Confused about bug 640823
In this bug it says:- Found in versions pygobject/2.90.3-1, pygobject/2.90.3-2 Fixed in version 1.30.0-1 This is very confusing. Does this mean that it is already fixed. I think not, and that the problem is that the fixed in version refers to a package other than pyobject, but it does not say which one. Then the red flow chart on the right of the screen says that it is in some versions. Does this mean fixed in some versions of only present in some version, and if so versions of what? David -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201112301200.53244.david.goodeno...@btconnect.com
Re: Confused about bug 640823
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:00:52 +, David Goodenough wrote: In this bug it says:- Found in versions pygobject/2.90.3-1, pygobject/2.90.3-2 Fixed in version 1.30.0-1 The mentioned bug was merged with 640467. *** Tags: experimental, fixed-upstream *** This is very confusing. Does this mean that it is already fixed. Yes, it should be since package version 1.30.0-1. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=640467#62 I think not, and that the problem is that the fixed in version refers to a package other than pyobject, but it does not say which one. Hum... I'm not sure but: *** This was fixed in: gobject-introspection (1.30.0-1) experimental; urgency=low *** Then the red flow chart on the right of the screen says that it is in some versions. Does this mean fixed in some versions of only present in some version, and if so versions of what? The flow chart is more indicative than authoritative :-) THT Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.12.30.16.13...@gmail.com
Re: confused by bug
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 07:35:10PM +1300, Richard Hector wrote: Contrast this with the stable version, which has migrated from stable-proposed-updates to stable. Sorted. After I realised you were talking about texlive-bin, while texlive-latex-base is built from texlive-base, I read the reports a little more thoroughly. Ah, that was because I didn't read your original mail carefully, and just glanced at the bug and concluded that it was texlive-bin. Apologies. It turns out (though this was still not clear from the reports) that if I upgraded texlive-base-bin (and texlive-pdfetex, though I suspect that's irrelevant)(which are built from texlive-bin) from oldstable-proposed-updates, that changed something (probably fmtutil) which enabled the existing texlive-latex-base to install. A bit tortuous, but I got there :-) Glad that you got there. But it's time to do the dist-upgrade dance and move to Lenny! ;-) Kumar -- MSDOS didn't get as bad as it is overnight -- it took over ten years of careful development. (By dmegg...@aix1.uottawa.ca) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100302133700.ga2...@bluemoon.alumni.iitm.ac.in
confused by bug
Hi all, I've been caught by (closed) bug #531595 ( http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=531595 ) It says it's closed, and fixed - and was important to fix in etch, since that's where the problem is/was. However, texlive-latex-base still refuses to install on this etch machine. Can anyone help me understand what's going on in that bug thread, and how I can make it install? Do I need to add an additional repo? And yes, I know upgrading to lenny is the real answer - this is one of the steps towards that ... Thanks, Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1267499831.6803.31.ca...@topaz.wgtn.cat-it.co.nz
Re: confused by bug
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 04:17:11PM +1300, Richard Hector wrote: Hi all, I've been caught by (closed) bug #531595 ( http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=531595 ) It says it's closed, and fixed - and was important to fix in etch, since that's where the problem is/was. However, texlive-latex-base still refuses to install on this etch machine. Can anyone help me understand what's going on in that bug thread, and how I can make it install? Do I need to add an additional repo? And yes, I know upgrading to lenny is the real answer - this is one of the steps towards that ... The bug has been fixed in 2005.dfsg.2-13, which was uploaded to oldstable-proposed-updates. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to have made it's way into oldstable, as is revealed here: [ku...@bluemoon ~] rmadison texlive-bin texlive-bin | 2005.dfsg.2-12 | etch-m68k | source texlive-bin | 2005.dfsg.2-12 | oldstable | source texlive-bin | 2005.dfsg.2-13 | oldstable-proposed-updates | source texlive-bin | 2007.dfsg.2-4+lenny2 |stable | source texlive-bin | 2009-5 | testing | source texlive-bin | 2009-5 | unstable | source Contrast this with the stable version, which has migrated from stable-proposed-updates to stable. You should be able to grab the fixed package from the oldstable-proposed-updates section of the archive. Someone can correct me if my analysis is incorrect. HTH. Kumar -- Your job is being a professor and researcher: That's one hell of a good excuse for some of the brain-damages of minix. (Linus Torvalds to Andrew Tanenbaum) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: confused by bug
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 21:30 -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote: The bug has been fixed in 2005.dfsg.2-13, which was uploaded to oldstable-proposed-updates. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to have made it's way into oldstable, as is revealed here: [ku...@bluemoon ~] rmadison texlive-bin texlive-bin | 2005.dfsg.2-12 | etch-m68k | source texlive-bin | 2005.dfsg.2-12 | oldstable | source texlive-bin | 2005.dfsg.2-13 | oldstable-proposed-updates | source texlive-bin | 2007.dfsg.2-4+lenny2 |stable | source texlive-bin | 2009-5 | testing | source texlive-bin | 2009-5 | unstable | source Contrast this with the stable version, which has migrated from stable-proposed-updates to stable. You should be able to grab the fixed package from the oldstable-proposed-updates section of the archive. Thanks Kumar. I added: deb http://ftp.nz.debian.org/debian oldstable-proposed-updates main to my sources.list, ran aptitude update, and tried again. I get the same version (2005.dfsg.3-1). That would appear to be newer than the one mentioned above ... but is still uninstallable. I tried using -t oldstable-proposed-updates, but it said 'Unable to find an archive oldstable-proposed-updates for the package texlive-latex-base' I guess my sources.list line is possibly wrong, but I don't get errors from aptitude update (I did from our in-house mirror; it must be setup differently) Any hints as to where I'm going wrong? Thanks, Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1267505329.6803.43.ca...@topaz.wgtn.cat-it.co.nz
Re: confused by bug
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 05:48:49PM +1300, Richard Hector wrote: You should be able to grab the fixed package from the oldstable-proposed-updates section of the archive. Thanks Kumar. I added: deb http://ftp.nz.debian.org/debian oldstable-proposed-updates main to my sources.list, ran aptitude update, and tried again. I get the same version (2005.dfsg.3-1). That would appear to be newer than the one mentioned above ... but is still uninstallable. I tried using -t oldstable-proposed-updates, but it said 'Unable to find an archive oldstable-proposed-updates for the package texlive-latex-base' I guess my sources.list line is possibly wrong, but I don't get errors from aptitude update (I did from our in-house mirror; it must be setup differently) Any hints as to where I'm going wrong? Not really sure, but maybe you could just download the .deb file and run: sudo dpkg -i filename.deb That could work. Kumar -- Ok, I'm just uploading the new version of the kernel, v1.3.33, also known as the buggiest kernel ever. -- Linus Torvalds signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: confused by bug
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 21:30 -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote: On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 04:17:11PM +1300, Richard Hector wrote: Hi all, I've been caught by (closed) bug #531595 ( http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=531595 ) It says it's closed, and fixed - and was important to fix in etch, since that's where the problem is/was. However, texlive-latex-base still refuses to install on this etch machine. Can anyone help me understand what's going on in that bug thread, and how I can make it install? Do I need to add an additional repo? And yes, I know upgrading to lenny is the real answer - this is one of the steps towards that ... The bug has been fixed in 2005.dfsg.2-13, which was uploaded to oldstable-proposed-updates. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to have made it's way into oldstable, as is revealed here: [ku...@bluemoon ~] rmadison texlive-bin texlive-bin | 2005.dfsg.2-12 | etch-m68k | source texlive-bin | 2005.dfsg.2-12 | oldstable | source texlive-bin | 2005.dfsg.2-13 | oldstable-proposed-updates | source texlive-bin | 2007.dfsg.2-4+lenny2 |stable | source texlive-bin | 2009-5 | testing | source texlive-bin | 2009-5 | unstable | source Contrast this with the stable version, which has migrated from stable-proposed-updates to stable. Sorted. After I realised you were talking about texlive-bin, while texlive-latex-base is built from texlive-base, I read the reports a little more thoroughly. It turns out (though this was still not clear from the reports) that if I upgraded texlive-base-bin (and texlive-pdfetex, though I suspect that's irrelevant)(which are built from texlive-bin) from oldstable-proposed-updates, that changed something (probably fmtutil) which enabled the existing texlive-latex-base to install. A bit tortuous, but I got there :-) Thanks Kumar. Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1267511710.11902.14.ca...@diamond.lan.walnut.gen.nz
