Bug #400560 (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=400560
) has been filed for this failure.
It seems to be associated with some sort of earlier
failure (power failure in one case, ``failed update'' in the
other). I had a failed update earlier, but don't remember
the circumstanc
A. F. Cano wrote:
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 04:53:32PM +, John Halton wrote:
[...]
I have resisted using apg-get as I know the aptitude databases would
then be out of sync.
[...]
You could try the magic bullet "aptitude keep-all" to restore sane
behaviour after using apt-get. See
http
Mmm... I started digging into /etc/apt, didn't see anything obvious
and thus didn't change anything, but the next time I started up aptitude
it worked. Strange...
A.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 04:53:32PM +, John Halton wrote:
> On 12/28/06, John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> >Uncaught exception:
> >../../../src/generic/problemresolver/problemresolver.h:2216:
> >generic_problem_resolver::generic_problem_resolver(int,
> >int, int, int, unsigned int,
John Halton wrote:
On 12/28/06, John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm having problems with updating/installing with aptitude, on a mixed
Etch/Sid system. When running "aptitude update", the output ends with
the following:
Err http://ftp.debian.org sid/main Packages
416 Requested Range Not
On 12/28/06, John Halton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm having problems with updating/installing with aptitude, on a mixed
Etch/Sid system. When running "aptitude update", the output ends with
the following:
Err http://ftp.debian.org sid/main Packages
416 Requested Range Not Satisfiable
Then wh
also sprach Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.23.0204 +0200]:
> Not neccesarily. I have seen apt processing spew weird messages
> WRT broken bzip2 decompression. Apparently something is buggy
> there, but the problem disappears after rerunning update.
Now that you mention it, I did see thi
#include
* martin f krafft [Thu, Jun 22 2006, 02:03:55PM]:
> also sprach Martin Lemmen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.22.1846 +0200]:
> > APT::Cache-Limit "141943904";
>
> woho. I don't even set this anymore and:
>
> $ grep -v '^#' /etc/apt/sources.list | wc -l
> 34 /etc/apt/sources.list
>
>
also sprach Martin Lemmen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.22.1846 +0200]:
> APT::Cache-Limit "141943904";
woho. I don't even set this anymore and:
$ grep -v '^#' /etc/apt/sources.list | wc -l
34 /etc/apt/sources.list
Anyway, I think your bzip2 problems may be related to a caching
proxy somewher
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Martin Lemmen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.22.1820 +0200]:
>
>>i just did as said page advises, and i still get the same error message.
>
>
> Mh. Have you tried increasing the value to 32k?
i tried out the fol
also sprach Martin Lemmen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.22.1820 +0200]:
> i just did as said page advises, and i still get the same error message.
Mh. Have you tried increasing the value to 32k?
I have never hit the 16k limit, even with
stable/testing/unstable/experimental and a bunch of other arc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Martin Lemmen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.22.1732 +0200]:
>
>>E: Dynamic MMap ran out of room
>
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Dynamic+MMap+ran+out+of+room%22&btnI=I%27m+Feeling+Lucky
> (http://ju
also sprach Martin Lemmen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.22.1732 +0200]:
> E: Dynamic MMap ran out of room
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Dynamic+MMap+ran+out+of+room%22&btnI=I%27m+Feeling+Lucky
(http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/)
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the
Marcelle Santos wrote:
> hi, I'm trying to change the address used by apt-get.
>
> I changed the adddress in apt-setup, but it doesn't work: apt-get
> continues to search the broken address.
>
> does any one how can I make apt-get aware of the changes?
>
I usually just edit /etc/apt/sources.lst wi
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 10:26:13AM +1000, Brendon Lloyd Higgins wrote:
> Sebastian Luque wrote (Wednesday 27 July 2005 7:12 am):
> > > I don't know what's going on in the mirror system. I had some weirdness
> > > over the last 3 or 4 days where I wasn't showing any new upgrades.
> > > One or two da
Sebastian Luque wrote (Wednesday 27 July 2005 7:12 am):
> > I don't know what's going on in the mirror system. I had some weirdness
> > over the last 3 or 4 days where I wasn't showing any new upgrades.
> > One or two days I don't think anything of it, when it stretches to 3 or
> > 4 I start to won
Seeker5528 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> The non-us repository is not used any more so this is expected and you
> should remove non-us from your sources.list file.
You're right, I just found this out. I came across
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2005/06/msg00719.html that cleared
that
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:13:04 -0500
Sebastian Luque <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's been about a week since I can't solve this problem, despite trying
> several different mirrors. This is what I see:
>
> ,-
> | Get:10 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable Release.gpg [197B]
> | Get:11
Jonas Jasas wrote:
Where that pre-removal script is kept? I gues that problem is in permitions, what
other problems
can be with that script?
Preparing to replace finger 0.17-6 (using .../finger_0.17-7_i386.deb) ...
dpkg (subprocess): unable to execute old pre-removal script: Permission denied
dpkg
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 02:25:34AM -0700, Jonas Jasas wrote:
> Where that pre-removal script is kept? I gues that problem is in permitions, what
> other problems
> can be with that script?
>
> Preparing to replace finger 0.17-6 (using .../finger_0.17-7_i386.deb) ...
> dpkg (subprocess): unable to
I'm sure someone will give a better answer, but I'd use strace to find
out what file it's trying to execute.
I guess somewhere in /var/apt though.
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:25:34 -0700 (PDT), Jonas Jasas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Where that pre-removal script is kept? I gues that problem is in
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 07:03:23AM -0700, Dirk Ouellette wrote:
I hope I'm not being rude in posting here, but I have a problem with apt
on my RedHat 9 box. When I apt-get update or try to upgrade,my system
gets as far as ;
# apt-get update
E: Could not get lock /var/state/apt/lists/lock
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 07:03:23AM -0700, Dirk Ouellette wrote:
> I hope I'm not being rude in posting here, but I have a problem with apt
> on my RedHat 9 box. When I apt-get update or try to upgrade,my system
> gets as far as ;
Well, you might want
On 18/10/02 Jacques Kotze did speaketh:
> I am behind the firewall of my University. There exists an archive with
> the full resource of Debian behind the firewall that I would like to get
> access to using apt-get inorder to complete a full package installation
> of my system.
>
> I have conf
Am 04. Sep, 2001 schwäzte John Galt so:
> Pretty often actually. Have multiple sources, be prepared to comment out
> the ones that don't work right now, and re-update and re-upgrade if the
> situation occurs again. Basically, http.us.debian.org is never the most
> trustworthy under the best of c
Pretty often actually. Have multiple sources, be prepared to comment out
the ones that don't work right now, and re-update and re-upgrade if the
situation occurs again. Basically, http.us.debian.org is never the most
trustworthy under the best of circumstances, and sometimes can be a real
bitch,
"Mike Kuhar" wrote:
>Good evening Fellow Debians,
>
>I went to do an apt-get upgrade, just a few moments ago, after doing an upda
>te
>on unstable. It told me I had 54 packages to upgrade. The problem is that
>only
>half actually downloaded and upgraded from http.us.debian.
@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: apt problems with http.us.debian.org?
"Mike Kuhar" wrote:
>Good evening Fellow Debians,
>
>I went to do an apt-get upgrade, just a few moments ago, after doing an upda
>te
>on unstable. It told me I had 54 packages to upgr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I get the following error message
>
>home:/home/daniel# apt-get -f install
>Reading Package Lists... Done
>Building Dependency Tree... Done
>Correcting dependencies... failed.
>Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
> libesd0: Depends: esound-common b
Maybe esound-common is still an old version. You could try a apt-get
update before trying again, because esound-common could have been
updated.
Wouter
On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 09:12:50AM -0500, Raymond Wood wrote:
> I had something similar happen when I did woody->sid dist-upgrade.
>
> Anyway, m
I had something similar happen when I did woody->sid dist-upgrade.
Anyway, make sure that the 2 other 'esound' packages are selected for
installation also. This solved (one of) my problem(s) - hope it works
for you :)
R.
On Sat, Mar 17, 2001 at 03:55:39AM +0200, Daniel Mashao wrote:
> I get th
on Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 02:41:24PM -0500, Michelle Murrain ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> The result of a dumb mistake:
>
> I wanted to upgrade a particular package from woody, and in the middle, it
> stopped because it didn't have a newer copy of libc6. I decided at that point
> that I would for
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 01:36:38AM -0500, eric k. wolven wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I recently ran "apt-get update" and "apt-get dist-upgrade" (I have woody).
>
> I get this message:
>
> "/usr/bin/perl: error while loading shared library: libdb.so.3 : cannot open
See debian weekly news:
"Be careful. If
On Thu, 16 Jul 1998, Robert Kerr wrote:
> I think the problem may lie in my sources.list. does anyone have an
> example one that I could look at? I would like to access the frozen us
> sections, and the non-us section.
You need another package installed to do the ftp transfers (see the apt
guid
I don't believe www.debian.org is a site containing Debian packages. The
apt package includes a sources.list which contains both us and non-us
sites which will work.
I have attached a copy.
There are others, such as llug.sep.bnl.gov (hopefully README.mirrors will
list them some day).
Bob
On Th
Bob Nielsen wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Steve Mayer wrote:
>
> > Chris,
> >
> > I ran into this same problem after updating to the lastest
> > libc6_2.0.7r-2. The dependency in the latest apt is looking for
> > something >= 2.0.7pre1-0. I guess that it doesn't see 2.0.7r-2 as being
> > "g
On Fri, Jun 26, 1998 at 08:36:09AM -0700, Steve Mayer wrote:
> I ran into this same problem after updating to the lastest
> libc6_2.0.7r-2. The dependency in the latest apt is looking for
> something >= 2.0.7pre1-0. I guess that it doesn't see 2.0.7r-2 as being
> "greaterthan or equal to".
>
>
On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Steve Mayer wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I ran into this same problem after updating to the lastest
> libc6_2.0.7r-2. The dependency in the latest apt is looking for
> something >= 2.0.7pre1-0. I guess that it doesn't see 2.0.7r-2 as being
> "greaterthan or equal to".
>
> Somet
Chris,
I ran into this same problem after updating to the lastest
libc6_2.0.7r-2. The dependency in the latest apt is looking for
something >= 2.0.7pre1-0. I guess that it doesn't see 2.0.7r-2 as being
"greaterthan or equal to".
Something was posted on this list a few days ago about this be
39 matches
Mail list logo
