On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:05:35 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Here's the transaction...
>
> floozy:~# apt-get install firestarter
[ snip ]
> Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
> firestarter: Depends: libbonoboui2-0 (>= 2.5.4) but it is not going
> to be installed
> Depends: libgnome2-0 (>= 2.6.0) but it is not going to
> be installed
> Depends: libgnomeui-0 (>= 2.6.0) but it is not going
> to be installed
> E: Sorry, broken packages
> floozy:~#
>
> I'm running stable Woody and I have the Woody version
> of Firestarter running. It does work (sort of) but it's written for
> Gnome and I'm running KDM and it scribbles error messages to the
> invoking shell constantly, whining about various (probably
> Gnome-related)
> incompatibilities. I've verified (trust me) that "apt-get"
> really is trying to go get the upgraded ("testing") version of
> Firestarter.
OK, to make sure I'm understanding you, you're running stable, and you
want to install firestarter out of testing. Is that right?
If so, there is no problem with firestarter. The problem is simply
that you're trying to do something that is generally considered a
Bad Idea, and in this particular case isn't possible.
As the documentation (that you've read, right??) at www.debian.org
makes clear, mixing software from testing and/or unstable into a
system with stable installed is a Bad Idea. The software in testing
and unstable were built using libraries in testing and unstable;
they need those libraries, in the versions in testing/unstable, to
work. Your attempt to install firestarter out of testing failed
because the firestarter in testing needed libraries that *are*
present in testing, but aren't present in stable. That's not a
bug. That's not a problem with apt-get. That's not a problem with
the packaging system. The only problem is that you're trying to do
something that makes no sense -- install a program without also
installing the other software/libraries that it depends upon to work.
So what do you do? You could install those libraries out of testing,
as well. But as I've indicated, this is a Bad Idea. Those libraries
themselves have dependencies, so you'll have to get those, too.
Sooner or later, you'll run into a conflict between stuff you want to
install, and stuff out of stable that you have installed currently,
and your attempt to install the new stuff will cause apt-get to want
to remove your stuff from stable. If the stuff out of testing you
want to install absolutely depends on a version of the general C libraries
in testing (that is, if the version of the C libraries in stable isn't
sufficient), then there's no way to install the stuff out of testing
without removing the C libraries from stable -- and thus, all the
software in stable built against them.
Don't try this. It's a Bad Idea. It is a highway to a broken system.
The documentation (which you've read, right??) makes this very clear.
> My usual net trolling has failed to turn up anything about "firestarter"
> having install problems of this sort.
Because it's not a problem.
> (1) If this isn't a package install bug, what is it?
An attempt by the sysadmin to do something that he/she should not do.
> and how do I get
> apt-get/dpkg/dselect/whoever to cough up the facts of the case?
It did. It told you that you need libraries that aren't installed on
your system.
> (2) If it's actually some sort of dependency problem, how can I fix
> the dependencies that apt-get doesn't like,
You could try the procedure I noted above; but I really don't recommend
it.
> and (since APT generally
> doesn't seem to like the situation, and therefore there's likely to
> be something ominous afoot) how can I be sure that whatever I'm
> "fixing" doesn't cause more problems elsewhere?
By not doing it.
> (2) I can't believe I'm the first person to encounter this... so why
> can't
> I find *anything* about either the "apt-get" error message generally or
> the
> Firestarter install problem? (Yeah, I know, I'm braindamaged and don't
> know how to use a search engine, etc. etc...)
Because there *is no* Firestarter install problem. If you search the
archives of this mailing list, though, you'll see plenty of people
wondering why they run into problems installing various packages from
testing/unstable into a stable system. You're certainly not the first
person to encounter this. And if you continue down this road, and
get a broken system, you won't be the first person to end up there,
either.
> (3) Is it possible that I need to do a complete upgrade to the "sarge"
> Kernel, in order to get this new "firestarter" to work,
Upgrading to sarge or sid is one option. Another is getting sources
and backporting to woody. Still another is continuing down the road
you've started, and trying to get a working mixed system. Good luck.
> and if so how
> do I make that determination
There's no determination to be made.
> (and why doesn't "apt-get" see fit to
> inform me thereof... etc...)?
Because it cannot read minds. It told you what you needed to know:
that in order to install this package, other packages are needed which
you don't have and which it cannot install as-is. Perhaps your gripe
is that it's not sufficiently user-friendly in so doing? That's not
the purpose of apt-get. Other package management software (aptitude,
synaptic, etc.) may be more your style in that regard.
-c
--
Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove "snip-me." to email)
"As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
pgprRd5ufMexn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
