Re: [joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr: Bug#68389: [nrounds@haverford.edu: Re: Bug#68389 acknowledged by developer (fixed with -7)]]
Nathaniel, you are right -- reporting a bug against -10 and hearing it is fixed in -7 is a little strange. WRT your error message, I have approached similar problems in the past by using dpkg directly on the apt-downloaded .deb packages, using the --force-overwrite option. The problem isn't the actual presence of a file there -- it is two packages that claim to own the file. My guess says your collection of packages may have the xconsole.real package moving around from one package to the next between upgrades. I don't know how well apt and/or dpkg would handle these situations. (BTW -- when using apt to upgrade from slink to potato, using dist-upgrade instead of just upgrade may take care of some of these issues... ) I hope this helps explain things. I don't know for sure what happened in your case, but usually force-overwrite does the right thing. :) * Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001130 11:47]: - Forwarded message from Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Zdenek Kabelac [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Bug#68389: [[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Bug#68389 acknowledged by developer (fixed with -7)] Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:24:31 +0100 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-From: Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Cc: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:33:11 GMT Resent-Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Debian-PR-Message: report 68389 X-Debian-PR-Package: xbase-clients X-Debian-PR-Keywords: X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Forwarded message from Nathaniel Rounds [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Delivery-date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:01:36 +0100 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:03:39 -0500 (EST) From: Nathaniel Rounds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bug#68389 acknowledged by developer (fixed with -7) I assume that this email is going to a real person Hi. I am glad to hear that someone has looked at the bug report that I sent in, but I can't say that I particularly understood the attached explaination. Here's my dilemia: I had trouble updating xbase-client, and thus the bulk of x-window software from slink to potato. When potato became the stable debain release, I figured I'd better upgrade, but I held the slink versions of xbase-client and the various x-window applications which depend ot it and upgraded the rest of my system. So here is my problem: if I install the potato versions and they still don't work, I won't have the slink versions to go back to (I don't think I can get them from debian anymore) and so I will be left without a working x-window. No fun. Perhaps if you (and by you I mean Darren Benham, his associates, or any wise unix guru who runs accross my email) could explain exactly what the developer did in closing my bug report (#68389), I could figure out if I can upgrade with minimal fear of hosing my system. Thanks a lot, Nathaniel Rounds [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report #68389: xbase-clients: package preinst needs to get rid of xconsole alternative, which was filed against the xbase-clients package. It has been closed by one of the developers, namely Zdenek Kabelac [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Their explanation is attached below. If this explanation is unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate message then please contact the developer directly, or email [EMAIL PROTECTED] or me. Darren Benham (administrator, Debian Bugs database) Received: (at 77550-done) by bugs.debian.org; 22 Nov 2000 14:18:11 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 22 08:18:10 2000 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from aragorn.ics.muni.cz [147.251.4.33] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian)) id 13yaiv-vl-00; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 08:18:09 -0600 Received: from anxur.fi.muni.cz ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [147.251.48.3]) by aragorn.ics.muni.cz (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA19965 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:18:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from dual.fi.muni.cz ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [147.251.51.21]) by anxur.fi.muni.cz (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA25151 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:18:06 +0100 (MET) Received: from kabi by dual.fi.muni.cz with local (Exim 3.16 #1 (Debian)) id 13yait-0001rw-00; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:18:07 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: fixed with -7 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Zdenek Kabelac [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:18:07 +0100 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr: Bug#68389: [nrounds@haverford.edu: Re: Bug#68389 acknowledged by developer (fixed with -7)]]
Oh man, we have two very different ideas of systems. I felt slink was far too old to bother with when I was running potato, and if someone asked me to go back to potato today, I would be driven up the wall. :) I don't know why your report was closed. My guess is, whoever closed it simply raced through the report, and it looked similar to problems with the 4.0.1 series, and the closer knew that it was fixed in 4.0.1-7. This is just a guess though. shrug I don't know what your best bet is -- waiting for woody to become the new stable is probably going to be a long wait indeed. :-/ * Rounds Nathaniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001130 19:30]: So here's the deal. Yes, it has been a few months since I first submitted this, but 1) my semester started in september (I am a junior at haverford college, as the email address suggests) so I have had very little time since mid-august to play sys-admin and tinker with my linux system. And 2) My system isn't really broken. I did more or less break it the first time I upgraded to potato using dist-upgrade, in august, because x-window needed several packages which depend on xbase-client. I solved the problem by going back to the old version (slink?) to get everything back up and running. When it became clear that xbase-client wasn't going to happen, I held the old versions of everything that depended on the new xbase-client -- 11 deb packages -- and upgraded everything else. So my system is working fine, I just haven't dared to try and upgrade those packages again, because life without x-window just isn't very much fun. I don't have any real problem using the old versions of those 11 packages, but if the xbase-client developer or anyone else wise in the ways of deb packages has had insight as to *why* xbase-client won't install on my system, then I would love to hear about it. I was specifically curious whether whatever action resulted in my bug report being closed involved insight that might be helpful to me. Anyway, thanks again for your time. Nathaniel On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Seth Arnold wrote: * Rounds Nathaniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001130 16:38]: I don't know if you have access to the original bug report, but I tried Heh, the wonderful thing about debian is that the bug reports are all available via a filesystem rather than through CGI business. So, all the debian bug reports get indexed via altavista and google and whatnot. When doing searches for only vaugely related topics, the debian bug tracking system is often high on the list. :) At any rate, no method of installation I tried -- including a force install on the specific deb file using dpkg -- worked when I was playing with all of this a few months ago, I am just curious if "fixed in -7" means that I have any reason to expect things to go better if I try again. So does this mean that your package system has been broken for several months? (Since submitting this, which I think was in mid august..) Thanks a lot for responding so quicking -- even though Debian is a free system, I've gotten more support from you guys than Apple or Microsoft ever gave me. Amen. Nearly all free software projects will give the same level of support. (OpenBSD's misc@ group for instance discusses code patches with the primary architect of the whole setup; I worry about what goes on in the tech@ group. I remember one user asking a question, and within ten minutes, he had four answers all suggesting which manpage he needed to read. :) The one time I called MS, it took four techs and two hours to sort out that `autodetect' doesn't work on many network cards. And, I still pine for the days when MS's knowledge base was easy to use. *sigh* In the end, I think most of us remember our early days of stumbling blindly, and want to help make that process fun for newcomers :) , and most of us have our own strange questions that require the help of still more experienced users. Now if only I had a clue about your current problem. (BTW -- as long as you have the .debs on your system, you can revert to them at any time. Well, within C library versions I think this is the case. :) Cheers :) -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.'' -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.'' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr: Bug#68389: [nrounds@haverford.edu: Re: Bug#68389 acknowledged by developer (fixed with -7)]]
Nathaniel, you are right -- reporting a bug against -10 and hearing it is fixed in -7 is a little strange. WRT your error message, I have approached similar problems in the past by using dpkg directly on the apt-downloaded .deb packages, using the --force-overwrite option. The problem isn't the actual presence of a file there -- it is two packages that claim to own the file. My guess says your collection of packages may have the xconsole.real package moving around from one package to the next between upgrades. I don't know how well apt and/or dpkg would handle these situations. (BTW -- when using apt to upgrade from slink to potato, using dist-upgrade instead of just upgrade may take care of some of these issues... ) I hope this helps explain things. I don't know for sure what happened in your case, but usually force-overwrite does the right thing. :) * Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001130 11:47]: - Forwarded message from Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Zdenek Kabelac [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Bug#68389: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Bug#68389 acknowledged by developer (fixed with -7)] Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:24:31 +0100 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-From: Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org Resent-Cc: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:33:11 GMT Resent-Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Debian-PR-Message: report 68389 X-Debian-PR-Package: xbase-clients X-Debian-PR-Keywords: X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Forwarded message from Nathaniel Rounds [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Delivery-date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:01:36 +0100 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:03:39 -0500 (EST) From: Nathaniel Rounds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bug#68389 acknowledged by developer (fixed with -7) I assume that this email is going to a real person Hi. I am glad to hear that someone has looked at the bug report that I sent in, but I can't say that I particularly understood the attached explaination. Here's my dilemia: I had trouble updating xbase-client, and thus the bulk of x-window software from slink to potato. When potato became the stable debain release, I figured I'd better upgrade, but I held the slink versions of xbase-client and the various x-window applications which depend ot it and upgraded the rest of my system. So here is my problem: if I install the potato versions and they still don't work, I won't have the slink versions to go back to (I don't think I can get them from debian anymore) and so I will be left without a working x-window. No fun. Perhaps if you (and by you I mean Darren Benham, his associates, or any wise unix guru who runs accross my email) could explain exactly what the developer did in closing my bug report (#68389), I could figure out if I can upgrade with minimal fear of hosing my system. Thanks a lot, Nathaniel Rounds [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report #68389: xbase-clients: package preinst needs to get rid of xconsole alternative, which was filed against the xbase-clients package. It has been closed by one of the developers, namely Zdenek Kabelac [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Their explanation is attached below. If this explanation is unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate message then please contact the developer directly, or email [EMAIL PROTECTED] or me. Darren Benham (administrator, Debian Bugs database) Received: (at 77550-done) by bugs.debian.org; 22 Nov 2000 14:18:11 + From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 22 08:18:10 2000 Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from aragorn.ics.muni.cz [147.251.4.33] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian)) id 13yaiv-vl-00; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 08:18:09 -0600 Received: from anxur.fi.muni.cz ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [147.251.48.3]) by aragorn.ics.muni.cz (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA19965 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:18:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from dual.fi.muni.cz ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [147.251.51.21]) by anxur.fi.muni.cz (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA25151 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:18:06 +0100 (MET) Received: from kabi by dual.fi.muni.cz with local (Exim 3.16 #1 (Debian)) id 13yait-0001rw-00; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:18:07 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: fixed with -7 Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Zdenek Kabelac [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:18:07 +0100 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr: Bug#68389: [nrounds@haverford.edu: Re: Bug#68389 acknowledged by developer (fixed with -7)]]
* Rounds Nathaniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001130 16:38]: I don't know if you have access to the original bug report, but I tried Heh, the wonderful thing about debian is that the bug reports are all available via a filesystem rather than through CGI business. So, all the debian bug reports get indexed via altavista and google and whatnot. When doing searches for only vaugely related topics, the debian bug tracking system is often high on the list. :) At any rate, no method of installation I tried -- including a force install on the specific deb file using dpkg -- worked when I was playing with all of this a few months ago, I am just curious if fixed in -7 means that I have any reason to expect things to go better if I try again. So does this mean that your package system has been broken for several months? (Since submitting this, which I think was in mid august..) Thanks a lot for responding so quicking -- even though Debian is a free system, I've gotten more support from you guys than Apple or Microsoft ever gave me. Amen. Nearly all free software projects will give the same level of support. (OpenBSD's misc@ group for instance discusses code patches with the primary architect of the whole setup; I worry about what goes on in the tech@ group. I remember one user asking a question, and within ten minutes, he had four answers all suggesting which manpage he needed to read. :) The one time I called MS, it took four techs and two hours to sort out that `autodetect' doesn't work on many network cards. And, I still pine for the days when MS's knowledge base was easy to use. *sigh* In the end, I think most of us remember our early days of stumbling blindly, and want to help make that process fun for newcomers :) , and most of us have our own strange questions that require the help of still more experienced users. Now if only I had a clue about your current problem. (BTW -- as long as you have the .debs on your system, you can revert to them at any time. Well, within C library versions I think this is the case. :) Cheers :) -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.''
Re: [joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr: Bug#68389: [nrounds@haverford.edu: Re: Bug#68389 acknowledged by developer (fixed with -7)]]
Oh man, we have two very different ideas of systems. I felt slink was far too old to bother with when I was running potato, and if someone asked me to go back to potato today, I would be driven up the wall. :) I don't know why your report was closed. My guess is, whoever closed it simply raced through the report, and it looked similar to problems with the 4.0.1 series, and the closer knew that it was fixed in 4.0.1-7. This is just a guess though. shrug I don't know what your best bet is -- waiting for woody to become the new stable is probably going to be a long wait indeed. :-/ * Rounds Nathaniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001130 19:30]: So here's the deal. Yes, it has been a few months since I first submitted this, but 1) my semester started in september (I am a junior at haverford college, as the email address suggests) so I have had very little time since mid-august to play sys-admin and tinker with my linux system. And 2) My system isn't really broken. I did more or less break it the first time I upgraded to potato using dist-upgrade, in august, because x-window needed several packages which depend on xbase-client. I solved the problem by going back to the old version (slink?) to get everything back up and running. When it became clear that xbase-client wasn't going to happen, I held the old versions of everything that depended on the new xbase-client -- 11 deb packages -- and upgraded everything else. So my system is working fine, I just haven't dared to try and upgrade those packages again, because life without x-window just isn't very much fun. I don't have any real problem using the old versions of those 11 packages, but if the xbase-client developer or anyone else wise in the ways of deb packages has had insight as to *why* xbase-client won't install on my system, then I would love to hear about it. I was specifically curious whether whatever action resulted in my bug report being closed involved insight that might be helpful to me. Anyway, thanks again for your time. Nathaniel On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Seth Arnold wrote: * Rounds Nathaniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [001130 16:38]: I don't know if you have access to the original bug report, but I tried Heh, the wonderful thing about debian is that the bug reports are all available via a filesystem rather than through CGI business. So, all the debian bug reports get indexed via altavista and google and whatnot. When doing searches for only vaugely related topics, the debian bug tracking system is often high on the list. :) At any rate, no method of installation I tried -- including a force install on the specific deb file using dpkg -- worked when I was playing with all of this a few months ago, I am just curious if fixed in -7 means that I have any reason to expect things to go better if I try again. So does this mean that your package system has been broken for several months? (Since submitting this, which I think was in mid august..) Thanks a lot for responding so quicking -- even though Debian is a free system, I've gotten more support from you guys than Apple or Microsoft ever gave me. Amen. Nearly all free software projects will give the same level of support. (OpenBSD's misc@ group for instance discusses code patches with the primary architect of the whole setup; I worry about what goes on in the tech@ group. I remember one user asking a question, and within ten minutes, he had four answers all suggesting which manpage he needed to read. :) The one time I called MS, it took four techs and two hours to sort out that `autodetect' doesn't work on many network cards. And, I still pine for the days when MS's knowledge base was easy to use. *sigh* In the end, I think most of us remember our early days of stumbling blindly, and want to help make that process fun for newcomers :) , and most of us have our own strange questions that require the help of still more experienced users. Now if only I had a clue about your current problem. (BTW -- as long as you have the .debs on your system, you can revert to them at any time. Well, within C library versions I think this is the case. :) Cheers :) -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.'' -- ``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So absolutely huge; Gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.''
