On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 09:02:45AM +0100, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Sb, 11 dec 21, 14:44:42, A. F. Cano wrote:
> >
> > After many iterations of installing, autoremoving, updating and
> > upgrading, some packages were installed along with their dependencies,
> > but I'm also getting:
> >
> > E; P
On Sb, 11 dec 21, 14:44:42, A. F. Cano wrote:
>
> After many iterations of installing, autoremoving, updating and
> upgrading, some packages were installed along with their dependencies,
> but I'm also getting:
>
> E; Packae '' has no installation candidate
>
> or is alerady the newest version
ng got really messed up during the upgrade. There are broken
> > > > dependencies and some packages (like some vim addon) don't work at all.
> > > > Vim, for instance is unusable.
> > > >
> > > > I have tried all the dpkg/apt/apt-get commands
ies and some packages (like some vim addon) don't work at all.
> > > Vim, for instance is unusable.
> > >
> > > I have tried all the dpkg/apt/apt-get commands to fix broken dependencies,
> > > broken packages, etc, and they all return without error now [1],
.
> > Vim, for instance is unusable.
> >
> > I have tried all the dpkg/apt/apt-get commands to fix broken dependencies,
> > broken packages, etc, and they all return without error now [1], but
> > aptitude
> > starts "resolving dependencies" and it soon uses
commands to fix broken dependencies,
> broken packages, etc, and they all return without error now [1], but aptitude
> starts "resolving dependencies" and it soon uses up all the available RAM,
> then all the available swap and the system slows down (thrashing) and then
> freeze
A. F. Cano wrote:
>
> Something got really messed up during the upgrade. There are broken
> dependencies and some packages (like some vim addon) don't work at all.
> Vim, for instance is unusable.
>
> I have tried all the dpkg/apt/apt-get commands to fix broken dependen
Something got really messed up during the upgrade. There are broken
dependencies and some packages (like some vim addon) don't work at all.
Vim, for instance is unusable.
I have tried all the dpkg/apt/apt-get commands to fix broken dependencies,
broken packages, etc, and they all r
On Fri 05 Oct 2018 at 20:31:49 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 05 Oct 2018 at 22:36:48 (+0100), Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 05 Oct 2018 at 16:17:22 -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 05, 2018 03:40:09 PM Brian wrote:
>
> > > > I've lost track. Are you using dist-upgrade on
On 2018-10-05, Brian wrote:
>> I'm not the OP, but the place where I plan to use (apt-get) upgrade and not
>> dist-upgrade is Jessie (Debian 8).
>
> Debian 8 is obsolete; it doesn't even receive security updates.
> dist-upgrade is most unlikely to bring it to its knees.
>
I've never used dist-u
On Fri 05 Oct 2018 at 22:36:48 (+0100), Brian wrote:
> On Fri 05 Oct 2018 at 16:17:22 -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, October 05, 2018 03:40:09 PM Brian wrote:
> > > I've lost track. Are you using dist-upgrade on stable or unstable?
> >
> > I'm not the OP, but the place where I pl
On Fri 05 Oct 2018 at 16:17:22 -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 05, 2018 03:40:09 PM Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 05 Oct 2018 at 11:03:31 -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I'm not sure I know enough to re-phrase the question. I'm also surprised
> > > / confused to see the two
On Friday, October 05, 2018 03:40:09 PM Brian wrote:
> On Fri 05 Oct 2018 at 11:03:31 -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I'm not sure I know enough to re-phrase the question. I'm also surprised
> > / confused to see the two tags: "Essential: yes" and "Priority:
> > required" -- I presume that is
On Fri 05 Oct 2018 at 11:03:31 -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I know enough to re-phrase the question. I'm also surprised /
> confused to see the two tags: "Essential: yes" and "Priority: required" -- I
> presume that is not redundant information, but at first glance it seems
On Friday, October 05, 2018 07:25:29 AM Reco wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 07:03:13AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Can someone describe (or point to) a description of how dist-upgrade
> > determines the more important app? (Oh, I'm guessing it has to do with
> > the whatever it is calle
On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 04:57:36 -0500
Richard Owlett wrote:
>
> Can someone point me to a discussion of why one would chose a
> particular option?
>
The important difference is that 'upgrade' (aptitude safe-upgrade) will
not remove a package without replacing it with a more up-to-date
version of
Hi.
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 07:03:13AM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 05, 2018 06:06:25 AM Reco wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 04:57:36AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
>
> > > Can someone point me to a discussion of why one would chose a particular
> > > option?
Hi.
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 05:51:09AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> > > I'm not comfortable with anything other than "stable".
> > > When moving from one release to the next my custom is to purchase a DVD
> > > set and do a complete fresh install.
> > >
> > > However, I *am* several po
On Friday, October 05, 2018 06:06:25 AM Reco wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 04:57:36AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> > Can someone point me to a discussion of why one would chose a particular
> > option?
>
> Why do you need a discussion of that if you have apt-get(8)?
>
> upgrade is used to i
On 10/05/2018 05:06 AM, Reco wrote:
Hi.
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 04:57:36AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
On 10/04/2018 11:10 PM, mick crane wrote:
On 2018-10-04 18:27, Glenn English wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 2:06 PM Richard Owlett wrote:
Just did a fresh install to another parti
Hi.
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 04:57:36AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 10/04/2018 11:10 PM, mick crane wrote:
> > On 2018-10-04 18:27, Glenn English wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 2:06 PM Richard Owlett wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just did a fresh install to another partition of the mach
On 10/04/2018 11:10 PM, mick crane wrote:
On 2018-10-04 18:27, Glenn English wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 2:06 PM Richard Owlett
wrote:
Just did a fresh install to another partition of the machine on which I
observed the current problem.
Installation was from DVD 1 of Debian 9.1.0
Again Li
On 2018-10-04 18:27, Glenn English wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 2:06 PM Richard Owlett
wrote:
Just did a fresh install to another partition of the machine on which
I
observed the current problem.
Installation was from DVD 1 of Debian 9.1.0
Again LibreOffice Writer would not launch.
Attempt
On 10/4/18, Glenn English wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 2:06 PM Richard Owlett wrote:
>
>> Just did a fresh install to another partition of the machine on which I
>> observed the current problem.
>> Installation was from DVD 1 of Debian 9.1.0
>>
>> Again LibreOffice Writer would not launch.
>>
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 2:06 PM Richard Owlett wrote:
> Just did a fresh install to another partition of the machine on which I
> observed the current problem.
> Installation was from DVD 1 of Debian 9.1.0
>
> Again LibreOffice Writer would not launch.
> Attempted complete removal. This time the L
riter from
MATE's application menu.
2. I later found a flash drive to which I had installed Debian 8.
The .doc file opened properly there.
Tried to do a complete removal with intention of doing a re-install.
Tried to do the re-install receiving a "fix broken packages" response.
M
r found a flash drive to which I had installed Debian 8.
The .doc file opened properly there.
Tried to do a complete removal with intention of doing a re-install.
Tried to do the re-install receiving a "fix broken packages" response.
Mind sending the package(s) that're causing
Dan Purgert wrote:
> Richard Owlett wrote:
>> I received an email with an attachment in .doc format.
>> I clicked to open with default program - LibreOffice Writer.
>> All I got was a brief display of the LibreOffice flash screen.
>> I tried to open from MATE's Application menu - failed likewise.
>
ure that the *doc wasn't broken-by-design (i.e. one of the various
types of malware that tend to use *doc files, etc.)?
>
> Tried to do a complete removal with intention of doing a re-install.
> Tried to do the re-install receiving a "fix broken packages" response.
Mind s
on of doing a re-install.
Tried to do the re-install receiving a "fix broken packages" response.
Got a failure message:
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
E: Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generated breaks, this may be caused by
held packages.
E: Un
hing from synaptic, it says
> "you have held broken packages"
> but "apt-mark showhold" and "dpkg --get-selections | grep hold"
> don't show any result.
>
>
> I've tried then to reinstall each of them using aptitude.
> Starting with bras
deinstall
vlc deinstall
vlc-nox deinstall
when I try to install something from synaptic, it says
"you have held broken packages"
but "apt-mark showhold" and "dpkg --get-selections | grep hold
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06/28/2014 05:57 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 04:29:51PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> I agree with Josh Triplett that autodetection looking only for
>> 'ati' rather than for the individual modules which 'ati' can
>> im
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 04:29:51PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>
> I agree with Josh Triplett that autodetection looking only for 'ati'
> rather than for the individual modules which 'ati' can implicitly load
> is a bug that should be fixed. (The "point" of doing so - questioned in
> the last comme
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06/27/2014 04:17 PM, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2014-06-27 21:58 +0200, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> On 06/27/2014 03:31 PM, Mike McClain wrote:
>>
>>> I don't need xserver-xorg-video-mach64 or xserver-xorg-video-r128
>>> to run X on my machine but x
On 2014-06-27 21:58 +0200, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 06/27/2014 03:31 PM, Mike McClain wrote:
>
>> I don't need xserver-xorg-video-mach64 or xserver-xorg-video-r128 to
>> run X on my machine but xserver-xorg-video-radeon comes bundled with
>> them and xserver-xorg-video-ati.
>
> What do you mean by
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06/27/2014 03:31 PM, Mike McClain wrote:
> I don't need xserver-xorg-video-mach64 or xserver-xorg-video-r128 to
> run X on my machine but xserver-xorg-video-radeon comes bundled with
> them and xserver-xorg-video-ati.
What do you mean by "comes
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:31:38 -0700
Mike McClain wrote:
> I don't need xserver-xorg-video-mach64 or
> xserver-xorg-video-r128 to run X on my machine but
> xserver-xorg-video-radeon comes bundled with them and
> xserver-xorg-video-ati.
AFAI see, …ati is a dependency pkg that require _all_
ati
I don't need xserver-xorg-video-mach64 or xserver-xorg-video-r128
to run X on my machine but xserver-xorg-video-radeon comes bundled with
them and xserver-xorg-video-ati. A little experimentation established
that X works fine without xserver-xorg-video-{mach64,r128} but apt-get
complains about
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 11:32:32 -0400 "Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com"
suggested this:
>On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Charlie
>wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 14:01:16 +0200 "Arno Schuring
>>>
>>>DMO?
>>
>> Sorry, silly question, but. what is DMO? Have been googling
>> it and not getting a
Charlie (aries...@skymesh.com.au on 2011-10-30 00:12 +1100):
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 14:01:16 +0200 "Arno Schuring
> aelschur...@hotmail.com" suggested this:
>
> >DMO?
>
> Sorry, silly question, but. what is DMO? Have been googling it
> and not getting anywhere, and it's late, or early.
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Charlie wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 14:01:16 +0200 "Arno Schuring
>>
>>DMO?
>
> Sorry, silly question, but. what is DMO? Have been googling it
> and not getting anywhere, and it's late, or early.
http://debian-multimedia.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 14:01:16 +0200 "Arno Schuring
aelschur...@hotmail.com" suggested this:
>DMO?
Sorry, silly question, but. what is DMO? Have been googling it
and not getting anywhere, and it's late, or early.
Charlie
--
Registered Linux User:- 329524
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Charlie
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:25:18 +0200 "Arno Schuring
> > aelschur...@hotmail.com" suggested this:
> >
> >>Charlie (aries...@skymesh.com.au on 2011-10-27 16:35 +1100):
> >>>
> >>> libavcodec52:
> >>> Depends: libavutil50 (<4:0.6.2-99) but 5:0
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Charlie wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:25:18 +0200 "Arno Schuring
> aelschur...@hotmail.com" suggested this:
>
>>Charlie (aries...@skymesh.com.au on 2011-10-27 16:35 +1100):
>>>
>>> libavcodec52:
>>> Depends: libavutil50 (<4:0.6.2-99) but 5:0.7.1-0.1 is to be
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:09:14 -0500 "Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com"
suggested this:
>Charlie writes:
>
>>>You have libavdevice52 installed and held at version
>>>5:0.6.1+svn20101128-0.2 which is too old.
>>>See your held packages with "aptitude search ~ahold". Try removing
>>>your hold with "a
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:25:18 +0200 "Arno Schuring
aelschur...@hotmail.com" suggested this:
>Charlie (aries...@skymesh.com.au on 2011-10-27 16:35 +1100):
>>
>> libavcodec52:
>> Depends: libavutil50 (<4:0.6.2-99) but 5:0.7.1-0.1 is to be
>> installed or libavutil-extra-50 (<4:0.6.2-99) but it i
Charlie writes:
>>You have libavdevice52 installed and held at version
>>5:0.6.1+svn20101128-0.2 which is too old.
>>See your held packages with "aptitude search ~ahold". Try removing
>>your hold with "aptitude unhold libavdevice52" and then try
>>reinstalling xvidcap.
Looking like I may have so
Charlie (aries...@skymesh.com.au on 2011-10-27 16:35 +1100):
>
> libavcodec52:
> Depends: libavutil50 (<4:0.6.2-99) but 5:0.7.1-0.1 is to be
> installed or libavutil-extra-50 (<4:0.6.2-99) but it is not
> installable
Do you have debian-multimedia in your sources.list by any chance? Or
have had
xvidcap [Not Installed]
>>
>> Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?]
>>
>> So I attempt the install it through synaptic and get this:
>>
>> Could not apply changes!
>> Fix broken packages first.
>>
>> So try with synaptic to fix the broken packages and
Not Installed]
Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?]
So I attempt the install it through synaptic and get this:
Could not apply changes!
Fix broken packages first.
So try with synaptic to fix the broken packages and get this:
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held bro
Rick Thomas wrote:
Aptitude claims that gvfs, libempathy-gtk28, libempathy30, and
openjdk-6-jre-lib are broken in Sid.
I understand "normal Sid churn" but these have been broken for a couple
of weeks.
Are they not really "broken", just (e.g.) being replaced by something
else with a diffe
On 2009-12-23 19:41 +0100, Rick Thomas wrote:
> Aptitude claims that gvfs, libempathy-gtk28, libempathy30, and
> openjdk-6-jre-lib are broken in Sid.
>
> I understand "normal Sid churn" but these have been broken for a
> couple of weeks.
>
> Are they not really "broken", just (e.g.) being replace
Aptitude claims that gvfs, libempathy-gtk28, libempathy30, and
openjdk-6-jre-lib are broken in Sid.
I understand "normal Sid churn" but these have been broken for a
couple of weeks.
Are they not really "broken", just (e.g.) being replaced by something
else with a different name?
Anyb
Daniel Dalton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried to install a deb package from a website, it only parcially
> installed, and now won't remove. I've even tried using the --force
> option, it just says I should try reinstalling, but when I do that I get
> errors with installations. So how do I remove this pack
Hi,
I tried to install a deb package from a website, it only parcially
installed, and now won't remove. I've even tried using the --force
option, it just says I should try reinstalling, but when I do that I get
errors with installations. So how do I remove this package from my
system? Because dpkg
JF Pirl wrote:
8<
> By the way, is the graphical ugliness of some days ago in Sid solved
> now? (when logging in, GTK/the gnome-panels seemed to be broken or
> something, and some panel applets did not want to work, as well as no
> direct shutdown possibilities in the gdm session - I swit
Hello,
You might as well do a simple
aptitude install epiphany-browser
(if my memory doesn't fail, it will warn you about the fact that
epiphany-gecko - and possibly epiphany-extensions-more - will have to
be removed, which is no problem as they are now obsolete).
By the way, is the graphical ugl
Rick Thomas wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion...
But I think there's something I don't understand...
From the package descriptions, it sounds like the epiphany folks are
headed in the direction of epiphany-browser and away from
epiphany-webkit. Wouldn't installing epiphany-webkit be a step b
On Oct 8, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Tomek Kruszona wrote:
Rick Thomas wrote:
The following packages are BROKEN:
epiphany-browser epiphany-extensions-more libgnokii4 python-qt4
Hello!
Regarding epiphany:
It seems has something in common with epiphany gecko to webkit
transition. Try installing epi
Rick Thomas wrote:
The following packages are BROKEN:
epiphany-browser epiphany-extensions-more libgnokii4 python-qt4
Hello!
Regarding epiphany:
It seems has something in common with epiphany gecko to webkit
transition. Try installing epiphany-webkit. It should remove obsolete
packages and
I understand "normal sid churn", but usually a problem like this is
fixed in a couple of days. These packages have been broken for well
over a week.So I thought I'd bring the problem to a larger
audience, in hopes that somebody who knows more than I do could give
it some attention.
ptitude upgrade", "aptitude dist-upgrade" or "U" + "g" in
interactive mode. (Remember: "aptitude keep-all" is your friend when
things get scary.)
To find out if you currently have any broken packages on your system you
can run
aptitude search '~b&
l the time.
>
> If you want to see again what aptitude wants to do to your computer you
> can try "aptitude upgrade", "aptitude dist-upgrade" or "U" + "g" in
> interactive mode. (Remember: "aptitude keep-all" is your friend when
> thing
h made aptitude to
> 'forget' about those packages and to clear the cache or some such thing.
> In any case, since then aptitude thinks no packages are broken.
>
> I was wondering, now that I am a bit more comfortable with aptitude, how
> do I make it recall that list of broke
some such thing.
In any case, since then aptitude thinks no packages are broken.
I was wondering, now that I am a bit more comfortable with aptitude, how
do I make it recall that list of broken packages? I wouldn't starting
aptitude all over again (removing and reinstalling?), if I knew the
Am 2006-06-28 02:11:51, schrieb Bill Jones:
> On 6/27/06, Chase James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hello. I'm trying to upgrade a debian woody box to sarge according to the
> >release notes. When attempting to install aptitude, I get the following
> >error:
> >
> ># apt-get install aptitude
>
> W
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 10:24:22PM -0400, Chase James wrote:
> Would changing all mentions of woody to sarge in my apt/sources.list then
> doing a dist-upgrade fix the problem:
>
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> aptitude: Depends: libapt-pkg-libc6.2-3-2-
o. Thanks to all for the advice.
Chase
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Sackville-West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 11:22 PM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: cannot install aptitude: Broken packages
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 10:24:22PM -0400, Chase
t: Thursday, June 29, 2006 2:57 PM
> To: Stephen
> Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: RE: cannot install aptitude: Broken packages
>
>
> Actually, I already tried dist-upgrading woody and it still gives me the
> aptitude broken package error.
>
> -Original Me
Would changing all mentions of woody to sarge in my apt/sources.list then
doing a dist-upgrade fix the problem:
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
aptitude: Depends: libapt-pkg-libc6.2-3-2-3.2
E: Broken packages
I know the Release Notes say to use aptitude, but could I just use
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 02:57:07PM -0400, Chase James wrote:
> Actually, I already tried dist-upgrading woody and it still gives me the
> aptitude broken package error.
>
I seem top remember long ago that when I upgraded from woody to sarge I
was to upgrade aptitude first (possibly with perl) an
Actually, I already tried dist-upgrading woody and it still gives me the
aptitude broken package error.
-Original Message-
From: Stephen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 2:30 PM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: cannot install aptitude: Broken packages
" without installing aptitude first will fix my broken
aptitude package, then I'm willing to try it.
-Original Message-
From: Stephen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 2:30 PM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: cannot install aptitude: Broken package
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 01:18:57PM -0400 or thereabouts, Chase James wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> Yes, I changed every mention of stable to woody so I could upgrade all of my
> current woody packages before upgrading to sarge. Then I did apt-get update.
Shouldn't that be 'apt-get dist-upgrade' ?
--
Re
12:35 PM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: cannot install aptitude: Broken packages
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 11:59:29PM -0700, Christopher Nelson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 02:11:51AM -0400, Bill Jones wrote:
> > On 6/27/06, Chase James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 11:59:29PM -0700, Christopher Nelson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 02:11:51AM -0400, Bill Jones wrote:
> > On 6/27/06, Chase James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Hello. I'm trying to upgrade a debian woody box to sarge according to the
> > >release notes. When attempting
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 02:11:51AM -0400, Bill Jones wrote:
> On 6/27/06, Chase James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hello. I'm trying to upgrade a debian woody box to sarge according to the
> >release notes. When attempting to install aptitude, I get the following
> >error:
> >
> ># apt-get install
On 6/27/06, Chase James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello. I'm trying to upgrade a debian woody box to sarge according to the
release notes. When attempting to install aptitude, I get the following
error:
# apt-get install aptitude
Wierdness... Try
apt-get upgrade aptitude
aptitude provides a
a bug report against
that package should be filed.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
aptitude: Depends: libapt-pkg-libc6.2-3-2-3.2
E: Broken packages
Is there any way to repair this? Thanks for any help.
Sincerely,
Chase
> >The following information may help to resolve the situation:
> >
> >The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> > rhythmbox: Depends: gstreamer0.10-plugins-good but it is not going to
> >be installed
> >E: Broken packages
> >
> >[~] % sudo apt-get i
gt;
> >The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> > rhythmbox: Depends: gstreamer0.10-plugins-good but it is not going to
> >be installed
> >E: Broken packages
> >
> >[~] % sudo apt-get install gstreamer0.10-plugins-good
> >Reading Package Lists...
should be filed.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
rhythmbox: Depends: gstreamer0.10-plugins-good but it is not going to
be installed
E: Broken packages
[~] % sudo apt-get install gstreamer0.10-plugins-good
Reading P
Missing python-twisted-core upgrade breaks all the other python-twisted
packages.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sunday 25 June 2006 08:43, Wasyl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When i want to install a package often i see such result:
>
> [~] % sudo apt-get install rhythmbox
> [~] % sudo apt-get install gstreamer0.10-plugins-good
Both packages can be installed and removed fine. Cannot reproduce your
problem. Using De
to resolve the situation:
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
rhythmbox: Depends: gstreamer0.10-plugins-good but it is not going to
be installed
E: Broken packages
[~] % sudo apt-get install gstreamer0.10-plugins-good
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
Dave writes:
> Figure out how to make APT point to BASH and file the bug there. Be
> interesting to see what the APT people have to say.
Policy requires that /bin/sh point to a POSIX shell. Zsh is not
POSIX-compliant. You can break many things other than Apt by pointing
/bin/sh to Zsh.
--
John
Carl Fink wrote:
> Shouldn't apt-get then refuse to run under zsh, or itself spawn /bin/sh and
> run scripts under that instead of the default shell?
/bin/sh is the default shell, and it is required on Debian that that
symlink only be pointed to POSIX compliant shells.
--
see shy jo
signature.
* Charles Hallenbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-14 14:51:22 -0400]:
> The strange problem of the "not fully installed or removed" packages I
> have been reporting has been resolved...
Hooray!
>
> It seems that a short while ago I have switched shells from bash to zsh
> to explore its new fe
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 11:15:05AM -0800, Joshua J. Kugler wrote:
> I believe the issue is that /bin/sh is expected to be a bourne shell, or at
> least closely compatible. zsh, "most closely resembles ksh but includes many
> enhancements." ksh has "command language [that is ] is a superset of
Joey Hess wrote:
> set -e
Of course that should have been -x, the point being to see where the
script is failing.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wednesday 14 June 2006 10:51, Charles Hallenbeck wrote (edited):
> changing the symbolic link
> /bin/sh to point to /bin/zsh instead of /bin/bash.
>
> I changed the link to point to /bin/bash again, [ran apt commands
> successfully
>
> But why? I do upgrades at least once a day, and they usuall
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 02:26:18PM -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 23:57 +0700, Dave Patterson wrote:
> > * Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-14 12:21:32 -0400]:
> >
>
> Chuck needs to have a large scrollback and paste it to here for us to
> understand the entire functiona
The strange problem of the "not fully installed or removed" packages I
have been reporting has been resolved, but I do not understand it.
It seems that a short while ago I have switched shells from bash to zsh
to explore its new features. I did it gradually, first doing a usermod
for each of my
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 06:55 -0400, Charles Hallenbeck wrote:
> Hi Simone,
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 12:36:47PM +0200, Simone Soldateschi wrote:
> >
> > I had a similar problem two days ago trying to update 'libwx2.6-dev' from
> > backports.
> > 'apt-get' failed package upgrade due to unmet depend
Hi Joey,
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 12:21:32PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Charles Hallenbeck wrote:
>
> Edit /var/lib/dpkg/info/x11-common.config and
> /var/lib/dpkg/info/debconf.postinst and add a new line as the second
> line of each script:
>
> set -e
>
> Then re-run this apt-get -f install and
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 23:57 +0700, Dave Patterson wrote:
> * Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-14 12:21:32 -0400]:
>
> :
> >
> > set -e
> >
> > Then re-run this apt-get -f install and we should be able to figure out
> > what's really wrong.
> >
> This will tell you where in the script it's
Apologies for not reading the original message closely enough. I got
stuck on the 'x11-common' part and didn't pay enough attention to the
debconf error.
If debconf is having trouble, that's really weird. Perhaps doing a dpkg
-r debconf, then doing a clean reinstall of debconf? Using wget to
do
* Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-14 12:21:32 -0400]:
:
>
> set -e
>
> Then re-run this apt-get -f install and we should be able to figure out
> what's really wrong.
>
This will tell you where in the script it's exiting...
--
Cheers,
Dave
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTE
Why not just keep x11-common? It looks like a whole ton of X libraries
are already installed. Otherwise, figure out which programs depend on
each individual library, either by dpkg --show , or by
trying to remove each library individually.
Up until a month or two ago (when I gave it away), I ran
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
