FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-20-2010, 01:30 PM
Thierry Chatelet
 
Default elinks to be REMOVED from squeeze?

On Wednesday 20 January 2010 14:44:20 Jeffrey Cao wrote:
> On 2010-01-20, Thierry Chatelet <tchatelet@free.fr> wrote:
> > Ouppsss, sorry
> >
> >> And libtre5 is in squeeze, so you to wait for it to move to sdueeze
> >
> > I mean
> > And libtre5 is in "sid", so you to wait for it to move to squeeze
> > Thierry
>
> But I installed elinks one year ago without dependency problem.
> I did "update" and "upgrade" frequently without problem until now.
> Maybe something is broken with package dependency management recently.
>
> Jeffrey
>

Looking at elinks on debian package list, I saw that it depends on libtre4 and
not on libtre5 as requested by aptitude. So, my guess would be that you should
report a bug against elinks, or maybe contact the maintainer.
Thierry


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-20-2010, 05:37 PM
Ole Toft Jensen
 
Default elinks to be REMOVED from squeeze?

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 03:30:52PM +0100, Thierry Chatelet wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 January 2010 14:44:20 Jeffrey Cao wrote:
> > On 2010-01-20, Thierry Chatelet <tchatelet@free.fr> wrote:
> > > Ouppsss, sorry
> > >
> > >> And libtre5 is in squeeze, so you to wait for it to move to sdueeze
> > >
> > > I mean
> > > And libtre5 is in "sid", so you to wait for it to move to squeeze
> > > Thierry
> >
> > But I installed elinks one year ago without dependency problem.
> > I did "update" and "upgrade" frequently without problem until now.
> > Maybe something is broken with package dependency management recently.
> >
> > Jeffrey
> >
>
> Looking at elinks on debian package list, I saw that it depends on
> libtre4 and not on libtre5 as requested by aptitude. So, my guess
> would be that you should report a bug against elinks, or maybe contact
> the maintainer.
> Thierry
Well the packge in sid has already fixed that issue and depends on
libtre5, as well as a newer javascript lib than the one currently in
squeeze, so in short elinks is only broken in testing.

--
Med venlig hilsen / Best regards,
Ole Toft Jensen ole@24gold.dk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-21-2010, 12:21 PM
Jeffrey Cao
 
Default elinks to be REMOVED from squeeze?

On 2010-01-20, Thierry Chatelet <tchatelet@free.fr> wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 January 2010 14:44:20 Jeffrey Cao wrote:
>> On 2010-01-20, Thierry Chatelet <tchatelet@free.fr> wrote:
>> > Ouppsss, sorry
>> >
>> >> And libtre5 is in squeeze, so you to wait for it to move to sdueeze
>> >
>> > I mean
>> > And libtre5 is in "sid", so you to wait for it to move to squeeze
>> > Thierry
>>
>> But I installed elinks one year ago without dependency problem.
>> I did "update" and "upgrade" frequently without problem until now.
>> Maybe something is broken with package dependency management recently.
>>
>> Jeffrey
>>
>
> Looking at elinks on debian package list, I saw that it depends on libtre4 and
> not on libtre5 as requested by aptitude. So, my guess would be that you should
> report a bug against elinks, or maybe contact the maintainer.
> Thierry
>
There's already a bug reported against elinks package. Bug number: #565999.
But I'm still wondering what caused this dependency issue.
Before this problem shew up, elinks depends on libtre4. libtre4 is installed
and elinks works fine. I checked elinks with "aptitude show elinks", and it
says it still depends on libtre4, not libtre5. I'm sure elinks has not been
updated for a long time. So, what is changed to make elinks depends on
libtre5?

Jeffrey


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-22-2010, 10:24 PM
"Todd A. Jacobs"
 
Default elinks to be REMOVED from squeeze?

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 01:21:24PM +0000, Jeffrey Cao wrote:

> sure elinks has not been updated for a long time. So, what is changed
> to make elinks depends on libtre5?

I don't know about this particular case, but in general, one of two
things probably happened:

- The upstream author changed a library dependency. This happens a
lot, and is only a bug if the package doesn't track the dependency
correctly.
- The maintainer made an error in a configuration file when building
the deb. If you've ever tried to build your own deb files, you'd
understand how easy it is for this to happen.

Either way, you will typically get zero traction with "Why did someone
break my favorite package?" The correct thing to do is report a bug, if
no one has already done so, and then either wait for a new package to
migrate to your chosen repository (such as testing), install from
somewhere else (e.g. sid or experimental), or roll your own from source.

If you're tracking packages from testing or unstable, then expect this
sort of thing to happen from time to time. The only cure is bug reports
and the occasional invocation of "aptitude dist-upgrade" to ensure that
you're upgrading things that have problematic library dependencies.

--
"Oh, look: rocks!"
-- Doctor Who, "Destiny of the Daleks"


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-23-2010, 01:09 AM
Freeman
 
Default elinks to be REMOVED from squeeze?

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 03:24:43PM -0800, Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 01:21:24PM +0000, Jeffrey Cao wrote:
>
> > sure elinks has not been updated for a long time. So, what is changed
> > to make elinks depends on libtre5?
>
> I don't know about this particular case, but in general, one of two
> things probably happened:
>
> - The upstream author changed a library dependency. This happens a
> lot, and is only a bug if the package doesn't track the dependency
> correctly.
> - The maintainer made an error in a configuration file when building
> the deb. If you've ever tried to build your own deb files, you'd
> understand how easy it is for this to happen.
>
> Either way, you will typically get zero traction with "Why did someone
> break my favorite package?" The correct thing to do is report a bug, if
> no one has already done so, and then either wait for a new package to
> migrate to your chosen repository (such as testing), install from
> somewhere else (e.g. sid or experimental), or roll your own from source.
>
> If you're tracking packages from testing or unstable, then expect this
> sort of thing to happen from time to time. The only cure is bug reports
> and the occasional invocation of "aptitude dist-upgrade" to ensure that
> you're upgrading things that have problematic library dependencies.
>
> --
> "Oh, look: rocks!"
> -- Doctor Who, "Destiny of the Daleks"
>
>

Is there really even a point to filing a bug report against something when
the fix is upstream?

Testing is my opportunity as a peon to contribute to the Debian effort by
filing reports when I can correctly assess a bug's existence. However,
caution toward filing reports necessarily also seems important.

I usually wait a month before thinking much of it when something breaks.
Most apps start working correctly following an update, sooner than later.

As I understand, buggy packages occasionally are pushed downstream to avoid
dependency logjams in release development.

I booted into the 2.6.26 kernel to run Google-Earth for 6 months. When it
quit working in that kernel too, I waited another 4 months before
discovering my card was dropped from fglrx.

--
Kind Regards,
Freeman


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-23-2010, 01:32 AM
Chris Jones
 
Default elinks to be REMOVED from squeeze?

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 09:09:40PM EST, Freeman wrote:

[..]

> Is there really even a point to filing a bug report against something
> when the fix is upstream?

What makes you think the bug is upstream?

I recently installed the 0.13 git version of ELinks to resolve an
unrelated issue and since lenny does not feature libtre5, the
./configure step gave me a warning and I was able to compile ELinks.

The resulting ELinks version does not have the regex search capability
on the search dialog, which is not a major problem where I'm concerned
since in some 4-5 years of daily utilization of ELinks, I have never
needed it.

I don't see why a dependency that would deprive you of an obscure
optional feature such as this, which by the way is correctly handled by
the stock ELinks install, would prevent installation of the debian
package.

As to the reason why ELinks of late requires libtre5, I suspect it has
something to do with unicode support, which has beeen vastly improved in
recent versions.

I am not going to investigate this, but the output of 'git log' against
my git clone strongly suggests this.

CJ



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-23-2010, 07:43 AM
Freeman
 
Default elinks to be REMOVED from squeeze?

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 09:32:26PM -0500, Chris Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 09:09:40PM EST, Freeman wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > Is there really even a point to filing a bug report against something
> > when the fix is upstream?
>
> What makes you think the bug is upstream?
>

Literally speaking, the idea that it

| is only a bug if the package doesn't track correctly

seems well worked out. In stable that would still be less than ideal since
it is a finished product. However our context seems to be a testing system
and a mixed-stable system.

I hadn't thought much of it and scarfed libtre5 from sid. Will it not
install to lenny?

> I recently installed the 0.13 git version of ELinks to resolve an
> unrelated issue and since lenny does not feature libtre5, the
> ./configure step gave me a warning and I was able to compile ELinks.
>
> The resulting ELinks version does not have the regex search capability
> on the search dialog, which is not a major problem where I'm concerned
> since in some 4-5 years of daily utilization of ELinks, I have never
> needed it.
>

Right, libtre5:

| a regexp matching library with approximate matching.


> I don't see why a dependency that would deprive you of an obscure
> optional feature such as this, which by the way is correctly handled by
> the stock ELinks install, would prevent installation of the debian
> package.
>

Possibly one reason aptitude will still download a broken package despite
that the force option is gone?

> As to the reason why ELinks of late requires libtre5, I suspect it has
> something to do with Unicode support, which has been vastly improved in
> recent versions.
>

Yes. I hope it will not be an elinks issue. I am fond of both elinks and
Unicode.

> I am not going to investigate this, but the output of 'git log' against
> my git clone strongly suggests this.
>

Very different bug definitions. Mine regards testing, compels me to
ascertain info and maybe file a report. Your's regards mixed-stable, seems
to involve triangulation and esoteric discussion.

--
Kind Regards,
Freeman


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-23-2010, 08:53 AM
Chris Jones
 
Default elinks to be REMOVED from squeeze?

On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 03:43:42AM EST, Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 09:32:26PM -0500, Chris Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 09:09:40PM EST, Freeman wrote:
> >
[..]

> I hadn't thought much of it and scarfed libtre5 from sid. Will it not
> install to lenny?

Probably would, but I'm not that hot on regex's, and besides I had some
real worries with ELinks, so ignored the libtre issue.

> > I recently installed the 0.13 git version of ELinks to resolve an
> > unrelated issue and since lenny does not feature libtre5, the
> > ./configure step gave me a warning and I was able to compile ELinks.
> >
> > The resulting ELinks version does not have the regex search capability
> > on the search dialog, which is not a major problem where I'm concerned
> > since in some 4-5 years of daily utilization of ELinks, I have never
> > needed it.
> >
>
> Right, libtre5:
>
> | a regexp matching library with approximate matching.

It looks like it is _the_ regex library in GNU/linux at this point, and
that it provides advanceds feature such as approximate matching on top
of the 'regular' :-) stuff.

> > I don't see why a dependency that would deprive you of an obscure
> > optional feature such as this, which by the way is correctly handled by
> > the stock ELinks install, would prevent installation of the debian
> > package.

> Possibly one reason aptitude will still download a broken package despite
> that the force option is gone?

I am not familiar with aptitude, but I would assume that there are good
reasons libtre5 is not yet part of testing.

> > As to the reason why ELinks of late requires libtre5, I suspect it has
> > something to do with Unicode support, which has been vastly improved in
> > recent versions.

> Yes. I hope it will not be an elinks issue. I am fond of both elinks and
> Unicode.

I tend to stick with stable and end up compiling from source the latest
versions of the half dozen applications I use on a daily basis and
running them out of /usr/local. Probably not a very debian-ish
approach, but then the parts of the system I know nothing about are rock
solid, and as to the stuff I compile myself, I either know enough about
it to fix it, or know where and who to look up in case it breaks.

> > I am not going to investigate this, but the output of 'git log' against
> > my git clone strongly suggests this.
>
> Very different bug definitions. Mine regards testing, compels me to
> ascertain info and maybe file a report. Your's regards mixed-stable, seems
> to involve triangulation and esoteric discussion.

:-)

Seriously, the thing is that as explained above, the applications that I
use often enough to run into bugs are not debian-packaged, so the bug
reports would only concern the upstream developers. Leaves stuff like
hardware issues, and minor annoyances that are usually not worth
reporting.

CJ


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-26-2010, 11:39 AM
Jeffrey Cao
 
Default elinks to be REMOVED from squeeze?

On 2010-01-20, Thierry Chatelet <tchatelet@free.fr> wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 January 2010 13:50:58 Jeffrey Cao wrote:
>> Today when I ran "sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get dist-upgrade",
>> I got the message that the package elinks will be removed. I cancelled
>> this upgrade, since that I'm now using elinks.
>> Anyone know why elinks will be removed from squeeze? Or this is just
>> a mistake?
>>
>> Jeffrey
>>
>
> Package elinks
>
> * etch (oldstable) (web): advanced text-mode WWW browser
> 0.11.1-1.2etch2 [security]: alpha amd64 arm hppa i386 ia64 mipsel
> powerpc s390 sparc
> 0.11.1-1.2etch1: mips
> * etch-m68k (web): advanced text-mode WWW browser
> 0.11.1-1.2: m68k
> * lenny (stable) (web): advanced text-mode WWW browser
> 0.11.4-3: alpha amd64 arm armel hppa i386 ia64 mips mipsel powerpc s390
> sparc
> * squeeze (testing) (web): advanced text-mode WWW browser
> 0.12~pre5-1+b1: armel hppa i386 ia64 mipsel
> 0.12~pre5-1: amd64 mips powerpc s390 sparc
> * sid (unstable) (web): advanced text-mode WWW browser
> 0.12~pre5-2: alpha amd64 armel hppa hurd-i386 i386 ia64 kfreebsd-amd64
> kfreebsd-i386 mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc
> 0.11.4-3 [debports]: m68k
>
Now, I get why the elinks package is scheduled to be removed. The dependency
must be wrong for elinks-data package as follows. The dependency says
elinks-data package conflicts with elinks and elinks-lite.

Package: elinks-data
State: installed
Automatically installed: yes
Version: 0.12~pre5-1
Priority: optional
Section: web
Maintainer: Y Giridhar Appaji Nag <appaji@debian.org>
Uncompressed Size: 1,978k
Recommends: elinks (= 0.12~pre5-1)
Conflicts: elinks (< 0.11.3-1), elinks-lite
Replaces: elinks (< 0.11.3-1)

Jeffrey


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-26-2010, 03:30 PM
"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr."
 
Default elinks to be REMOVED from squeeze?

On Tuesday 26 January 2010 06:39:24 Jeffrey Cao wrote:
> Now, I get why the elinks package is scheduled to be removed. The
> dependency must be wrong for elinks-data package as follows.

> Conflicts: elinks (< 0.11.3-1), elinks-lite
> Replaces: elinks (< 0.11.3-1)

That looks correct, for the case when files that were previously included in
the elinks package (versions << 0.11.3-1) are now included in the elinks-data
package and no longer included in the elinks package (>= 0.11.3-1).
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:30 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org