Your message dated Fri, 18 Mar 2016 12:28:28 +0000
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#511366: full-upgrade requires its piece of meat
has caused the Debian Bug report #511366,
regarding aptitude: Missing obvious dependency resolution of wine
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
511366: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=511366
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.4.11.11-1~lenny1
Severity: normal
Hello,
I have bound the Wine repository from
http://www.winehq.org/download/deblenny and get the following situation:
# apt-cache policy wine
wine:
Installed: 1.1.26~winehq1-1
Candidate: 1.1.27~winehq1-1
Version table:
1.1.27~winehq1-1 0
500 http://www.lamaresh.net lenny/main Packages
*** 1.1.26~winehq1-1 0
500 http://www.lamaresh.net lenny/main Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
1.1.25~winehq1-1 0
500 http://www.lamaresh.net lenny/main Packages
1.1.24~winehq1-1 0
500 http://www.lamaresh.net lenny/main Packages
1.1.23~winehq1-1 0
500 http://www.lamaresh.net lenny/main Packages
1.1.22~winehq1-1 0
500 http://www.lamaresh.net lenny/main Packages
1.1.21~winehq1-1 0
500 http://www.lamaresh.net lenny/main Packages
1.1.20~winehq1-1 0
500 http://www.lamaresh.net lenny/main Packages
1.1.18~winehq1-1 0
500 http://www.lamaresh.net lenny/main Packages
1.1.17~winehq1-1 0
500 http://www.lamaresh.net lenny/main Packages
1.1.16~winehq1-1 0
500 http://www.lamaresh.net lenny/main Packages
1.1.15~winehq1-1 0
500 http://www.lamaresh.net lenny/main Packages
1.1.14~winehq1-1 0
500 http://www.lamaresh.net lenny/main Packages
1.1.13~winehq1-1 0
500 http://www.lamaresh.net lenny/main Packages
1.0.1-1 0
500 http://ftp.de.debian.org lenny/main Packages
I originally installed only 1.1.26 because version 1.1.27 (and only this
version) depends on a library that doesn't exist (libfontconfig).
So far, so good. Now I get the following if I try to do a dist-upgrade:
# aptitude dist-upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Reading extended state information
Initializing package states... Done
Reading task descriptions... Done
The following packages are BROKEN:
wine
1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 7643kB of archives. After unpacking 455kB will be used.
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
wine: Depends: libfontconfig which is a virtual package.
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
Remove the following packages:
wine
Score is 121
Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] n
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
Downgrade the following packages:
wine [1.1.26~winehq1-1 (lenny, now) -> 1.1.25~winehq1-1 (lenny)]
Score is 80
[...]
where aptitude is then offering me to downgrade to one of the other
existing versions in no particular order, but doesn't offer to keep the
package at the current version, which would sound like the most obvious
solution.
Thanks, Eric
-- Package-specific info:
aptitude 0.4.11.11 compiled at Dec 5 2008 02:43:34
Compiler: g++ 4.3.2
Compiled against:
apt version 4.6.0
NCurses version 5.6
libsigc++ version: 2.0.18
Ept support enabled.
Current library versions:
NCurses version: ncurses 5.7.20081213
cwidget version: 0.5.12
Apt version: 4.6.0
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xb804c000)
libapt-pkg-libc6.7-6.so.4.6 => /usr/lib/libapt-pkg-libc6.7-6.so.4.6
(0xb7f7b000)
libncursesw.so.5 => /lib/libncursesw.so.5 (0xb7f3d000)
libsigc-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libsigc-2.0.so.0 (0xb7f36000)
libcwidget.so.3 => /usr/lib/libcwidget.so.3 (0xb7e72000)
libept.so.0 => /usr/lib/libept.so.0 (0xb7db1000)
libxapian.so.15 => /usr/lib/libxapian.so.15 (0xb7c5b000)
libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0xb7c46000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/i686/cmov/libpthread.so.0 (0xb7c2d000)
libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 (0xb7b3e000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/i686/cmov/libm.so.6 (0xb7b18000)
libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0xb7b0b000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 (0xb79b0000)
libutil.so.1 => /lib/i686/cmov/libutil.so.1 (0xb79ac000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib/i686/cmov/libdl.so.2 (0xb79a7000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb804d000)
Terminal: xterm
$DISPLAY is set.
`which aptitude`: /usr/bin/aptitude
aptitude version information:
aptitude linkage:
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 5.0.2
APT prefers stable
APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.30-bpo.1-686 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_IE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_IE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Versions of packages aptitude depends on:
ii apt [libapt-pkg-libc6. 0.7.20.2+lenny1 Advanced front-end for dpkg
ii libc6 2.7-18 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii libcwidget3 0.5.12-4 high-level terminal interface libr
ii libept0 0.5.22 High-level library for managing De
ii libgcc1 1:4.3.2-1.1 GCC support library
ii libncursesw5 5.7+20081213-1 shared libraries for terminal hand
ii libsigc++-2.0-0c2a 2.0.18-2 type-safe Signal Framework for C++
ii libstdc++6 4.3.2-1.1 The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
ii libxapian15 1.0.7-4 Search engine library
ii zlib1g 1:1.2.3.3.dfsg-12 compression library - runtime
Versions of packages aptitude recommends:
pn aptitude-doc-en | aptitude-do <none> (no description available)
pn libparse-debianchangelog-perl <none> (no description available)
Versions of packages aptitude suggests:
pn debtags <none> (no description available)
ii tasksel 2.78 Tool for selecting tasks for insta
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
2009-01-15 04:49 Daniel Burrows:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 06:24:21AM +0800, [email protected] was heard to say:
I am little worried that maybe your reply was meant for a different
bug. All I know is that I am just the lowest of users using a command
line (never using the curses part of aptitude) and never have looked
at the source code.
No problem. I was just trying to say that this is a deliberate design
decision due to past feedback, but there are even better ways to do it
that I have planned out and that avoid the problem you ran into. The
rest was technical details for my own consumption when I take a look at
this bug again. (or for anyone else interested in working on it)
I think that this has been fixed for many years, full-upgrade is happy
to not do anything:
# aptitude full-upgrade
No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed.
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 0 B will be used.
As for the merged bugs:
- #574928 about Aptitude::ProblemResolver::Discard-Null-Solution=false,
should be the default now (or equivalent, so it seems to be the same
problem as the merged bug. if there's still some issue, please reopen
(and unmerge)
- #511366 is also probably the same underlying problems because
downgrades are usually not preferred over keeping current versions,
but if there's still a problem please reopen (and unmerge)
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <[email protected]>
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Aptitude-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel
