Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> rosea grammostola wrote:
>
>> Gustin Johnson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> rosea grammostola wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After a lit of experimenting in vbox, it seems I bumped up against an
>>>> serious issue :)
>>>>
>>>> libc6-dev from Ubuntu seems to conflict with linux-libc-dev from
>>>> 64studio (jaunty backport)
>>>>
>>>> Need to get 0B/3453kB of archives.
>>>> After this operation, 13.7MB of additional disk space will be used.
>>>> (Reading database ... 164776 files and directories currently installed.)
>>>> Unpacking libc6-dev (from .../libc6-dev_2.9-4ubuntu6.1_i386.deb) ...
>>>> dpkg: error processing
>>>> /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6-dev_2.9-4ubuntu6.1_i386.deb (--unpack):
>>>> trying to overwrite `/usr/include/scsi/scsi.h', which is also in
>>>> package linux-libc-dev
>>>> dpkg-deb: subprocess paste killed by signal (Broken pipe)
>>>> Errors were encountered while processing:
>>>> /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6-dev_2.9-4ubuntu6.1_i386.deb
>>>> E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if reporting this will helps the devs. I don't know if it's
>>>> 'supposed' to conflict.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The problem does not occur on a stock 64Studio install. It looks like
>>> the naming nomenclature is different for this package with that
>>> backports repository. Your only real option if you must use 3rd party
>>> repositories is to do something called apt pinning.
>>>
>>>
>> I have this also on a stock 64studio install, when I want to build
>> oomidi (openoctave)
>>
>> Writing extended state information... Done
>> (Reading database ... 110539 files and directories currently installed.)
>> Unpacking libc6-dev (from .../libc6-dev_2.7-10ubuntu5_i386.deb) ...
>> dpkg: error processing
>> /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6-dev_2.7-10ubuntu5_i386.deb (--unpack):
>> trying to overwrite `/usr/include/scsi/scsi.h', which is also in
>> package linux-libc-dev
>>
>>
>
> Hi :)
>
> for my 64 Studio 3.0-beta3 x86_64 libc6-dev already was installed, I'm
> sure that I didn't force to install any dev packages. Excepted for cmake
> and kdebase-dev (and it's trillion of dependencies) I didn't need to
> install something now.
>
> I've got libc6-dev version 2.7-10ubuntu5, the latest available version
> installed. And I've got linux-libc-dev version 2.6.24-25.63, also the
> latest available version installed.
I have here:
~$ apt-cache policy linux-libc-dev
linux-libc-dev:
Installed: 2.6.31-3
Candidate: 2.6.31-3
Version table:
*** 2.6.31-3 0
500 http://apt.64studio.com hardy-backports/main Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
2.6.24-25.63 0
500 http://it.archive.ubuntu.com hardy-updates/main Packages
2.6.24-16.30 0
500 http://archive.ubuntu.com hardy/main Packages
32bits
\r
_______________________________________________
64studio-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.64studio.com/mailman/listinfo/64studio-users
