Your message dated Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:27:38 +0000
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line erroneous dependencies
has caused the attached Bug report 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 I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.10.18
Severity: normal
debconf has a file that should be in debconf-utils, and debconf-utils has a
file that should be in debconf. But if I swap the files and make debconf-utils
conflict and replace debconf, and debconf conflict and replace debconf-utils
(which also depends on debconf..), dpkg gets confused and wants to remove
debconf-utils entirely:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/joey/src/debconf>dpkg -i ../debconf_1.3.20_all.deb
../debconf-utils_1.3.20_all.deb
dpkg: considering removing debconf-utils in favour of debconf ...
dpkg: no, cannot remove debconf-utils (--auto-deconfigure will help):
debhelper depends on debconf-utils (>= 1.1.1)
debconf-utils is to be removed.
dpkg: regarding ../debconf_1.3.20_all.deb containing debconf:
debconf conflicts with debconf-utils (= 1.3.19)
debconf-utils (version 1.3.19) is installed.
dpkg: error processing ../debconf_1.3.20_all.deb (--install):
conflicting packages - not installing debconf
dpkg: considering removing debconf in favour of debconf-utils ...
dpkg: no, cannot remove debconf (--auto-deconfigure will help):
ipmasq pre-depends on debconf (>= 0.5.00)
debconf is to be removed.
dpkg: regarding .../debconf-utils_1.3.20_all.deb containing debconf-utils:
debconf-utils conflicts with debconf (= 1.3.19)
debconf (version 1.3.19) is installed.
dpkg: error processing ../debconf-utils_1.3.20_all.deb (--install):
conflicting packages - not installing debconf-utils
Errors were encountered while processing:
../debconf_1.3.20_all.deb
../debconf-utils_1.3.20_all.deb
zsh: exit 1 dpkg -i ../debconf_1.3.20_all.deb
../debconf-utils_1.3.20_all.deb
My conflicts and replaces are versioned, and I think dpkg should be able
to figure out that it can break the sycle by doing both operations at the
same time.
Any advice to deal with this would be appreciated.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux dragon 2.4.22 #1 Sun Oct 12 15:11:10 EDT 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US
Versions of packages dpkg depends on:
ii dselect 1.10.18 a user tool to manage Debian packa
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-8 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
-- no debconf information
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In #218787, Joey Hess writes:
> debconf has a file that should be in debconf-utils, and
> debconf-utils has a file that should be in debconf. But if I swap
> the files and make debconf-utils conflict and replace debconf, and
> debconf conflict and replace debconf-utils (which also depends on
> debconf..), dpkg gets confused and wants to remove debconf-utils
> entirely:
I'm afraid I think this is the behaviour as designed. I agree with
Josip Rodin that it's not clear why you are declaring the Conflicts.
Surely simply Replaces would do what you want ?
As I understand it you have
A (2) --Conflicts+Replaces--> B (<< 2)
B (2) --Conflicts+Replaces--> A (<< 2)
and a system with A (1) and B (1) installed.
There is indeed no way to get from here to a system with A (2) and B
(2) installed. Your dependencies, as written, absolutely forbid it.
Furthermore, the uses of Replaces together with Conflicts indicate to
dpkg that it should prefer to remove the conflicted package as it is
regarded as obsolete (that's what Replaces+Conflicts means).
> My conflicts and replaces are versioned, and I think dpkg should be
> able to figure out that it can break the sycle by doing both
> operations at the same time.
It is not possible to do both operations at the same time because the
computer does not have a transactional filesystem. It might be
possible in principle to do them concurrently but I hate to think what
the code would be like.
So I'm closing this bug. If you'd like to discuss it further please
feel free to do so, and even to reopen the bug if you feel like it.
Regards,
Ian.
--- End Message ---
