Re: update messages
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 00:17:29 +, Digby Tarvin wrote: On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 11:37:01PM +0100, Sven Arvidsson wrote: So what puzzles me is why it is no longer in 'non-free', and if it was removed because of some objection to the licensing terms, surely there should be something documenting this?? Are you quite sure it was in the official Debian archives? I can only find it in the non-free section on debian-unofficial.org, and the package name seems to match. http://ftp.debian-unofficial.org/debian/pool/non-free/x/xv/ I also found this old bug from 2001, dealing with removing xv from the archive as distribution of modified binaries is prohibited. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=98215 If so then I forgot to make a note of it, but I suppose in all the excitement of the initial install that is possible. Is there any way to check the origin of an deb archive in my /var/cache/apt/archives? You could try dpkg-deb --info /var/cache/apt/archives/name-of-the.deb As far as I know there is no standard field to denote the origin of a .deb file, but maybe you will find a clue somewhere, e.g. in the Maintainer field. You could also check if you can find the .deb on snapshot.debian.net or with a google search. -- Regards, Florian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 04:59:40PM -0600, John Hasler wrote: Digby Tarvin wrote: So what puzzles me is why it is no longer in 'non-free', and if it was removed because of some objection to the licensing terms, surely there should be something documenting this? It may have been removed simply because no one was willing to maintain it any more. That often happens when a non-free package ceases to provide any functionality not available in a Free package. -- John Hasler Its not so much the removal of a package that disturbs me - it is the apparent lack of warning or explanation. It makes me rather reluctant to upgrade if some package that I have come to rely on might unexpectedly disappear - perhaps unnoticed until it is urgently needed... Another package I just noticed is missing since my dist-upgrade is xlockmore. I searched packages.qa.debian.org and all I found was what looks like an automated logging of the fact that the package is gone - no reason or dialogue that I can see: http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xlockmore/news/20061119T233918Z.html Is there some mailing list I should be on to receive warnings about packages being considered for removal (assuming the disappearance was intentional)? Regards, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 11:56:07AM +0100, Florian Kulzer wrote: Is there any way to check the origin of an deb archive in my /var/cache/apt/archives? You could try dpkg-deb --info /var/cache/apt/archives/name-of-the.deb As far as I know there is no standard field to denote the origin of a .deb file, but maybe you will find a clue somewhere, e.g. in the Maintainer field. Here is what it says: new debian package, version 2.0. size 471666 bytes: control archive= 1534 bytes. 752 bytes,15 lines control 1300 bytes,22 lines md5sums 351 bytes,12 lines * postinst #!/bin/sh 293 bytes, 8 lines * postrm #!/bin/sh Package: xv Version: 3.10a-1duo+etch1 Section: non-free/graphics Priority: optional Architecture: i386 Depends: libc6 (= 2.3.5-1), libjpeg62, libpng12-0 (= 1.2.8rel), libtiff4, libx11-6, zlib1g (= 1:1.2.1) Suggests: xv-doc, gs Installed-Size: 1156 Maintainer: Fabian Greffrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] Description: An image viewer and manipulator for the X Window System xv is an interactive image manipulation program for the X Window System. It can operate on images in the GIF, JPEG, TIFF, PBM, PGM, PPM, XPM, X11 bitmap, Sun Rasterfile, Targa, RLE, RGB, BMP, PCX, FITS, and PM formats on all known types of X displays. It can generate PostScript files, and if you have ghostscript installed on your machine, it can also display them. Looks consistent with Debian 'non-free' to me. You could also check if you can find the .deb on snapshot.debian.net or with a google search. I have tried google, and whilest I have found the same deb package that I have (or derivatives) elsewhere, I haven't found any explanation as to why its gone - though I did find one site mirroring it because 'debian hates XV'...?? Regards, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Missing packages (was Re: update messages)
Further to the loss of 'xv', 'xearth' and 'xlock' after my recent 'apt-get dist-upgrade' of my etch system I tried adding deb http://ftp.debian-unofficial.org/debian etch main contrib non-free restricted To my '/etc/apt/sources.list', and this does give me an 'xv' package to try to install. However when I attempt to do so I get: fujitsu:/etc/apt# apt-get install xv Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable distribution that some required packages have not yet been created or been moved out of Incoming. Since you only requested a single operation it is extremely likely that the package is simply not installable and a bug report against that package should be filed. The following information may help to resolve the situation: The following packages have unmet dependencies. xv: Depends: libx11-6 but it is not going to be installed E: Broken packages Which looks reasonable enough if there is an unsatisfied dependency, but fujitsu:/etc/apt# apt-get install libx11-6 Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done libx11-6 is already the newest version. 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 14 not upgraded. Which leaves me thinking that apt-get hasn't really provided a sufficient explanation of why the installation couldn't be completed? Could it be that the message is just misleading and it really meant that libx11-6 is an incompatable version rather than simply not installed?? If it is a library version problem, then I assume the best solution is to find and install a debian source package for this application? Regards, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Sun, 2006-12-31 at 17:37 +, Digby Tarvin wrote: Here is what it says: [...] Maintainer: Fabian Greffrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] That says it all, doesn't it? I have tried google, and whilest I have found the same deb package that I have (or derivatives) elsewhere, I haven't found any explanation as to why its gone - though I did find one site mirroring it because 'debian hates XV'...?? Didn't you see my link to the bug report about the removal, in an earlier message in the thread? -- Cheers, Sven Arvidsson http://www.whiz.se PGP Key ID 760BDD22 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: update messages
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 07:31:04PM +0100, Sven Arvidsson wrote: On Sun, 2006-12-31 at 17:37 +, Digby Tarvin wrote: Here is what it says: [...] Maintainer: Fabian Greffrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] That says it all, doesn't it? Afraid the name doesn't mean anything to me. I have tried google, and whilest I have found the same deb package that I have (or derivatives) elsewhere, I haven't found any explanation as to why its gone - though I did find one site mirroring it because 'debian hates XV'...?? Didn't you see my link to the bug report about the removal, in an earlier message in the thread? Sorry, couldn't find the message you are referring to - was it posted under the same name? All I can find other than the the one I am replying to is 8113 OsL 12/28 [ 0] Sven Arvidsson (1.8K) Re: installing java (for limewire) 8142 OsL 12/28 [ 0] Sven Arvidsson (2.0K) Re: installing java (for limewire) 8212 OsL 12/29 [ 0] Sven Arvidsson (0.9K) Re: installing java (for limewire) 8271 OsL 12/29 [ 0] Sven Arvidsson (2.9K) Re: bridging eth1 to eth0 8405 NsL 12/31 [ 0] Sven Arvidsson (0.9K) Re: /dev/dsp missing 8406 NsL 12/31 [ 0] Sven Arvidsson (1.6K) Re: Looking for music player softw 8414 NsL 12/31 [ 0] Sven Arvidsson (1.6K) Re: Looking for music player softw Is there a history file/database somewhere where additions and removals from the official debian package repository are logged? Something which came back with 'removed on such and such a date for such and such a reason' would be so much more useful than a database which only mentioned packages that still existed. After all, if there is a philosophical objection to a package on some ground, removing it makes a much stronger statement if people know why it isn't there. Regards, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 05:31:59PM +, Digby Tarvin wrote: On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 04:59:40PM -0600, John Hasler wrote: Digby Tarvin wrote: So what puzzles me is why it is no longer in 'non-free', and if it was removed because of some objection to the licensing terms, surely there should be something documenting this? It may have been removed simply because no one was willing to maintain it any more. That often happens when a non-free package ceases to provide any functionality not available in a Free package. -- John Hasler Its not so much the removal of a package that disturbs me - it is the apparent lack of warning or explanation. well, since it was removed from the official repositories in 2001: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=98215 it is very unlikely that you successfully installed it from official repositories in 2006. you obviously installed it from another source. so technically, it was not Removed without notice. You have simply lost track of where it came from ;-P It makes me rather reluctant to upgrade if some package that I have come to rely on might unexpectedly disappear - perhaps unnoticed until it is urgently needed... that is the problem with using packages outside the official debian repositories. You got caught because a non-official package you were using has gotten out of sync with the official libraries that support it. best bet is to file a bug report with the group that is supplying the package. or use the source, luke. Another package I just noticed is missing since my dist-upgrade is xlockmore. I searched packages.qa.debian.org and all I found was what looks like an automated logging of the fact that the package is gone - no reason or dialogue that I can see: http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xlockmore/news/20061119T233918Z.html Is there some mailing list I should be on to receive warnings about packages being considered for removal (assuming the disappearance was intentional)? probably. or you can subscribe to DWN which will list orphan packages and removed packages as they appear. the W is currently a misnomer, but we are grateful for the issues we get... A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Missing packages (was Re: update messages)
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 06:01:39PM +, Digby Tarvin wrote: Further to the loss of 'xv', 'xearth' and 'xlock' after my recent 'apt-get dist-upgrade' of my etch system I tried adding deb http://ftp.debian-unofficial.org/debian etch main contrib non-free restricted To my '/etc/apt/sources.list', and this does give me an 'xv' package to try to install. However when I attempt to do so I get: fujitsu:/etc/apt# apt-get install xv Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable distribution that some required packages have not yet been created or been moved out of Incoming. Since you only requested a single operation it is extremely likely that the package is simply not installable and a bug report against that package should be filed. The following information may help to resolve the situation: The following packages have unmet dependencies. xv: Depends: libx11-6 but it is not going to be installed E: Broken packages Which looks reasonable enough if there is an unsatisfied dependency, but fujitsu:/etc/apt# apt-get install libx11-6 Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done libx11-6 is already the newest version. 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 14 not upgraded. Which leaves me thinking that apt-get hasn't really provided a sufficient explanation of why the installation couldn't be completed? well again, this *is* a package outside the official repositories so... Could it be that the message is just misleading and it really meant that libx11-6 is an incompatable version rather than simply not installed?? probably. use apt-cache show xv | grep Depends and compare it to apt-cache policy libx11-6 for definitive information. If it is a library version problem, then I assume the best solution is to find and install a debian source package for this application? if you can get source, then that's prbably you're best bet. A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: update messages
On Sun, 2006-12-31 at 19:11 +, Digby Tarvin wrote: On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 07:31:04PM +0100, Sven Arvidsson wrote: On Sun, 2006-12-31 at 17:37 +, Digby Tarvin wrote: Here is what it says: [...] Maintainer: Fabian Greffrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] That says it all, doesn't it? Afraid the name doesn't mean anything to me. As it's maintained by someone with an debian-unofficial.org address, I take that as an indication that it's a package from their archives, and not one from the official Debian ones. You could also look in the documentation of the package (/usr/share/doc/packagename) and see if there are any clues in changelog.Debian.gz, README.Debian etc. Sorry, couldn't find the message you are referring to - was it posted under the same name? All I can find other than the the one I am replying to is This link, http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=98215 From the bug report: It turns out that after several years including xv in the non-free archive that we are not allowed to distribute modified binaries. Is there a history file/database somewhere where additions and removals from the official debian package repository are logged? Something which came back with 'removed on such and such a date for such and such a reason' would be so much more useful than a database which only mentioned packages that still existed. After all, if there is a philosophical objection to a package on some ground, removing it makes a much stronger statement if people know why it isn't there. Packages being removed from a stable release is often mentioned in the news of the new release, see here for example. http://www.debian.org/News/2005/20050416 There's also a page here, listing software that cannot be packaged, http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package None of these are easy to find, and not really what you are looking for, so I can see why it's a bit frustrating. -- Cheers, Sven Arvidsson http://www.whiz.se PGP Key ID 760BDD22 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
xv resolved (was Re: update messages)
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 11:55:38AM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: Its not so much the removal of a package that disturbs me - it is the apparent lack of warning or explanation. well, since it was removed from the official repositories in 2001: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=98215 it is very unlikely that you successfully installed it from official repositories in 2006. you obviously installed it from another source. so technically, it was not Removed without notice. You have simply lost track of where it came from ;-P I don't remember doing it, but it looks like I must have done, so mea culpa on that one... Mind you - it still looks like xlockmore and xearth disappeared from the official packages with only an automated acknowledgement that they are gone rather than an explanation: http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xlockmore/news/20061119T233918Z.html http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xearth/news/20060610T210838Z.html And a were it not for those examples of things that had disappeared from the official packages I probably would have been less quick to jump to conclusions about xv ;) It makes me rather reluctant to upgrade if some package that I have come to rely on might unexpectedly disappear - perhaps unnoticed until it is urgently needed... that is the problem with using packages outside the official debian repositories. You got caught because a non-official package you were using has gotten out of sync with the official libraries that support it. best bet is to file a bug report with the group that is supplying the package. or use the source, luke. Don't want to sound like I am just complaining without offering anything constructive, so here is the solution I have found to obtaining xv for the current Etch system: 1. Visit http://bok.fas.harvard.edu/debian/xv/index.html and obtain: xv-3.10a.tar.gz xv-3.10a-jumbo-patches-20050501.tar.gz xv-3.10a-jumbo20050501-1.diff.gz 2. Make sure the following packages are installed xlibs-dev, dpkg-dev, libc6-dev, libtiff4-dev, libjpeg62-dev libpng-dev, zlib1g-dev, debhelper, libxt-dev 3. Follow the instructions on the URL as follows: tar -xvzf xv-3.10a.tar.gz mv xv-3.10a xv-3.10a-jumbo20050501-1 cd xv-3.10a-jumbo20050501-1 patch -p1 ../xv-3.10a-jumbo-fix-patch-20050410.txt patch -p1 ../xv-3.10a-jumbo-enh-patch-20050501.txt patch -p1 ../xv-3.10a-jumbo20050501-1.diff chmod 755 debian/rules dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -uc -b cd .. sudo dpkg -i xv_3.10a-jumbo20050501-1_i386.deb sudo dpkg -i xv-doc_3.10a-jumbo20050501-1_all.deb It would be nice if that procedure could be bundled up into a debian source package if my understanding is correct and the problem with xv was that the licence prohibits distribution of modified binaries. Perhaps it is possible - I don't know enough about debian packages to know for sure. The good thing about that is the entire dist-upgrade requirement stemmed from my needing the X development libraries, and at least this exercise has verified my ability to build X applications now :) Now to see if I can find the other two applications that I lost in the process of the upgrade... Regards, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xv resolved (was Re: update messages)
On Sun, 2006-12-31 at 21:46 +, Digby Tarvin wrote: Mind you - it still looks like xlockmore and xearth disappeared from the official packages with only an automated acknowledgement that they are gone rather than an explanation: http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xlockmore/news/20061119T233918Z.html http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xearth/news/20060610T210838Z.html And a were it not for those examples of things that had disappeared from the official packages I probably would have been less quick to jump to conclusions about xv ;) xlockmore is only removed from testing, not from the entire Debian archive. http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xlockmore.html (See the section Problems and the Check why link). xearth was removed from Debian as it was orphaned, non-free, and succeeded by xplanet. Once again, a link from packages.qa.debian.org reveals this information. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=400948 By the way, I did find this link, http://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.txt it seems to list all removed packages with corresponding bug numbers. Isn't this what you were looking for? -- Cheers, Sven Arvidsson http://www.whiz.se PGP Key ID 760BDD22 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: update messages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sven Arvidsson wrote: On Sun, 2006-12-31 at 19:11 +, Digby Tarvin wrote: On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 07:31:04PM +0100, Sven Arvidsson wrote: On Sun, 2006-12-31 at 17:37 +, Digby Tarvin wrote: Here is what it says: [...] Maintainer: Fabian Greffrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] That says it all, doesn't it? Afraid the name doesn't mean anything to me. As it's maintained by someone with an debian-unofficial.org address, I take that as an indication that it's a package from their archives, and not one from the official Debian ones. You could also look in the documentation of the package (/usr/share/doc/packagename) and see if there are any clues in changelog.Debian.gz, README.Debian etc. Sorry, couldn't find the message you are referring to - was it posted under the same name? All I can find other than the the one I am replying to is This link, http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=98215 From the bug report: It turns out that after several years including xv in the non-free archive that we are not allowed to distribute modified binaries. Is there a history file/database somewhere where additions and removals from the official debian package repository are logged? Something which came back with 'removed on such and such a date for such and such a reason' would be so much more useful than a database which only mentioned packages that still existed. After all, if there is a philosophical objection to a package on some ground, removing it makes a much stronger statement if people know why it isn't there. Packages being removed from a stable release is often mentioned in the news of the new release, see here for example. http://www.debian.org/News/2005/20050416 There's also a page here, listing software that cannot be packaged, http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package None of these are easy to find, and not really what you are looking for, so I can see why it's a bit frustrating. Most likely the only way you will get it to install is compile it yourself. The license is fairly restrictive, therefore not in debian at all. For more info and downloads, go to the official site... http://www.trilon.com/xv/ I use it, but have had to recompile from time to time to keep it working. - -- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFmEFIu4tRirKTPYwRAnbIAJsEq5hTZU8sxCcLl0qgSk+dXjcfcwCgiCAc 6XPOeYk3qrGlUOctUKkdM7o= =AOzs -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 05:31:59PM +, Digby Tarvin wrote: It makes me rather reluctant to upgrade if some package that I have come to rely on might unexpectedly disappear - perhaps unnoticed until it is urgently needed... Not to belabor the obvious, but no one seems to have pointed this out in the remainder of the thread... If you're using stable, there's no chance that a package is going to disappear from your box unless you deliberately remove it, or deliberately install something that conflicts with it and forces it off. See the definition of a stable distribution If you're using testing or unstable, implicit in that use is that you have a modicum of clue. If you have such clue, exactly how is this package going to disappear? You're actually going to be paying attention to what dselect, or apt-get, or aptitude (shudder), or synaptic, or whatever, tell you when you attempt to upgrade, and you won't give them permission to remove it. Aren't you? Another package I just noticed is missing since my dist-upgrade is xlockmore. And there's the answer. Obviously not. Noticed *since* the dist-upgrade? Why didn't you notice *before* the dist-upgrade? It's not like you weren't told. For that matter, why did you give explicit permission to remove packages by using dist-upgrade in the first place? -- Marc Wilson | The longest part of the journey is said to be the [EMAIL PROTECTED] | passing of the gate. -- Marcus Terentius Varro -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 05:05:27PM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote: On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 05:31:59PM +, Digby Tarvin wrote: It makes me rather reluctant to upgrade if some package that I have come to rely on might unexpectedly disappear - perhaps unnoticed until it is urgently needed... Not to belabor the obvious, but no one seems to have pointed this out in the remainder of the thread... If you're using stable, there's no chance that a package is going to disappear from your box unless you deliberately remove it, or deliberately install something that conflicts with it and forces it off. See the definition of a stable distribution If you're using testing or unstable, implicit in that use is that you have a modicum of clue. If you have such clue, exactly how is this package going to disappear? You're actually going to be paying attention to what dselect, or apt-get, or aptitude (shudder), or synaptic, or whatever, tell you when you attempt to upgrade, and you won't give them permission to remove it. Aren't you? Actually yes, it was covered earlier in the thread, but to re-iterate: I agree it would have been better to start with stable having had no previous Debian experience, and I did attempt to, but it wouldn't install on my Fujitsu notebook. The Debian release system is very good in theory, but the rate at which hardware changes means that stable if often not usable on new hardware :( However even if I had been able to run on stable initially, at some point the disincentive to upgrade would have become relevent because upgrading would have involved moving to a new stable release (Etch), and at that point things could apparently disappear. Another package I just noticed is missing since my dist-upgrade is xlockmore. And there's the answer. Obviously not. Noticed *since* the dist-upgrade? Why didn't you notice *before* the dist-upgrade? It's not like you weren't told. For that matter, why did you give explicit permission to remove packages by using dist-upgrade in the first place? Again, it was covered earlier - but the upgrade was because I *needed* to install the X development libraries, and the only was to satisfy the dependicies after exploring all suggested alternatives was to go with the dist-upgrade and accepting the fact that I was going to lose some packages that I needed. (apparently xorg had undergone a significant modularity change since my last upgrade). As to xlockmore - I described the situation badly. Yes, xlockmore was listed as one of the packages that had to go, but I didn't recognise it as one that I routinely used. It was afterwards that I noticed that xlock was gone and then worked out that it was part of the xlockmore package (rather than an alternative package as I had mistakenly assumed). Regards, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages (resolution)
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 05:01:30PM -0600, W Paul Mills wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 None of these are easy to find, and not really what you are looking for, so I can see why it's a bit frustrating. Most likely the only way you will get it to install is compile it yourself. The license is fairly restrictive, therefore not in debian at all. For more info and downloads, go to the official site... http://www.trilon.com/xv/ I use it, but have had to recompile from time to time to keep it working. Thanks - as per my earlier post, I have built a new debian package from source, which did the trick. Perhaps the best solution would be to have a comprehensive debian package database into which not only listed the packages in the official archive, but for those applications which for whatever reason can't be in the archive can have entries donated outlining where to find them or how to build them (or even experiences from people that have tried to get it working and failed). As another contribution (in case anyone else finds themselves looking for it in the list archives) here is my recipe for installing xearth in current Etch: 1. Download from http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xearth.html xearth_1.1-10.1.dsc xearth_1.1.orig.tar.gz xearth_1.1-10.1.diff.gz 2. tar -xvzf xearth_1.1.orig.tar.gz gunzip xearth_1.1-10.1.diff.gz cd xearth-1.1 patch -p1 ../xearth_1.1-10.1.diff chmod ugo+x debian/rules 3. edit debian/changelog and add an entry such as xearth (1.1-10.3) unstable; urgency=low * increment version number (10.1 - 10.3) to reflect recompile and avoid * conflict declaration in x11-common package -- Digby Tarvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon, 1 Jan 2007 04:33:01 + 4. dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -uc -b cd .. sudo dpkg -i xearth_1.1-10.1_i386.deb It worked for me, but please let me know if there is better way or something I should have done differently... Regards, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 07:50:34PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 02:23:27AM +, Digby Tarvin wrote: On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 05:28:55PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: And xv I havn't found at all in the packages database :-/ I can only vaguely recall xv. what is it? John Bradley's image viewer program. Probably frowned upon by Debian for being non-free, but I registered my copy years ago so I feel entitled to keep using it ;) oh yeah. not in deb. Then why is Debian trying to remove it if ti isn't a package? Could it be trying to remove another thing called xv, which I think is some X thing relating to video? -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 03:41:31PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 07:50:34PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 02:23:27AM +, Digby Tarvin wrote: On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 05:28:55PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: And xv I havn't found at all in the packages database :-/ I can only vaguely recall xv. what is it? John Bradley's image viewer program. Probably frowned upon by Debian for being non-free, but I registered my copy years ago so I feel entitled to keep using it ;) oh yeah. not in deb. Then why is Debian trying to remove it if ti isn't a package? Could it be trying to remove another thing called xv, which I think is some X thing relating to video? -- hendrik I think I may have confused matters by not knowing exactly what the 'standard' Debian terminology is. To Clarify: 1. John Bradley's xv program was in the debian archive for Etch when I installed it back in April: /var/cache/apt/archives/xv_3.10a-1duo+etch1_i386.deb 2. It is not there now. 3. When I referred to it not being in the 'package database' I meant that I didn't find any mention of its existance (or removal) in http://packages.qa.debian.org/common/index.html which is where I had found messages referring to the removal of xearth. So what puzzles me is why it is no longer in 'non-free', and if it was removed because of some objection to the licensing terms, surely there should be something documenting this?? Regards, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Sat, 2006-12-30 at 22:03 +, Digby Tarvin wrote: 1. John Bradley's xv program was in the debian archive for Etch when I installed it back in April: /var/cache/apt/archives/xv_3.10a-1duo+etch1_i386.deb 2. It is not there now. 3. When I referred to it not being in the 'package database' I meant that I didn't find any mention of its existance (or removal) in http://packages.qa.debian.org/common/index.html which is where I had found messages referring to the removal of xearth. So what puzzles me is why it is no longer in 'non-free', and if it was removed because of some objection to the licensing terms, surely there should be something documenting this?? Are you quite sure it was in the official Debian archives? I can only find it in the non-free section on debian-unofficial.org, and the package name seems to match. http://ftp.debian-unofficial.org/debian/pool/non-free/x/xv/ I also found this old bug from 2001, dealing with removing xv from the archive as distribution of modified binaries is prohibited. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=98215 -- Cheers, Sven Arvidsson http://www.whiz.se PGP Key ID 760BDD22 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: update messages
Digby Tarvin wrote: So what puzzles me is why it is no longer in 'non-free', and if it was removed because of some objection to the licensing terms, surely there should be something documenting this? It may have been removed simply because no one was willing to maintain it any more. That often happens when a non-free package ceases to provide any functionality not available in a Free package. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 11:37:01PM +0100, Sven Arvidsson wrote: So what puzzles me is why it is no longer in 'non-free', and if it was removed because of some objection to the licensing terms, surely there should be something documenting this?? Are you quite sure it was in the official Debian archives? I can only find it in the non-free section on debian-unofficial.org, and the package name seems to match. http://ftp.debian-unofficial.org/debian/pool/non-free/x/xv/ I also found this old bug from 2001, dealing with removing xv from the archive as distribution of modified binaries is prohibited. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=98215 If so then I forgot to make a note of it, but I suppose in all the excitement of the initial install that is possible. Is there any way to check the origin of an deb archive in my /var/cache/apt/archives? Regards, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 23:14:23 +, Digby Tarvin wrote: [...] I'm still stuck with the big red warning box complaining about the missing public key for multimedia.org after an update, and I'm still not clear if this is normal and expected (which would be annoying), or something specific to me (which would be worrying). If it is the former, I would have thought it would be better to just have some way of just not signing packages rather than signing with a key that can't be checked. Marillat's key is not part of the debian-archive-keyring package, therefore it is not added to apt's trusted keys automatically. You can download it from the usual public key servers or you can take it from the debian-keyring package. The latter method is more secure because the integrity of the debian-keyring package is checked by apt before installation. Once this package is installed you can run gpg --no-default-keyring --keyring /usr/share/keyrings/debian-keyring.gpg -a --export 07DC563D1F41B907 | sudo apt-key add - (The first two options make sure that the key is taken from the Debian keyring; the rest tells gpg to export the key in ASCII-armored format, which can be piped to apt-key directly.) -- Regards, Florian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On 12/28/06, Digby Tarvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] The page which I found indicating the removal of xearth from testing is http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xearth.html but it doesn't give any explanation of why, and I am not sure where to look next. Should I be fetching the unstable version? Or would it be better to just install from source and forget the debian packages for this application? Did you see this [0]? Celejar [0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=382654 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 09:47:20AM -0500, celejar wrote: On 12/28/06, Digby Tarvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] The page which I found indicating the removal of xearth from testing is http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xearth.html but it doesn't give any explanation of why, and I am not sure where to look next. Should I be fetching the unstable version? Or would it be better to just install from source and forget the debian packages for this application? Did you see this [0]? Celejar [0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=382654 Sure, but unless I am misunderstanding the debian release process, that doesn't explain why it disappeared from testing back on June 10th, but the discussion you refer to which seems to have eventually resulted in removal from unstable didn't start till August 12th... I thought package removal was supposed to start in unstable and then seep back into testing when no dependant packages remained. Regards, DigbyT P.S. The reason I prefer xearth over xplanet is that something that is just decorating my root window (and letting me know if it is night or day outside) shouldn't be too resource hungry, and: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ls -l /usr/bin/xplanet /usr/bin/X11/xearth -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 183640 2004-07-17 17:25 /usr/bin/X11/xearth -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 996396 2006-11-26 11:18 /usr/bin/xplanet -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 11:01:00AM +0100, Florian Kulzer wrote: On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 23:14:23 +, Digby Tarvin wrote: [...] I'm still stuck with the big red warning box complaining about the missing public key for multimedia.org after an update, and I'm still not clear if this is normal and expected (which would be annoying), or something specific to me (which would be worrying). If it is the former, I would have thought it would be better to just have some way of just not signing packages rather than signing with a key that can't be checked. Marillat's key is not part of the debian-archive-keyring package, therefore it is not added to apt's trusted keys automatically. You can download it from the usual public key servers or you can take it from the debian-keyring package. The latter method is more secure because the integrity of the debian-keyring package is checked by apt before installation. Once this package is installed you can run gpg --no-default-keyring --keyring /usr/share/keyrings/debian-keyring.gpg -a --export 07DC563D1F41B907 | sudo apt-key add - (The first two options make sure that the key is taken from the Debian keyring; the rest tells gpg to export the key in ASCII-armored format, which can be piped to apt-key directly.) Ah - that did it. I already had the debian-keyring package installed, but didn't realise that last step was necessary to make the required key visible to apt... Thanks, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
Digby Tarvin wrote: I am trying to get up the courage to update my debian etch system after a few months of neglecting to do so, but am dreading the thought of some mishap leaving the system unusable. The system was installed back in April, and is on a Fujitsu P7120, and aptitude produces quite a long list of things it wants to delete and upgrade, so I want to be cautious about telling it to go ahead. The first thing that gives me cause for concern is that the output resulting from a 'apt-get update' does not look very clean: Get:1 http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release.gpg [189B] Get:2 http://mirror.ox.ac.uk etch Release.gpg [378B] Hit http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release Hit http://mirror.ox.ac.uk etch Release Err http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release Get:3 http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release [5560B] Hit http://mirror.ox.ac.uk etch/main Packages Ign http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release Hit http://mirror.ox.ac.uk etch/main Sources Hit http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch/main Packages Get:4 http://security.debian.org etch/updates Release.gpg [189B] Hit http://security.debian.org etch/updates Release Hit http://security.debian.org etch/updates/main Packages Hit http://security.debian.org etch/updates/main Sources Fetched 5751B in 0s (7515B/s) Reading package lists... Done W: There are no public key available for the following key IDs: A70DAF536070D3A1 W: GPG error: http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release: The following signa tures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY 07 DC563D1F41B907 W: You may want to run apt-get update to correct these problems Are any of these messages things that should concern me? Why the 'Err', 'Ign' and 'W:' messages? My sources.list looks like this: deb http://mirror.ox.ac.uk/debian/ etch main deb-src http://mirror.ox.ac.uk/debian/ etch main deb http://security.debian.org/ etch/updates main deb-src http://security.debian.org/ etch/updates main deb http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch main The multimedia web site only mentions deb-src http://www.debian-multimedia.org sid main for sources - nothing specifically for Etch. Is it safe/desireble to add that to my sources list? I have tried adding the PGP key for the multimedia packages as per the instructions on the web site, but get: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gpg --keyserver hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net --recv-keys 1F41B907 gpg: requesting key 1F41B907 from hkp server wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net gpg: keyserver timed out gpg: keyserver receive failed: keyserver error One other thing that I am unsure about is that aptitude reports a number of packages being 'held back'. I havn't intentionally asked for this, could it have occured automatically or have I unintentionally done something when initially learning to use aptitude? So don't upgrade / dist-upgrade a running partition. Copy the partition to another one and upgrade *that* one. Then if something goes wrong you lost nothing. Hugo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 04:40:19AM +, Digby Tarvin wrote: I am trying to get up the courage to update my debian etch system after a few months of neglecting to do so, but am dreading the thought of some mishap leaving the system unusable. The system was installed back in April, and is on a Fujitsu P7120, and aptitude produces quite a long list of things it wants to delete and upgrade, so I want to be cautious about telling it to go ahead. The first thing that gives me cause for concern is that the output resulting from a 'apt-get update' does not look very clean: Get:1 http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release.gpg [189B] Get:2 http://mirror.ox.ac.uk etch Release.gpg [378B] Hit http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release Hit http://mirror.ox.ac.uk etch Release Err http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release Get:3 http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release [5560B] Hit http://mirror.ox.ac.uk etch/main Packages Ign http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release Hit http://mirror.ox.ac.uk etch/main Sources Hit http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch/main Packages Get:4 http://security.debian.org etch/updates Release.gpg [189B] Hit http://security.debian.org etch/updates Release Hit http://security.debian.org etch/updates/main Packages Hit http://security.debian.org etch/updates/main Sources Fetched 5751B in 0s (7515B/s) Reading package lists... Done W: There are no public key available for the following key IDs: A70DAF536070D3A1 W: GPG error: http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release: The following signa tures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY 07 DC563D1F41B907 W: You may want to run apt-get update to correct these problems I think Marillat is in the debian-archive-keyring now, just install that. [...] One other thing that I am unsure about is that aptitude reports a number of packages being 'held back'. I havn't intentionally asked for this, could it have occured automatically or have I unintentionally done something when initially learning to use aptitude? Hugo is right, just fully backup the partition, if it will make you feel better. The 'held-back' refers to packages which have newer versions available but can't be installed because some dependency is not available. 'Dist-upgrade' is what you need to resolve some of these. You will at some point just have to do it and be prepared for the results. Personally, I've done many very large upgrades in sid with generally no problems. ymmv. Finally, if you aren't prepared to maintain the system properly to avoid these issues, maybe you shouldn't be running a more volatile set of packages like testing and focus on stable instead. no offense intended if so perceived. A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: update messages
On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 04:40 +, Digby Tarvin wrote: I am trying to get up the courage to update my debian etch system after a few months of neglecting to do so, but am dreading the thought of some mishap leaving the system unusable. The system was installed back in April, and is on a Fujitsu P7120, and aptitude produces quite a long list of things it wants to delete and upgrade, so I want to be cautious about telling it to go ahead. The first thing that gives me cause for concern is that the output resulting from a 'apt-get update' does not look very clean: Get:1 http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release.gpg [189B] Get:2 http://mirror.ox.ac.uk etch Release.gpg [378B] Hit http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release Hit http://mirror.ox.ac.uk etch Release Err http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release Get:3 http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release [5560B] Hit http://mirror.ox.ac.uk etch/main Packages Ign http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release Hit http://mirror.ox.ac.uk etch/main Sources Hit http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch/main Packages Get:4 http://security.debian.org etch/updates Release.gpg [189B] Hit http://security.debian.org etch/updates Release Hit http://security.debian.org etch/updates/main Packages Hit http://security.debian.org etch/updates/main Sources Fetched 5751B in 0s (7515B/s) Reading package lists... Done W: There are no public key available for the following key IDs: A70DAF536070D3A1 W: GPG error: http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release: The following signa tures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY 07 DC563D1F41B907 W: You may want to run apt-get update to correct these problems Are any of these messages things that should concern me? Why the 'Err', 'Ign' and 'W:' messages? My sources.list looks like this: deb http://mirror.ox.ac.uk/debian/ etch main deb-src http://mirror.ox.ac.uk/debian/ etch main deb http://security.debian.org/ etch/updates main deb-src http://security.debian.org/ etch/updates main deb http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch main The multimedia web site only mentions deb-src http://www.debian-multimedia.org sid main for sources - nothing specifically for Etch. Is it safe/desireble to add that to my sources list? I have tried adding the PGP key for the multimedia packages as per the instructions on the web site, but get: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gpg --keyserver hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net --recv-keys 1F41B907 gpg: requesting key 1F41B907 from hkp server wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net gpg: keyserver timed out gpg: keyserver receive failed: keyserver error One other thing that I am unsure about is that aptitude reports a number of packages being 'held back'. I havn't intentionally asked for this, could it have occured automatically or have I unintentionally done something when initially learning to use aptitude? Any advice or reassurance would be appreciated. install the debian-keyring and debian-archive-keyring That should take care of your issue. Once you do that, the keys will be in place and no W: (warnings) will be around. Ign just means Ignore. Since the Release file isn't critical for now, it is no big deal. -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The technology that is Stronger, better, faster: Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: update messages
One other thing that I am unsure about is that aptitude reports a number of packages being 'held back'. I havn't intentionally asked for this, could it have occured automatically or have I unintentionally done something when initially learning to use aptitude? Hugo is right, just fully backup the partition, if it will make you feel better. The 'held-back' refers to packages which have newer versions available but can't be installed because some dependency is not available. 'Dist-upgrade' is what you need to resolve some of these. You will at some point just have to do it and be prepared for the results. Personally, I've done many very large upgrades in sid with generally no problems. ymmv. Thanks - in that case I will give it a go. Just wanted to be sure everything looked normal before letting it run. I have had problems in the past after upgrades on gentoo which has led me to be reticent about updating software in advance of actually needing some new feature... Finally, if you aren't prepared to maintain the system properly to avoid these issues, maybe you shouldn't be running a more volatile set of packages like testing and focus on stable instead. no offense intended if so perceived. Point taken, and it was my intention to stick to stable for my first Debian install, but I was forced into Etch because the Toshiba Lifebook included hardware that needed drivers not included in stable. In fact even Etch hasn't managed to get everything working - but at least it allowed me to get most of what was working under a Ubuntu live CD also working in Debian. (I can survive with microphone and modem problems, but not a non-working X server..) Can you elaborate on what you consider to be necessary to 'maintain the system properly'? I recall reading somewhere that it was considered anti-social to update with excessive frequency, but I don't recall seeing any warning that using unstable involved a commitment to a minimum upgrade frequency. Regards, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 01:04:52PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote: Reading package lists... Done W: There are no public key available for the following key IDs: A70DAF536070D3A1 W: GPG error: http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release: The following signa tures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY 07 DC563D1F41B907 W: You may want to run apt-get update to correct these problems install the debian-keyring and debian-archive-keyring That should take care of your issue. Once you do that, the keys will be in place and no W: (warnings) will be around. Thanks - that helped. But I am still being left with: Reading package lists... Done W: GPG error: http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY 07DC563D1F41B907 W: You may want to run apt-get update to correct these problems I thought perhaps the 'NO_PUBKEY' signature name might imply that this was intentional - but if that is so then presumably everyone with the multimedia stuff in their sources.list should be seeing this warning?? Ign just means Ignore. Since the Release file isn't critical for now, it is no big deal. I tried upgrading 'aptitude' with apt-get install aptitude because my version didn't quite match the html documentation I just installed and am reading through, but now when I try to run the 'u[pdate]' command it crashes out with: aptitude: symbol lookup error: aptitude: undefined symbol: _ZN9pkgPolicyD2Ev which doesn't help my confidence :-/ I'm not sure if this new error was introduced by the upgrade or by the keyring install, as I didn't try between the two actions. I suppose I could just go ahead with a dist-upgrade and hope that resolves things (on the asumption that this error was just some slipup in the dependency management). Regards, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Thu, 2006-12-28 at 19:06 +, Digby Tarvin wrote: On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 01:04:52PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote: Reading package lists... Done W: There are no public key available for the following key IDs: A70DAF536070D3A1 W: GPG error: http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release: The following signa tures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY 07 DC563D1F41B907 W: You may want to run apt-get update to correct these problems install the debian-keyring and debian-archive-keyring That should take care of your issue. Once you do that, the keys will be in place and no W: (warnings) will be around. Thanks - that helped. But I am still being left with: Reading package lists... Done W: GPG error: http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch Release: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY 07DC563D1F41B907 W: You may want to run apt-get update to correct these problems I thought perhaps the 'NO_PUBKEY' signature name might imply that this was intentional - but if that is so then presumably everyone with the multimedia stuff in their sources.list should be seeing this warning?? Ign just means Ignore. Since the Release file isn't critical for now, it is no big deal. I tried upgrading 'aptitude' with apt-get install aptitude because my version didn't quite match the html documentation I just installed and am reading through, but now when I try to run the 'u[pdate]' command it crashes out with: aptitude: symbol lookup error: aptitude: undefined symbol: _ZN9pkgPolicyD2Ev which doesn't help my confidence :-/ I'm not sure if this new error was introduced by the upgrade or by the keyring install, as I didn't try between the two actions. I suppose I could just go ahead with a dist-upgrade and hope that resolves things (on the asumption that this error was just some slipup in the dependency management). http://www.debian-multimedia.org/faq.html Also, I literally hate aptitude. I'd rather use apt-get period. For me I do apt-get update apt-get -u dist-upgrade everyday, using Sid. -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The technology that is Stronger, better, faster: Linux signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: update messages
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 06:44:38PM +, Digby Tarvin wrote: Thanks - in that case I will give it a go. Just wanted to be sure everything looked normal before letting it run. your caution is justified, don't get me wrong. I have had problems in the past after upgrades on gentoo which has led me to be reticent about updating software in advance of actually needing some new feature... I have not used any distro but debian and can't speak to how it holds up against others, but I do know... I have made some massive upgrades in sid (like 300+ packages) with no real problems. Finally, if you aren't prepared to maintain the system properly to avoid these issues, maybe you shouldn't be running a more volatile set of packages like testing and focus on stable instead. no offense intended if so perceived. Point taken, and it was my intention to stick to stable for my first Debian install, but I was forced into Etch because the Toshiba Lifebook included hardware that needed drivers not included in stable. In fact even Etch hasn't managed to get everything working - but at least it allowed me to get most of what was working under a Ubuntu live CD also working in Debian. (I can survive with microphone and modem problems, but not a non-working X server..) fair enough. and as I said, I truly meant no offense. You have to use what works for you. Can you elaborate on what you consider to be necessary to 'maintain the system properly'? I recall reading somewhere that it was considered anti-social to update with excessive frequency, but I don't recall seeing any warning that using unstable involved a commitment to a minimum upgrade frequency. testing, when its churning heavily post-release, and sid all the time, have large numbers of packages upgraded quite regularly. If you aren't upgrading regularly, you will quickly have a large number of packages to upgrade, which can certainly be scary. For example, I upgrade pretty often (maybe twice a week) and my last upgrade was about4 or 5 days ago (I think): I currently have 150 packages to upgrade (sid). It doesn't take long to get a real backlog. I don't think its anti-social to regularly upgrade your system. It is anti-social to gratuitously download stuff and throw it away to download it again. To spread the load, I use cron-apt to download packages overnight (when, at least theortically, the load is lower) on a nightly basis. This means that I get a few packages a night which spread *MY* impact over several days. This is as opposed to waiting for several days and hammering the server by downloading 150 packages at once. You are right, there is certainly no committment with any system to any sort of upgrade frequency nor, frankly, any other committment at all :). If one is running a more volatile system, then one must be prepared to face a massive upgrade if one chooses to upgrade the system at all. And, one must be prepared to handle a massive upgrade at some point in the future as a result of just installing a package as that package's dependencies may have moved so far as to force the massive upgrade. Maintaining a system properly is, of course, subjective. If you use a volatile system and don't regularly upgrade, then you will have to face a massive upgrade and be prepared for the consequences. I bet those consequences are minimal at this time. My choice of words was unfortunate. I should have said something like if you aren't prepared to handle the massive upgrades involved in a more volatile system, maybe you should be running a less volatile one. And I was definitely feeling a bit ornery this morning, so I apologise if I came off wrong. Regards, likewise A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: update messages
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 02:42:13PM -0500, Greg Folkert wrote: http://www.debian-multimedia.org/faq.html Actually I had read through that FAQ - that was where I got the (non-working) instructions on obtaining the PGP key for validating the multimedia signatures.. What was it you were trying to draw my attention to? It does say that 'apt-check-sigs' only works with apt-get 0.5.x, but I have never knowingly used 'apt-check-sigs' so didn't worry about that... Also, I literally hate aptitude. I'd rather use apt-get period. For me I do apt-get update apt-get -u dist-upgrade everyday, using Sid. Not really familiar enough to comment on their respective merits. I did see a comment from someone else recently indicating that they preferred to avoid 'apt-get install' because it gets the aptitude database out of sync. Anyway, I assume that either tool should be able to be made to work, and I should learn to use both before deciding to write one of them off :) Regards, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 11:36:10AM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: Maintaining a system properly is, of course, subjective. If you use a volatile system and don't regularly upgrade, then you will have to face a massive upgrade and be prepared for the consequences. I bet those consequences are minimal at this time. My choice of words was unfortunate. I should have said something like if you aren't prepared to handle the massive upgrades involved in a more volatile system, maybe you should be running a less volatile one. I think that rather than letting aptitude loose to do everything it wants in one fell swoop, it might be more conservative to start with an apt-get update apt-get upgrade to get the easier updates done first, and then if that goes well follow up with a hopefully smaller apt-get dist-upgrade to deal with the remainder in a separate run. Then I can try running aptitude and hopefully it will have stopped crashing and can tell me what else it thinks is left to be done One of the things that bothered me about what aptitude wanted to do was that it included several packages it threatened to remove because they were 'no longer used'. I don't know how it decided this, as the list included packages like 'xv' and 'xearth' which I explicitly installed and definately use quite regularly Regards, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 08:40:41PM +, Digby Tarvin wrote: I think that rather than letting aptitude loose to do everything it wants in one fell swoop, it might be more conservative to start with an apt-get update apt-get upgrade as you know, running apt-get and aptitude can cause a database to get out of sync... but your plan is not without merit. If you have previously used aptitude exclusively, you can do the same thing as above but s/apt-get/aptitude/g. aptitude update aptitude upgrade will give you the same behavior as apt-get... to get the easier updates done first, and then if that goes well follow up with a hopefully smaller apt-get dist-upgrade to deal with the remainder in a separate run. and then follow up with aptitude dist-upgrade Then I can try running aptitude and hopefully it will have stopped crashing and can tell me what else it thinks is left to be done I missed the bit about it crashing. what's happening? One of the things that bothered me about what aptitude wanted to do was that it included several packages it threatened to remove because they were 'no longer used'. I don't know how it decided this, as the list included packages like 'xv' and 'xearth' which I explicitly installed and definately use quite regularly run aptitude in interactive mode and manually mark those packages: aptitude then 'u' to update, 'U' to mark for upgrade, then 'g' to see what it want to do. scroll through and mark 'm' on those you want to keep, which should mark them as manually installed. you may need to '+' them as well, to keep them around. I have not been using aptitude long (having used apt-get exclusively before), but am learning that you can actually get it to do what *you* want with a little fiddling. Then it will generally respect what you want... good luck A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: update messages
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 01:02:25PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: as you know, running apt-get and aptitude can cause a database to get out of sync... Actually I have only recently become aware of this. I had previously just thought of aptitude as a menu based front end for apt, so I tended to use 'apt-get install' when I knew exactly what I wanted, and 'aptitude' when I needed to browse or couldn't remember the command to do something :-/ but your plan is not without merit. If you have previously used aptitude exclusively, you can do the same thing as above but s/apt-get/aptitude/g. aptitude update aptitude upgrade will give you the same behavior as apt-get... Ah, thanks. That is worth knowing. to get the easier updates done first, and then if that goes well follow up with a hopefully smaller apt-get dist-upgrade to deal with the remainder in a separate run. and then follow up with aptitude dist-upgrade Is that last line what is needed to get aptitude back into sync? If not, how is that achieved? Then I can try running aptitude and hopefully it will have stopped crashing and can tell me what else it thinks is left to be done I missed the bit about it crashing. what's happening? It only started happening after I had tried an 'apt-get install aptitude' to upgrade to the latest version (and co-incidentally after I had done the 'apt-get install' of the pgp keyring - so I am not certain which was responsible). What happens now is that after any attempt to issue a 'u' command in aptitude, I get an abort leaving me back in the command line (with a garbled display) and the error message: aptitude: symbol lookup error: aptitude: undefined symbol: _ZN9pkgPolicyD2Ev One of the things that bothered me about what aptitude wanted to do was that it included several packages it threatened to remove because they were 'no longer used'. I don't know how it decided this, as the list included packages like 'xv' and 'xearth' which I explicitly installed and definately use quite regularly run aptitude in interactive mode and manually mark those packages: aptitude then 'u' to update, 'U' to mark for upgrade, then 'g' to see what it want to do. scroll through and mark 'm' on those you want to keep, which should mark them as manually installed. you may need to '+' them as well, to keep them around. I have not been using aptitude long (having used apt-get exclusively before), but am learning that you can actually get it to do what *you* want with a little fiddling. Then it will generally respect what you want... So this behaviour could be the result of my having installed some applications using 'apt-get install' rather than aptitude, leaving aptitude unaware of them being manual rather than automatic installs? That would explain things. Thanks for the advice. Regards, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 09:33:10PM +, Digby Tarvin wrote: On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 01:02:25PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: and then follow up with aptitude dist-upgrade Is that last line what is needed to get aptitude back into sync? If not, how is that achieved? no, it won't. there are a variety of ways to do this. I prefer the method below where you watch for problems and fix them as they appear. There are several threads on this int he recent archives that detail other methods of solving this problem (I think they essentially mark *everything* as manual). Then I can try running aptitude and hopefully it will have stopped crashing and can tell me what else it thinks is left to be done I missed the bit about it crashing. what's happening? It only started happening after I had tried an 'apt-get install aptitude' to upgrade to the latest version (and co-incidentally after I had done the 'apt-get install' of the pgp keyring - so I am not certain which was responsible). What happens now is that after any attempt to issue a 'u' command in aptitude, I get an abort leaving me back in the command line (with a garbled display) and the error message: aptitude: symbol lookup error: aptitude: undefined symbol: _ZN9pkgPolicyD2Ev yuck. that sounds like a bug. does it do the same from command line? aptitude update One of the things that bothered me about what aptitude wanted to do was that it included several packages it threatened to remove because they were 'no longer used'. I don't know how it decided this, as the list included packages like 'xv' and 'xearth' which I explicitly installed and definately use quite regularly run aptitude in interactive mode and manually mark those packages: aptitude then 'u' to update, 'U' to mark for upgrade, then 'g' to see what it want to do. scroll through and mark 'm' on those you want to keep, which should mark them as manually installed. you may need to '+' them as well, to keep them around. I have not been using aptitude long (having used apt-get exclusively before), but am learning that you can actually get it to do what *you* want with a little fiddling. Then it will generally respect what you want... So this behaviour could be the result of my having installed some applications using 'apt-get install' rather than aptitude, leaving aptitude unaware of them being manual rather than automatic installs? That would explain things. absolutely correct. keep on pluggin' away A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: update messages
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 02:45:56PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: Is that last line what is needed to get aptitude back into sync? If not, how is that achieved? no, it won't. there are a variety of ways to do this. I prefer the method below where you watch for problems and fix them as they appear. There are several threads on this int he recent archives that detail other methods of solving this problem (I think they essentially mark *everything* as manual). Ah, ok. I'll guess I will just have to keep an eye on what aptitude says it wants to do and intervene if it isn't what I want... I think it was my initial ignorance of the problems of mixing apt-get and aptitude that lead to my initial inability to understand why aptitude wanted to do what it threatened to do, so I am glad I asked... Then I can try running aptitude and hopefully it will have stopped crashing and can tell me what else it thinks is left to be done I missed the bit about it crashing. what's happening? It only started happening after I had tried an 'apt-get install aptitude' to upgrade to the latest version (and co-incidentally after I had done the 'apt-get install' of the pgp keyring - so I am not certain which was responsible). What happens now is that after any attempt to issue a 'u' command in aptitude, I get an abort leaving me back in the command line (with a garbled display) and the error message: aptitude: symbol lookup error: aptitude: undefined symbol: _ZN9pkgPolicyD2Ev yuck. that sounds like a bug. does it do the same from command line? aptitude update Not sure, but the 'apt-get upgrade' which just finished seems to have fixed it - whew!. I'm still stuck with the big red warning box complaining about the missing public key for multimedia.org after an update, and I'm still not clear if this is normal and expected (which would be annoying), or something specific to me (which would be worrying). If it is the former, I would have thought it would be better to just have some way of just not signing packages rather than signing with a key that can't be checked. Anway, guess its time to hold my breath and see if the system still boots after the initial upgrade... Thanks, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
Digby Tarvin wrote: What happens now is that after any attempt to issue a 'u' command in aptitude, I get an abort leaving me back in the command line (with a garbled display) and the error message: aptitude: symbol lookup error: aptitude: undefined symbol: _ZN9pkgPolicyD2Ev http://bugs.debian.org/397306 As it notes, this can be fixed by upgrading to a current version of apt. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: update messages
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 11:14:23PM +, Digby Tarvin wrote: On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 02:45:56PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: Is that last line what is needed to get aptitude back into sync? If not, how is that achieved? no, it won't. there are a variety of ways to do this. I prefer the method below where you watch for problems and fix them as they appear. There are several threads on this int he recent archives that detail other methods of solving this problem (I think they essentially mark *everything* as manual). Ah, ok. I'll guess I will just have to keep an eye on what aptitude says it wants to do and intervene if it isn't what I want... I think it was my initial ignorance of the problems of mixing apt-get and aptitude that lead to my initial inability to understand why aptitude wanted to do what it threatened to do, so I am glad I asked... seems to be a common problem. Then I can try running aptitude and hopefully it will have stopped crashing and can tell me what else it thinks is left to be done I missed the bit about it crashing. what's happening? It only started happening after I had tried an 'apt-get install aptitude' to upgrade to the latest version (and co-incidentally after I had done the 'apt-get install' of the pgp keyring - so I am not certain which was responsible). What happens now is that after any attempt to issue a 'u' command in aptitude, I get an abort leaving me back in the command line (with a garbled display) and the error message: aptitude: symbol lookup error: aptitude: undefined symbol: _ZN9pkgPolicyD2Ev yuck. that sounds like a bug. does it do the same from command line? aptitude update Not sure, but the 'apt-get upgrade' which just finished seems to have fixed it - whew!. see Joey's message. yay! one down! I'm still stuck with the big red warning box complaining about the missing public key for multimedia.org after an update, and I'm still not clear if this is normal and expected (which would be annoying), or something specific to me (which would be worrying). If it is the former, I would have thought it would be better to just have some way of just not signing packages rather than signing with a key that can't be checked. so this is really a minor problem. basically, it prevents you from knowing for sure that you're getting the right, uncorrupted packages. you can solve this problem later. Anway, guess its time to hold my breath and see if the system still boots after the initial upgrade... go baby go! A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: update messages
One of the things that bothered me about what aptitude wanted to do was that it included several packages it threatened to remove because they were 'no longer used'. I don't know how it decided this, as the list included packages like 'xv' and 'xearth' which I explicitly installed and definately use quite regularly run aptitude in interactive mode and manually mark those packages: aptitude then 'u' to update, 'U' to mark for upgrade, then 'g' to see what it want to do. scroll through and mark 'm' on those you want to keep, which should mark them as manually installed. you may need to '+' them as well, to keep them around. I have not been using aptitude long (having used apt-get exclusively before), but am learning that you can actually get it to do what *you* want with a little fiddling. Then it will generally respect what you want... So this behaviour could be the result of my having installed some applications using 'apt-get install' rather than aptitude, leaving aptitude unaware of them being manual rather than automatic installs? That would explain things. absolutely correct. keep on pluggin' away It seems I am not out of the woods yet. I just tried executing apt-get install libx11-dev which is the package I needed to install in the first place when I got distracted onto upgrading my system.. Amoungst the actions it threatened to do was: The following packages will be REMOVED gnome gnome-core gnome-desktop-environment gnome-doc-utils gnome-office lbxproxy libapache2-mod-php4 libapache2-mod-python proxymngr python-libxml2 python-newt python2.3-imaging-tk python2.3-tk skencil sketch totem x-window-system xdm xearth xfs xfwp xlibs xlibs-data xlockmore-gl xprint xserver-common xv xvfb yelp I was again disturbed by the threatened removal of some applications I know I regularly use (such as xearth, xv and totem), so I did some digging starting with 'xearth', and it seems that package has been removed from testing (but not stable or unstable) and the version I had installed (1.1-10.1) requires xbase 3.3.2.3a-2 which presumably conflicts with other packages which are required for for the libx11-dev package.. The page which I found indicating the removal of xearth from testing is http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xearth.html but it doesn't give any explanation of why, and I am not sure where to look next. Should I be fetching the unstable version? Or would it be better to just install from source and forget the debian packages for this application? Not sure about the other packages - totem for example appears to have a newer version available, so I don't understand why the threat to delete it. And xv I havn't found at all in the packages database :-/ Regards, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 01:04:24AM +, Digby Tarvin wrote: One of the things that bothered me about what aptitude wanted to do was that it included several packages it threatened to remove because they were 'no longer used'. I don't know how it decided this, as the list included packages like 'xv' and 'xearth' which I explicitly installed and definately use quite regularly run aptitude in interactive mode and manually mark those packages: aptitude then 'u' to update, 'U' to mark for upgrade, then 'g' to see what it want to do. scroll through and mark 'm' on those you want to keep, which should mark them as manually installed. you may need to '+' them as well, to keep them around. I have not been using aptitude long (having used apt-get exclusively before), but am learning that you can actually get it to do what *you* want with a little fiddling. Then it will generally respect what you want... So this behaviour could be the result of my having installed some applications using 'apt-get install' rather than aptitude, leaving aptitude unaware of them being manual rather than automatic installs? That would explain things. absolutely correct. keep on pluggin' away It seems I am not out of the woods yet. I just tried executing apt-get install libx11-dev which is the package I needed to install in the first place when I got distracted onto upgrading my system.. was this before or after a successful upgrade? Amoungst the actions it threatened to do was: The following packages will be REMOVED gnome gnome-core gnome-desktop-environment gnome-doc-utils gnome-office lbxproxy libapache2-mod-php4 libapache2-mod-python proxymngr python-libxml2 python-newt python2.3-imaging-tk python2.3-tk skencil sketch totem x-window-system xdm xearth xfs xfwp xlibs xlibs-data xlockmore-gl xprint xserver-common xv xvfb yelp you're losing all of X here. that's not good. are you running xorg or xfree86 still? there was a transition, to xorg, did you miss it? maybe the transition packages have already been pulled? you may have to go in and mark xorg for installation. I was again disturbed by the threatened removal of some applications I know I regularly use (such as xearth, xv and totem), so I did some digging starting with 'xearth', and it seems that package has been removed from testing (but not stable or unstable) and the version I had installed (1.1-10.1) requires xbase 3.3.2.3a-2 which presumably conflicts with other packages which are required for for the libx11-dev package.. The page which I found indicating the removal of xearth from testing is http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xearth.html but it doesn't give any explanation of why, and I am not sure where to look next. Should I be fetching the unstable version? Or would it be better to just install from source and forget the debian packages for this application? well, its probably got bugs that prevent it from being included in etch. With etch frozen, I imagine you're sol for using it when etch goes stable, so you'll either have to backport it from sid or install from source. Either way, you'll probably have to let that one go. Not sure about the other packages - totem for example appears to have a newer version available, so I don't understand why the threat to delete it. I believe totem depends on gnome which you are losing altogether above. And xv I havn't found at all in the packages database :-/ I can only vaguely recall xv. what is it? A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: update messages
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 05:28:55PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: It seems I am not out of the woods yet. I just tried executing apt-get install libx11-dev which is the package I needed to install in the first place when I got distracted onto upgrading my system.. was this before or after a successful upgrade? After a successful upgrade, but I haven't yet attempted a 'dist-upgrade'.. Amoungst the actions it threatened to do was: The following packages will be REMOVED gnome gnome-core gnome-desktop-environment gnome-doc-utils gnome-office lbxproxy libapache2-mod-php4 libapache2-mod-python proxymngr python-libxml2 python-newt python2.3-imaging-tk python2.3-tk skencil sketch totem x-window-system xdm xearth xfs xfwp xlibs xlibs-data xlockmore-gl xprint xserver-common xv xvfb yelp you're losing all of X here. that's not good. are you running xorg or xfree86 still? there was a transition, to xorg, did you miss it? maybe the transition packages have already been pulled? you may have to go in and mark xorg for installation. aptitude shows: xserver-xorg 6.9.0.dfsg.1-6 as being installed, and isn't one of the packages listed for removal (but is listed for upgrade) There is quite a list of new packages to be installed - perhaps too much to post to the list. Here is a sample: The following NEW packages will be installed cdrdao epiphany-browser evolution-common evolution-data-server-common gnome-cards-data gnome-media-common gtk2-engines industrial-cursor-theme libavcodec0d libcamel1.2-8 libdbus-1-3 libdrm2 libecal1.2-6 libedata-cal1.2-5 libedataserver1.2-7 libegroupwise1.2-10 libexchange-storage1.2-1 libfontenc1 libglu1-mesa libgnome-media0 libgnome-window-settings1 libgnutls13 libgtop2-7 libgtop2-common libnautilus-burn3 libnm-glib0 libpisock9 libpostproc0d libtasn1-3 libtotem-plparser1 libx11-data libx11-dev libxau-dev libxdmcp-dev libxext-dev libxfont1 python-central python-gnome2-desktop python-pyorbit python-support type-handling wodim x11proto-core-dev x11proto-input-dev x11proto-kb-dev x11proto-xext-dev xbitmaps xfonts-encodings xfonts-utils xkb-data xserver-xorg-core xserver-xorg-input-all xserver-xorg-input-evdev xserver-xorg-input-kbd xserver-xorg-input-mouse xserver-xorg-input-synaptics xserver-xorg-input-wacom xserver-xorg-video-all xserver-xorg-video-apm the rest are all xserver-xorg-... I was again disturbed by the threatened removal of some applications I know I regularly use (such as xearth, xv and totem), so I did some digging starting with 'xearth', and it seems that package has been removed from testing (but not stable or unstable) and the version I had installed (1.1-10.1) requires xbase 3.3.2.3a-2 which presumably conflicts with other packages which are required for for the libx11-dev package.. The page which I found indicating the removal of xearth from testing is http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xearth.html but it doesn't give any explanation of why, and I am not sure where to look next. Should I be fetching the unstable version? Or would it be better to just install from source and forget the debian packages for this application? well, its probably got bugs that prevent it from being included in etch. With etch frozen, I imagine you're sol for using it when etch goes stable, so you'll either have to backport it from sid or install from source. Either way, you'll probably have to let that one go. I suppose my own build from source with static libraries in /usr/local/bin should prevent future problems with it for some time. Not sure about the other packages - totem for example appears to have a newer version available, so I don't understand why the threat to delete it. I believe totem depends on gnome which you are losing altogether above. I don't really understand what is happening with gnome. I do seem to be getting some gnome related packages added and upgraded... And xv I havn't found at all in the packages database :-/ I can only vaguely recall xv. what is it? John Bradley's image viewer program. Probably frowned upon by Debian for being non-free, but I registered my copy years ago so I feel entitled to keep using it ;) Regards, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
etch upgrade problems (was Re: update messages)
I'm now trying to work out why apt-get install libx11-dev results in apt wanting to delete a large number of X related packages... I noted that 'gnome' was one of the packages to be removed rather then upgraded to the latest version, so I tried to force an upgrade to see if there was some impediment to that: apt-get install gnome This produces the output: fujitsu:/var/log# apt-get install gnome Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable distribution that some required packages have not yet been created or been moved out of Incoming. Since you only requested a single operation it is extremely likely that the package is simply not installable and a bug report against that package should be filed. The following information may help to resolve the situation: The following packages have unmet dependencies. gnome: Depends: gnome-desktop-environment (= 1:2.14.3.3) but it is not going to be installed Depends: gnome-office (= 1:2.14.3.3) but it is not going to be installed E: Broken packages I then repeated this for gnome-desktop-environment to find out why it is 'not going to be installed', and that produced: The following packages have unmet dependencies. gnome-desktop-environment: Depends: gnome-core (= 1:2.14.3.3) but it is not going to be installed Depends: nautilus-cd-burner (= 2.14.3) but it is not going to be installed Depends: fast-user-switch-applet (= 2.14.2) but it is not going to be installed E: Broken packages Next I try one of those dependencies (gnome-core) and get: The following packages have unmet dependencies. gnome-core: Depends: bug-buddy (= 2.12.1) but it is not going to be installed Depends: eog (= 2.14.3) but it is not going to be installed Depends: gedit (= 2.14.4) but it is not going to be installed Depends: gnome-applets (= 2.14.3) but it is not going to be installed Depends: gnome-control-center (= 1:2.14.2) but it is not going to be installed Depends: gnome-menus (= 2.14.3) but it is not going to be installed Depends: gnome-panel (= 2.14.3) but it is not going to be installed Depends: gnome-session (= 2.14.3) but it is not going to be installed Depends: gnome-terminal (= 2.14.2) but it is not going to be installed Depends: nautilus (= 2.14.3) but it is not going to be installed Depends: yelp (= 2.14.3) but it is not going to be installed E: Broken packages And finally: fujitsu:/var/log# apt-get install gnome-session Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done gnome-session is already the newest version. 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 507 not upgraded. So does anyone have any idea why 'gnome-session' is a problem dependency for gnome-core (saying it is not going to be installed), when the lastest version (2.14.3-3) is already installed ??? I really can't follow what apt is complaining about here - are there any gurus out there that can explain why I can't upgrade to the latest gnome?? Regards, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 02:23:27AM +, Digby Tarvin wrote: On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 05:28:55PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: It seems I am not out of the woods yet. I just tried executing apt-get install libx11-dev which is the package I needed to install in the first place when I got distracted onto upgrading my system.. was this before or after a successful upgrade? After a successful upgrade, but I haven't yet attempted a 'dist-upgrade'.. you might do that and see what it says. Amoungst the actions it threatened to do was: The following packages will be REMOVED gnome gnome-core gnome-desktop-environment gnome-doc-utils gnome-office lbxproxy libapache2-mod-php4 libapache2-mod-python proxymngr python-libxml2 python-newt python2.3-imaging-tk python2.3-tk skencil sketch totem x-window-system xdm xearth xfs xfwp xlibs xlibs-data xlockmore-gl xprint xserver-common xv xvfb yelp you're losing all of X here. that's not good. are you running xorg or xfree86 still? there was a transition, to xorg, did you miss it? maybe the transition packages have already been pulled? you may have to go in and mark xorg for installation. aptitude shows: xserver-xorg 6.9.0.dfsg.1-6 as being installed, and isn't one of the packages listed for removal (but is listed for upgrade) xorg is trying to go to 7.x, this is a big move, IIRC. There is quite a list of new packages to be installed - perhaps too much to post to the list. Here is a sample: The following NEW packages will be installed cdrdao epiphany-browser evolution-common evolution-data-server-common gnome-cards-data gnome-media-common gtk2-engines industrial-cursor-theme libavcodec0d libcamel1.2-8 libdbus-1-3 libdrm2 libecal1.2-6 libedata-cal1.2-5 libedataserver1.2-7 libegroupwise1.2-10 libexchange-storage1.2-1 libfontenc1 libglu1-mesa libgnome-media0 libgnome-window-settings1 libgnutls13 libgtop2-7 libgtop2-common libnautilus-burn3 libnm-glib0 libpisock9 libpostproc0d libtasn1-3 libtotem-plparser1 libx11-data libx11-dev libxau-dev libxdmcp-dev libxext-dev libxfont1 python-central python-gnome2-desktop python-pyorbit python-support type-handling wodim x11proto-core-dev x11proto-input-dev x11proto-kb-dev x11proto-xext-dev xbitmaps xfonts-encodings xfonts-utils xkb-data xserver-xorg-core xserver-xorg-input-all xserver-xorg-input-evdev xserver-xorg-input-kbd xserver-xorg-input-mouse xserver-xorg-input-synaptics xserver-xorg-input-wacom xserver-xorg-video-all xserver-xorg-video-apm the rest are all xserver-xorg-... its trying to install xorg, but to that it has to remove the older x. That means's its probably going to try to pull all its dependent packages out with it. I suggest you go back into aptitude insteractive mode and try to manually sort this out. -OR- you could bite the bullet and let it do what it wants, and then reinstall all of gnome again when its done. I was again disturbed by the threatened removal of some applications I know I regularly use (such as xearth, xv and totem), so I did some digging starting with 'xearth', and it seems that package has been removed from testing (but not stable or unstable) and the version I had installed (1.1-10.1) requires xbase 3.3.2.3a-2 which presumably conflicts with other packages which are required for for the libx11-dev package.. The page which I found indicating the removal of xearth from testing is http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xearth.html but it doesn't give any explanation of why, and I am not sure where to look next. Should I be fetching the unstable version? Or would it be better to just install from source and forget the debian packages for this application? well, its probably got bugs that prevent it from being included in etch. With etch frozen, I imagine you're sol for using it when etch goes stable, so you'll either have to backport it from sid or install from source. Either way, you'll probably have to let that one go. I suppose my own build from source with static libraries in /usr/local/bin should prevent future problems with it for some time. Not sure about the other packages - totem for example appears to have a newer version available, so I don't understand why the threat to delete it. I believe totem depends on gnome which you are losing altogether above. I don't really understand what is happening with gnome. I do seem to be getting some gnome related packages added and upgraded... I think its because of the xorg transition you're seeing this happen. go into interactive aptitude and move up the chain to some gnome metapackage and try to '+' it. And xv I havn't found at all in the packages database :-/ I can only vaguely recall xv. what is it? John Bradley's image viewer
Re: update messages
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 07:50:34PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: was this before or after a successful upgrade? After a successful upgrade, but I haven't yet attempted a 'dist-upgrade'.. you might do that and see what it says. I was trying to find a way to ease into the dist-upgrade by explicitly upgrading a few of the more problematic packages explicitly... But it is looking like I might just have to let it run and see what happens. I'm doing a full backup now in preparation, so it will probably be tomorrow before that and the dist-upgrade attempt are all done... Thanks for the advice. I'll let you know what the result it. Regards, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: update messages
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 04:40:19AM +, Digby Tarvin wrote: One other thing that I am unsure about is that aptitude reports a number of packages being 'held back'. I havn't intentionally asked for this, could it have occured automatically or have I unintentionally done something when initially learning to use aptitude? You probably just need to 'dist-upgrade' Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
