Ansgar Burchardt writes ("Re: dist-upgrade strangeness: dependencies not
deconfigured"):
> It's probably a good idea to move away from dpkg-ftp as it doesn't seem
> to support signed Release files from a cursory look at the old package
> from snapshot.debian.org.
I
On 04/08/2014 18:06, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes ("Re: dist-upgrade strangeness: dependencies not
> deconfigured"):
>> The much maligned dselect frontend has managed w/o any force option,
>> and unfortunately only somwhat recently I reasinged bug reports
On Tue, 8 Apr 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > ISTR reading somewhere that Depends do not mean that the dependency is
> > always configured before the package depending on it is configured, but
> > only that it once was configured successfully.
>
> This is true. If A -Depends-> B and A is "installed
Guillem Jover writes ("Re: dist-upgrade strangeness: dependencies not
deconfigured"):
> The much maligned dselect frontend has managed w/o any force option,
> and unfortunately only somwhat recently I reasinged bug reports to apt
> (#579790) and cupt (#575786 which I need
Thorsten Glaser writes ("Re: dist-upgrade strangeness: dependencies not
deconfigured"):
> Norbert Preining logic.at> writes:
> > In the trigger program we already check that texlive base is in proper
> > state (ii in dpkg listing), but that seems not to be enough.
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: dist-upgrade strangeness: dependencies not
deconfigured"):
> For the record, the removal of texlive-common without the deconfiguring of
> texlive-base is because apt will pass --force-depends to dpkg.
I think this is a (longstanding) bug in apt. It
Norbert Preining logic.at> writes:
> In the trigger program we already check that texlive base is in proper
> state (ii in dpkg listing), but that seems not to be enough.
ISTR reading somewhere that Depends do not mean that the dependency is
always configured before the package depending on it i
Hi!
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 22:38:45 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> What you're showing here is a snapshot at some point in the middle of an
> upgrade, when texlive-common has been removed (because the package no longer
> exists, and the new texlive-base conflicts with it) and texlive-base has not
>
Hi Steve,
thanks for the answer.
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I think your root cause analysis is wrong. If you want help understanding
> why your dist-upgrade didn't work, you should show the output of the actual
> apt command.
Which is very very long, unfortunately.
> What yo
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:01:24AM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Dear all,
> during upgrade tests from stable to sid I found that upgrading
> TeX Live does not work.
> The reason is that although texlive-common is uninstalled,
> and texlive-base (2012) *depends* on texlive-common,
> texlive-ba
Dear all,
during upgrade tests from stable to sid I found that upgrading
TeX Live does not work.
The reason is that although texlive-common is uninstalled,
and texlive-base (2012) *depends* on texlive-common,
texlive-base is still in installed and proper state:
un texlive-common (
11 matches
Mail list logo
