:24 +0200, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote: So far I thought putting a finger to problems might help. Even if I do that without the soft words of a priest, and in spite of the technical mistakes I make. But I'm able to learn. Especially if even people like you don't see anything else than pointless rants in my postings. It may have to do with the tone you use in said postings ... Ben. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt (intentionally?) brain dead?
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 00:13 +0200, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote: Hi All Once upon, IIRC, there were times when apt did very intelligently automatically what I have to do now myself: When I tried to install a package, apt-get/aptitude calculated the dependencies on other packages for the one I wanted to install and then installed the whole bunch of packages necessary for the installation of the one i needed. It seems times have changed: Either apt/aptitude is braindead and on the brink of becoming unusable, or, alternatively, the Debian folks intentionally changed the software in a way where apt-get does not do any more what it did some time ago. In the latter case the bug (again: It's not a bug: I call it brain dead) would be an intentionally designed feature. I think it happens when the dependency triggers an upgrade of a dependent package, and that upgrade would break another package (unless you also update it). Note too sure though... Ben. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt (intentionally?) brain dead?
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 10:00:31AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 00:13 +0200, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote: Hi All Once upon, IIRC, there were times when apt did very intelligently automatically what I have to do now myself: When I tried to install a package, apt-get/aptitude calculated the dependencies on other packages for the one I wanted to install and then installed the whole bunch of packages necessary for the installation of the one i needed. It seems times have changed: Either apt/aptitude is braindead and on the brink of becoming unusable, or, alternatively, the Debian folks intentionally changed the software in a way where apt-get does not do any more what it did some time ago. In the latter case the bug (again: It's not a bug: I call it brain dead) would be an intentionally designed feature. I think it happens when the dependency triggers an upgrade of a dependent package, and that upgrade would break another package (unless you also update it). Note too sure though... In this case it may be that a package is now in the archive but certain dependencies are not yet uptodate for whatever reason. One trick is to get them manually from incoming.debian.org. The OP diddn't say but if he is following unstable, he cannot expect to have everything working at all times and must learn patience. Philippe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
