David Witbrodt dawit...@sbcglobal.net writes:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Jaime Ochoa Malagón chp...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:52 AM, Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de
wrote:
Hans-J. Ullrich hans.ullr...@loop.de writes:
I understand well, there are efforts to chose
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
David Witbrodt dawit...@sbcglobal.net writes:
I thought 'ia32-apt-get' was removed by accident, and you were merely
waiting for a sponsor to get it added back. Was it actually removed
intentionally?
It appears that way. You can read about it on Bug#535645 and the
I honestly don't see the need for ia32-apt-get.
What's wrong with just, you know, compiling your software for a 64-bit
architecture in the first place?
The only conceivable reason why anyone might want to run software compiled for
32-bits on a 64-bit machine is that they didn't have the Source
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 05:12:46PM +0100, A J Stiles wrote:
I honestly don't see the need for ia32-apt-get.
What's wrong with just, you know, compiling your software for a 64-bit
architecture in the first place?
The only conceivable reason why anyone might want to run software compiled
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 05:12:46PM +0100, A J Stiles wrote:
I honestly don't see the need for ia32-apt-get.
What's wrong with just, you know, compiling your software for a 64-bit
architecture in the first place?
So why my I ask are you using debian and not something like gentoo, or I
am
. True
democracie
Well, I suggest, to handle ia32-apt-get just as other software in debian.
Another for way testing might be, to use an own repository, besides the
debian
official ones. IMO this is the worse way, because it might be worse to
maintain
(dependencies and so
an own repository, besides the
debian
official ones. IMO this is the worse way, because it might be worse to
maintain
(dependencies and so on).
These are my thoughts about it, feel free to comment it.
Cheers
Hans
P.S. As you may have remarked: I hate everything, which
Jaime Ochoa Malagón chp...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:52 AM, Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de
wrote:
Hans-J. Ullrich hans.ullr...@loop.de writes:
So I guess the question is how to we organise to get it back into the
repro's - the debian way ?
I think, if
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Jaime Ochoa Malagón chp...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:52 AM, Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de wrote:
Hans-J. Ullrich hans.ullr...@loop.de writes:
I understand well, there are efforts to chose other ways, so ia32-apt-get
should not block the
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 06:44:54PM -0400, Dave Witbrodt wrote:
Alex Samad wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 03:15:23AM -0700, Norval Watson wrote:
So, please put it back, at least to experimental.
Have a nice weekend
Hans-J. Ullrich
I agree, I vote for ia32-apt-get
Norv
I agree to
this is the worse way, because it might be worse to maintain
(dependencies and so on).
These are my thoughts about it, feel free to comment it.
Cheers
Hans
P.S. As you may have remarked: I hate everything, which is deminuishing
freedom! Sorry for that!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian
Dear maintainers,
IMO the complete removing of the package ia32-apt-get by the ftp-master is not
such good style.
Doing so is breaking the system, as some applications need ia32-somewhat
packages. For example , I found no way, to install nvidia-glx-ia32, as it
depends on ia32-libx11-6 and
- Original Message
From: Hans-J. Ullrich hans.ullr...@loop.de
To: debian-amd64@lists.debian.org
Sent: Friday, 14 August, 2009 8:05:09 PM
Subject: ia32-apt-get and dependencies errors
Dear maintainers,
IMO the complete removing of the package ia32-apt-get by the ftp-master
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 12:05 +0200, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote:
IMO the complete removing of the package ia32-apt-get by the ftp-master is
not
such good style.
Doing so is breaking the system, as some applications need ia32-somewhat
packages. For example , I found no way, to install
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Oliver M.
Rotherrot...@physik.uni-kiel.de wrote:
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 12:05 +0200, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote:
IMO the complete removing of the package ia32-apt-get by the ftp-master is
not
such good style.
Doing so is breaking the system, as some applications
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 03:15:23AM -0700, Norval Watson wrote:
[snip]
How can I help other people? I cannot help them to install needed packages
(like nvidia-glx-ia32) as they cannot installed. I cannot correct this, by
telling him: Install ia32-apt-get because ftp-master removed
Alex Samad wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 03:15:23AM -0700, Norval Watson wrote:
So, please put it back, at least to experimental.
Have a nice weekend
Hans-J. Ullrich
I agree, I vote for ia32-apt-get
Norv
I agree to
Add me to the list of supporters! Whatever difficulties it was
Dear maintainers,
there is a dependency problem with the latest package xserver-xorg-core and
nvidia-glx. As both packages seem (as installed alone) to be o.k., IMO it is
not really a bug.
Both packages exclude each other, so one of the both packages should be
corrected. As I do not know,
On Tuesday 18 September 2007, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote:
Dear maintainers,
there is a dependency problem with the latest package xserver-xorg-core and
nvidia-glx. As both packages seem (as installed alone) to be o.k., IMO it
is not really a bug.
Both packages exclude each other, so one of the
Am Dienstag 18 September 2007 schrieb Jan De Luyck:
On Tuesday 18 September 2007, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote:
Dear maintainers,
there is a dependency problem with the latest package xserver-xorg-core
and nvidia-glx. As both packages seem (as installed alone) to be o.k.,
IMO it is not really
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 09:44:03AM +0200, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote:
there is a dependency problem with the latest package xserver-xorg-core and
nvidia-glx. As both packages seem (as installed alone) to be o.k., IMO it is
not really a bug.
Both packages exclude each other, so one of the both
Kurt Roeckx píše v So 27. 01. 2007 v 14:22 +0100:
I've build it manually, it seems to work, so I've uploaded it.
Last upgrade indeed brought libwmf0.2-7 version 0.2.8.4-2.1 and I was
finally able to install gimp from experimental. Thanks a lot.
Vit
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007, Vitezslav Kotrla wrote:
I've noticed new i386 package in experimental, thanks a lot. Is it
possible to provide amd64 package, too?
I don't have an amd64 and the amd64 buildd is probably not able to
autobuild libwmf in experimental with its current software, so you'll
Loïc,
I've noticed new i386 package in experimental, thanks a lot. Is it
possible to provide amd64 package, too? I have built my own amd64
package for libwmf0.2-7 (0.2.8.4-2.1), but for some reason it is
unusable, please see details below.
Longer story:
As I'm currently on AMD64 system, I tried
Loïc Minier píše v So 27. 01. 2007 v 09:00 +0100:
dpkg (subprocess): unable to execute old post-removal script: Exec
format error
This is weird, did you use a chroot for building? It looks like mixed
architectures to me.
No chroot, I have built (and tried to install) the package in
to
autobuild libwmf in experimental with its current software, so you'll
have to wait until someone uploads a binary build or the software is
fixed.
It failed with:
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
libgtk2.0-dev: Depends: libgtk2.0-0 (= 2.10.7-1) but 2.8.20-5 is to be
installed
Ronan Mullally [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm trying to rebuild apache2 on a em64t running sarge/testing box.
'apt-get build-dep' is failing with:
# apt-get -b build-dep apache2
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
E: Build-dependencies for apache2 could
I'm trying to rebuild apache2 on a em64t running sarge/testing box.
'apt-get build-dep' is failing with:
# apt-get -b build-dep apache2
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
E: Build-dependencies for apache2 could not be satisfied.
Running the same command on a 32
If I install ia32libs, apt exits with error:
Spacchetto ia32-libs (da .../ia32-libs_1.4_amd64.deb) ...
dpkg: errore processando /var/cache/apt/archives/ia32-libs_1.4_amd64.deb
(--unpack):
tentata sovrascrittura di `/usr/lib32', che si trova anche nel pacchetto
libg2c0-dev
Sono occorsi degli
Hi,
it was just a question. Thank you for your quick reply.
regards, Volkher
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Volkher Scholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello,
I've just upgraded to X.org. After that, I tried to ugrade the package
xbase-clients. But apt-get wants to remove all my gnome packages
Volkher Scholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello,
I've just upgraded to X.org. After that, I tried to ugrade the package
xbase-clients. But apt-get wants to remove all my gnome packages and the
ones depending on gnome. Is that correct? Have I really to reinstall
most of my desktop tools?
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:
gimp: Depends: gimp-data (= 2.2.7-1) but 2.2.8-1 is to be installed
E: Broken
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 11:26:30AM +0100, Clive Menzies wrote:
Yes. On upgrading last night, gimp-data wouldn't update. If you wait a
few days, it should resolve.
I'm not sure how long this is going to take. The problem is that
the new gimp currently can't build in sid because it build
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:
gimp: Depends: gimp-data (= 2.2.7-1) but 2.2.8-1 is to be installed
E: Broken packages
This showpkg info for gimp-data:
[EMAIL PROTECTED
to be able to build the package:
% apt-get build-dep ssh
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
E: Build-dependencies for ssh could not be satisfied.
I went through the list of dependencies that looked like
Jerome,
El jue, 26-05-2005 a las 17:25 +0200, Jerome Warnier escribi:
I went through the list of dependencies that looked like this:
dpkg-checkbuilddeps: Unmet build dependencies: libwrap0-dev |
libwrap-dev zlib1g-dev | libz-dev libssl-dev libpam0g-dev | libpam-dev
libgnomeui
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 07:39:21AM +0200, Niklas ?gren wrote:
Pete,
If you think you're running sarge, and have that in /etc/apt/sources.list,
it may be good to downgrade some packages if you find them with
apt-show-versions|grep unstable..
I was running a mix of sarge/sid from the old
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
E: Build-dependencies for ssh could not be satisfied.
I don't know what the problem could be, but it would help if you
attached your APT sources.list. Meanwhile, why don't you give apt-src a
try? It's a bit
with
apt-get source ssh, but don't seem to be able to build the package:
% apt-get build-dep ssh
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
E: Build-dependencies for ssh could not be satisfied.
I don't know what the problem could be, but it would help
Hello Pete,
El mi, 25-05-2005 a las 18:26 -0500, Pete Harlan escribi:
I went through the list of dependencies that looked like this:
dpkg-checkbuilddeps: Unmet build dependencies: libwrap0-dev |
libwrap-dev zlib1g-dev | libz-dev libssl-dev libpam0g-dev | libpam-dev
libgnomeui-dev
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 08:48:53PM -0300, Javier Kohen wrote:
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
libpam0g-dev: Depends: libpam0g (= 0.76-22) but 0.76-22.0.0.1.amd64
is to be installed
E: Broken packages
which would appear to be the problem I suppose.
Yes
Thank you, that helped a lot. I downloaded and installed the .debs
manually, and the new sticking point became that this:
libtasn1-2-dev_0.2.10-3
couldn't be installed because it depended on libtasn1-2_0.2.10-3, when
it wanted to install libtasn1-2_0.2.10-4. I installed both of the
On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 12:09 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Norval Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I changed the listings in my /etc/apt/sources.list from /pure64
to /debian-pure64.
Are you using unstable or (now) testing? Pure64 has testing linked to
sid so you might be downgrading
Hi $LIST,
are there broken dependencies with AMD64-Sarge known? Today I wanted
to upgrade my AMD64-Sarge, but I don't done that, because it wants to
deinstall
id base-files -373kB 3.1.2-0.0. 3.1.2-0.0.
id bash-1855kB 3.0-14 3.0-14
id deborphan -332kB 1.7.15 1.7.15
id
El vie, 29-04-2005 a las 20:54 +0200, Dirk Salva escribi:
base-files hngt ab (vorher) von libc6 ( 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.1)
base-files depends on (before) libc6 ( 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.1)
Whats this?
I assume that this is the issue that has been answered on the list about
5 times last week. You have to
On Friday 29 April 2005 21:21, Javier Kohen wrote:
El vie, 29-04-2005 a las 20:54 +0200, Dirk Salva escribió:
base-files hängt ab (vorher) von libc6 ( 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.1)
base-files depends on (before) libc6 ( 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.1)
Whats this?
I assume that this is the issue that has been
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 04:21:29PM -0300, Javier Kohen wrote:
5 times last week. You have to force installing version 3.1.2 of
base-files. Please search the archive for last week if you need the
Yes, that's it! Thank you and all others!
ciao, Dirk
--
| Akkuschrauber Kaufberatung and AEG
I've noticed that mozilla-mplayer package depends on any of the following:
mplayer (= 0.92) o
mplayer-custom (= 0.92)
mplayer-586 (= 0.92)
mplayer-686 (= 0.92)
mplayer-k6 (= 0.92)
mplayer-k7 (= 0.92)
mplayer-powerpc (= 0.92)
mplayer-g4 (= 0.92)
mplayer-nogui (= 0.92)
but dependencies from
(= 0.92)
mplayer-g4 (= 0.92)
mplayer-nogui (= 0.92)
but dependencies from mplayer-amd64 is missing, so package is
uninstallable if using amd64 version of mlayer.
you'll need to build the package from source :
from a build directory, just type :
# apt-get -b source mozilla-mplayer
On Saturday 08 January 2005 06:14, David Liontooth wrote:
Something went wrong with the dependencies for libflac6 on amd64.
On i386 the package installs with no protests; in amd64 it requires
the uninstallation of kdemultimedia, jack, and lots of others. Could
the problem be vorbis-tools
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:14:31PM -0800, David Liontooth wrote:
Something went wrong with the dependencies for libflac6 on amd64.
On i386 the package installs with no protests; in amd64 it requires
the uninstallation of kdemultimedia, jack, and lots of others. Could
the problem be vorbis
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:14:31PM -0800, David Liontooth wrote:
Something went wrong with the dependencies for libflac6 on amd64.
On i386 the package installs with no protests; in amd64 it requires
the uninstallation of kdemultimedia, jack, and lots of others. Could
Something went wrong with the dependencies for libflac6 on amd64.
On i386 the package installs with no protests; in amd64 it requires
the uninstallation of kdemultimedia, jack, and lots of others. Could
the problem be vorbis-tools?
Dave
# apt-get install libflac6 -s
Reading Package Lists... Done
You replied to my last message Boot from SATA + Network but have
stolen the thread for a different topic. Please don't do that.
Please start a *new* message when starting a new topic. See how your
message is hiding in the other thread?
Am Sonntag, 14. November 2004 20:17 schrieb Bob Proulx:
You replied to my last message Boot from SATA + Network but have
stolen the thread for a different topic. Please don't do that.
Please start a *new* message when starting a new topic. See how your
message is hiding in the other thread?
After a reinstall of Debain AMD64 I have a big issue regarding xlibmesa-gl /
xlibmesa-glu, because I would like to install the newest nvidia-driver, what
is telling me about a third party opengl-lib is already installed.
But if I try to remove the mentioned packages, it gives me a list of all
56 matches
Mail list logo
