Oh, fooey. You're corroborating all of my worst suspicions. Oh well... > OK, to make sure I'm understanding you, you're running stable, and you > want to install firestarter out of testing. Is that right?
well, the version of Firestarter that supports KDE is *only* available as a "testing" version... so yeah, I'm stuck with that. > 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. I have read Many Documents, but I haven't read that particular dire warning - and that bothers me. Where did I miss *that*? In this case, it appeared to me that the fact that it was only available in the "testing" release, probably just implied that somebody had only recently enhanced it so it would talk to KDE. But that has turned out to be dramatically not the case - as you mention, "upgrading" Firestarter would involve sucking in enough other new stuff from "testing" that I'd nearly end up with Sarge anyway. Now, if I'd read somewhere that installing large numbers of packages from the "testing" distribution was a Bad Idea, I probably would have bagged this whole thing a lot earlier... and avoided wasting a bunch of time and mailing list bandwidth, etc. So... which document did I miss *this* time? However, that implies realizing that the other packages to be sucked in would all come from the "testing" distribution. I installed stable Woody off the CD-ROM images which I downloaded. One thing I now realize I'm not clear on (and which is probably explicitly explained in *more* documentation that I somehow didn't find...) is whether or not the Debian archives/mirrors might have packages in their representation of the "stable" distribution, which have *versions* more recent than the ones on my CD-ROMs? If that were the case, then the fact that I requested a "testing" version of Firestarter, and then discovered that it wanted all sorts of updated versions of various packages, might only mean that the Firestarter package just needed newer versions of various packages in the *stable* release. So it wasn't clear to me at the outset that *everything* to be pulled in would come from the "testing" release. In fact, I'd tried (however successfully) to configure the apt preferences file to only pull packages from "testing" when absolutely necessary... > 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. Okay... I'm getting the picture, here... what that implies is that no effort is expended to ensure any *backward* compatibility across releases. (Not surprising, and not unreasonable considering the resources, but worth keeping in mind for people like me who like to wander around in minefields...) > 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. That's true, but apt-get's messages shouldn't encourage bomb-throwers like me to file bug reports... > 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. Well, I *was* trying to install them, but I got the result you predict below, more or less. > 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. Yeah, I found that out... fortunately, dselect took (probably undeserved) pity on me and threw me a lifeline... And, I'd been considering just upgrading the C library package as a first step toward negotiating the package dependencies - you've convinced me that my reservations about so doing are entirely warranted. But: Aren't there multiple versions of packages available within the "stable" and "testing" releases? And if so, why is mixing packages across a "release" boundary any more dangerous than just mixing package versions within a particular release? > The documentation (which you've read, right??) makes this very clear. Once again, I *haven't* seen *that* in the documentation. WHERE did I miss any such explicit warning? (I'm not doubting for a second that I missed it, but learning about the doc system for this particular *nix is as important as anything...) > > My usual net trolling has failed to turn up anything about "firestarter" > > having install problems of this sort. > > Because it's not a problem. I would have expected somebody somewhere on one of the 184,236 Linux/Debian/etc support group websites/mailing lists/etc to have *tried* upgrading Firestarter and gotten the message from apt-get... that's generally been the case with every other idiotic thing I've tried so far > > 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. But that doesn't explain why it was ready to claim there was a *bug* in apt-get. I mean, logically, if what you're saying is true, it should have come back with either a message complaining that it didn't have enough degrees of freedom to pull in the correct packages, or a listing of a pile of dependencies amounting to nearly a complete upgrade to "sarge". (More on this in my next posting responding to the other person who answered...) > > (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. I'm sure you're right - although that again begs the question, where is the warning documentation that none of us are finding? But I still would have expected somebody to have run into the specific issue with Firestarter. Getting a firewall set up is probably one of the top initial projects (along with getting dialup, mail, and backups working) - or should be, at least - in making good one's escape from Gatesware... > 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. I'm still congratulating myself on my narrow escape! (And I'm impressed with "dselect" for being able to rescue my install - I might almost consider thinking about the possibility of someday beginning to forgive it for its user interface...) > > (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. Don't hold your breath waiting for me to try #3, at this point. (I'm not as stupid as I look...). However... backporting? not likely, considering the number of projects "On My Plate" <=- Acute buzzword attack alert!!! at the moment. But I'd be more than happy to parasitize someone else's efforts in that regard if I knew how... I'm getting this idea, though... I think creating another bootable partition and inflicting Sarge on it, might be a good idea. That way, I can always have a working Something to fall back on while I hack something newer into submission... > > and if so how > > do I make that determination > > There's no determination to be made. Well, that's not strictly true... (again, more on this in my upcoming response to the other person) > > (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? Oh, I've given up on "user-friendly". Besides, anything which is trying to be user-unfriendly has got "dselect"'s example to live up to... "apt-get" can only *dream*... I just think it should have more confidence and self-respect and quit accusing itself of having a bug and thereby encouraging thugs like myself who prey on the weak to... oh, never mind > That's not > the purpose of apt-get. Other package management software (aptitude, > synaptic, etc.) may be more your style in that regard. "aptitude" did not install with stable Woody by default. I'll go see if it (or "synaptic") will install without producing a thermonuclear detonation... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
