On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 10:03:54PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I also only see three packages depending. I did not check all
> architectures, however. And more importantly, I did not check
> build-depends!
Right, I didn't think of those, and the large number of them does
complicate things.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 10:30:39PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 23:23 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 11:09:18PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>> >Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>[...]
>> >> Any hint on looking up r
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 23:23 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 11:09:18PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> >Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
[...]
> >> Any hint on looking up reverse build-dependencies somehow?
> >
> >dak rm -Rn -s testing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 11:09:18PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Niko tyni wrote earlier:
>>> I wrote earlier:
In principle we could ignore that assumption from other packages and
simply drop the gs-common dependencies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 07:52:26AM +1100, Mark Purcell wrote:
>On Tuesday 04 November 2008 23:37:27 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Adding dependency while preserving conflict does not work: It still
>> allows old gs-common to be removed before installing t
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Niko tyni wrote earlier:
>> I wrote earlier:
>>> In principle we could ignore that assumption from other packages and
>>> simply drop the gs-common dependencies on ghostscript and
>>> ghostscript-x, and then file bugreports against packages failing to
>>> work. But real
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Niko tyni wrote earlier:
> I wrote earlier:
>> In principle we could ignore that assumption from other packages and
>> simply drop the gs-common dependencies on ghostscript and
>> ghostscript-x, and then file bugreports against packages failing to
>
On Tuesday 04 November 2008 23:37:27 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Adding dependency while preserving conflict does not work: It still
> allows old gs-common to be removed before installing the newer one.
What about a Pre-Depends: gs-common?
I know it is a hack, but it may at least ensure that gs-com
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 03:01:04PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 02:34:55PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> >The circular dependency I was referring to is that gs-common already
> >depends on (unversioned) ghostscript, and this introduces the other
> >direction. I'm not sure i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 09:17:09PM +1100, Mark Purcell wrote:
>On Tuesday 04 November 2008 18:55:41 Niko Tyni wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:52:28PM +0100, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote:
>> > > > On 30/10/08 10:33, Niko Tyni wrote:
>> > > > Is thi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 02:34:55PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 01:07:34PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>> I am now preparing an updated package that makes ghostscript depend on
>> gs-common >= 8.62.dfsg.1-3.1.
>
>> @Niko: you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 09:17:09PM +1100, Mark Purcell wrote:
>On Tuesday 04 November 2008 18:55:41 Niko Tyni wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:52:28PM +0100, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote:
>> > > > On 30/10/08 10:33, Niko Tyni wrote:
>> > > > Is thi
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 01:07:34PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I am now preparing an updated package that makes ghostscript depend on
> gs-common >= 8.62.dfsg.1-3.1.
> @Niko: you mention that this would cause a circular dependency. I
> believe that is not the case when the dependency is ve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 09:17:09PM +1100, Mark Purcell wrote:
>On Tuesday 04 November 2008 18:55:41 Niko Tyni wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:52:28PM +0100, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote:
>> > > > On 30/10/08 10:33, Niko Tyni wrote:
>> > > > Is thi
On Tuesday 04 November 2008 18:55:41 Niko Tyni wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:52:28PM +0100, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote:
> > > > On 30/10/08 10:33, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > > > Is this something that needs documentation in the release-notes ?
> > >
> > > I think it would be much better to fix th
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 05:02:42PM +1100, Mark Purcell wrote:
> On Friday 31 October 2008 08:00:49 Niko Tyni wrote:
> > reassign 503712 ghostscript 8.62.dfsg.1-3.1
> > severity 503712 serious
> [...]
>
> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:52:28PM +0100, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote:
> > > On 30/10/08 10:33,
On Friday 31 October 2008 08:00:49 Niko Tyni wrote:
> reassign 503712 ghostscript 8.62.dfsg.1-3.1
> severity 503712 serious
[...]
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:52:28PM +0100, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote:
> > On 30/10/08 10:33, Niko Tyni wrote:
[...]
> > Is this something that needs documentation in th
reassign 503712 ghostscript 8.62.dfsg.1-3.1
severity 503712 serious
thanks
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:21:47PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:33:57PM +0100, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote:
> > Removing gs-common ...
> > Can't locate File/Copy.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /etc/perl
>
On 30/10/08 10:33, Niko Tyni wrote:
Upgrading gs-common first should work around the problem.
Not sure what's the best way to recover the upgrade;
maybe 'aptitude install gs-common' is enough.
Yes, it worked. 'aptitude install gs-common' and then 'aptitude dist-upgrade'
upgraded the system.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:12:44AM +0100, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote:
> On 29/10/08 21:21, Niko Tyni wrote:
> ># dpkg --auto-deconfigure --unpack perl-modules_5.10.0-16_all.deb
> >ghostscript_8.62.dfsg.1-3.1_amd64.deb
>
> I tried this but it didn't success:
Sorry, that was the recipe for reproduc
On 29/10/08 21:21, Niko Tyni wrote:
# dpkg --auto-deconfigure --unpack perl-modules_5.10.0-16_all.deb ghostscript_8.62.dfsg.1-3.1_amd64.deb
I tried this but it didn't success:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo dpkg --auto-deconfigure --unpack
perl-modules_5.10.0-16_all.deb
(Reading database ... 7478
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:33:57PM +0100, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote:
> Package: upgrade-reports
> 'aptitude install -f' is not able to fix the problem and seems to block
> when trying to remove the gs-common package. See attachment file
> 3_dist-upgrade_all_messages, do a search with pattern 'Re
I don't think so. The first thing I did was precisely to upgrade apt dpkg and
aptitude to the lenny version and only after I tried to dist-upgrade. But it
didn't work. Thus, in this case, upgrading apt before dist-upgrading was of no help.
I will tomorrow try to reproduce this bug, if you want
Hi,
I'm pretty sure this bug is a duplicate of 503303, which look like duplicates
of #464559 (merged with #466027, #466695, #467059, #475530).
"Unfortunatly" those bugs are closed in sid/lenny, but thats exactly the
problem here (as we cannot upgrade apt in an etch pointrelease as upgrades
nee
24 matches
Mail list logo
