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 03-23-2012, 05:55 PM
Camaleón
 
Default Apt-pinning confusion

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:15:10 +0000, Ramon Hofer wrote:

> Hi all
>
> I'm trying to put the MythTV PVR XBMC version on my Shuttle box. I need
> a newer alsa version than the one from Squeeze because the stable
> version doesn't see the soundcard. So I wanted to install alsa from
> testing.
> And because I use a SSD I thought it would be a good idea to use the
> squeeze-backports kernel.
>
> What do you think it would be better to completely go with testing.

Testing is currently quite stable but there are significant differences
between wheezy and squeeze, like the gnome environment.

> There are two reasons why I didn't want to do this:
>
> First I need to compile the jme module manually to be able to use the
> network interface. So I thought the less changes to the kernel makes me
> less often compile that module again.

My wild guess is that wheezy kernel is not going to change much since now
(3.2.12 is the current one) and IIRC, wheezy will be relased with this
(3.2.x) branch but well... this can change at any time so yes, you will
have to recompile the kernel module for every kernel change.

> Second the XBMC version I want to install needs libboost version 1.47 or
> older.

Any specific reason for you to stick with a specific version of XBMC? :-?

> So I thought I'd go with Stable, the kernel from backports and alsa from
> testing.

Sounds reasonable.

> Unfortunately this doesn't work. I suppose my problem are wrong apt-
> preferences numbers or something like this.
>
> Here's my sources.list: http://pastebin.com/5SQhvDqw And apt
> preferences: http://pastebin.com/VcndLA6C

(tip: when sending a pastebin link, I prefer to use the "raw" mode, it
reads better, i.e.: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=VcndLA6C)

I'm not going to make any comments about pinning because I've never used
but just a question: have you considered in using pinning only for the
packages you want to be kept for a specific flavour? That is, being more
"selective" to avoid additional problems or messing up too many packages.

> And here's the error I get when I try to install linux-headers-686-pae
> from squeeze-backports: http://pastebin.com/RcAPE36t
>
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> linux-headers-686-pae : Depends: linux-headers-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae
> but
> it is not going to be installed
> E: Broken packages

Mmm... "linux-headers-686-pae" is a metapackage that has to pull "linux-
headers-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae" automatically, I would open Sypatic to see
what's going on with this although manually installing "linux-
headers-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae" in addition to the metacpake should work.

> Yesterday I had the problem with alsa but today witchcraft made the
> problem with alsa disappear but the one with the kernel header and as
> well build-essential appear.
>
> Is this really a problem of the apt pinning numbers? Or what can you
> suggest me to do?
> Maybe stick with the stable kernel and compile alsa from source?

Your first plan seems good, it may just need to be polished a bit :-)

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: jkiguh$ld4$17@dough.gmane.org">http://lists.debian.org/jkiguh$ld4$17@dough.gmane.org
 
Old 03-24-2012, 12:14 PM
Ramon Hofer
 
Default Apt-pinning confusion

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:55:13 +0000, Camaleón wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:15:10 +0000, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to put the MythTV PVR XBMC version on my Shuttle box. I need
>> a newer alsa version than the one from Squeeze because the stable
>> version doesn't see the soundcard. So I wanted to install alsa from
>> testing.
>> And because I use a SSD I thought it would be a good idea to use the
>> squeeze-backports kernel.
>>
>> What do you think it would be better to completely go with testing.
>
> Testing is currently quite stable but there are significant differences
> between wheezy and squeeze, like the gnome environment.

I think this won't make any difference for me because I will only use the
base system with xorg and xbmc without any window manager.


>> There are two reasons why I didn't want to do this:
>>
>> First I need to compile the jme module manually to be able to use the
>> network interface. So I thought the less changes to the kernel makes me
>> less often compile that module again.
>
> My wild guess is that wheezy kernel is not going to change much since
> now (3.2.12 is the current one) and IIRC, wheezy will be relased with
> this (3.2.x) branch but well... this can change at any time so yes, you
> will have to recompile the kernel module for every kernel change.

Ok, so at least I don't have to expect kernel changes every day :-)


>> Second the XBMC version I want to install needs libboost version 1.47
>> or older.
>
> Any specific reason for you to stick with a specific version of XBMC?
> :-?

Yes, I want to use xbmc as a frontend for mythtv. And there's a branch of
xbmc pvr that can connect to mythbackend:

http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=110694


>> Unfortunately this doesn't work. I suppose my problem are wrong apt-
>> preferences numbers or something like this.
>>
>> Here's my sources.list: http://pastebin.com/5SQhvDqw And apt
>> preferences: http://pastebin.com/VcndLA6C
>
> (tip: when sending a pastebin link, I prefer to use the "raw" mode, it
> reads better, i.e.: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=VcndLA6C)

Didn't know that. Thanks for the tip I will post it like this from now
on :-)


> I'm not going to make any comments about pinning because I've never used
> but just a question: have you considered in using pinning only for the
> packages you want to be kept for a specific flavour? That is, being more
> "selective" to avoid additional problems or messing up too many
> packages.

This sounds good.
I thought I can do that by installing via "apt-get -t wheezy alsa-utils".


>> And here's the error I get when I try to install linux-headers-686-pae
>> from squeeze-backports: http://pastebin.com/RcAPE36t
>>
>> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>> linux-headers-686-pae : Depends: linux-headers-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae
>> but
>> it is not going to be installed
>> E: Broken packages
>
> Mmm... "linux-headers-686-pae" is a metapackage that has to pull "linux-
> headers-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae" automatically, I would open Sypatic to
> see what's going on with this although manually installing "linux-
> headers-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae" in addition to the metacpake should work.

I installed the two metapackages linux-headers-686-pae and linux-
image-686-pae so that I always have the newest backport kernel with the
matching headers.

Unfortunately I don't have synaptic. I only have the terminal since I
don't want to use any window manager for xbmc.

I can't as well install build-essential. There are many dependencies
which usually are solved automatically.
I think this is something that shouldn't be. When I want to install build-
essential it asks for libc6-dev which depends on libc but a newer version
is to be installed:

http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=FCBUeaVg

It seems as if I made a mess because there already is a libc6 package
from testing installed.


>> Yesterday I had the problem with alsa but today witchcraft made the
>> problem with alsa disappear but the one with the kernel header and as
>> well build-essential appear.
>>
>> Is this really a problem of the apt pinning numbers? Or what can you
>> suggest me to do?
>> Maybe stick with the stable kernel and compile alsa from source?
>
> Your first plan seems good, it may just need to be polished a bit :-)

Ok, thanks.
I will try to again maybe with a clean install again. Like that the mess
with the package dependencies should be gone.


Best regards
Ramon


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: jkkhc7$k3p$1@dough.gmane.org">http://lists.debian.org/jkkhc7$k3p$1@dough.gmane.org
 
Old 03-24-2012, 01:07 PM
Camaleón
 
Default Apt-pinning confusion

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 13:14:47 +0000, Ramon Hofer wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:55:13 +0000, Camaleón wrote:

>>> What do you think it would be better to completely go with testing.
>>
>> Testing is currently quite stable but there are significant differences
>> between wheezy and squeeze, like the gnome environment.
>
> I think this won't make any difference for me because I will only use
> the base system with xorg and xbmc without any window manager.

Oh, that will make things easier (in the event you want to go with
testing) :-)

>> I'm not going to make any comments about pinning because I've never
>> used but just a question: have you considered in using pinning only for
>> the packages you want to be kept for a specific flavour? That is, being
>> more "selective" to avoid additional problems or messing up too many
>> packages.
>
> This sounds good.
> I thought I can do that by installing via "apt-get -t wheezy
> alsa-utils".

Yes, if you manually specify in that way it's even safer.

(...)

> Unfortunately I don't have synaptic. I only have the terminal since I
> don't want to use any window manager for xbmc.

Aptitude can be a good "replacement" for Synaptic.

> I can't as well install build-essential. There are many dependencies
> which usually are solved automatically. I think this is something that
> shouldn't be. When I want to install build- essential it asks for
> libc6-dev which depends on libc but a newer version is to be installed:
>
> http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=FCBUeaVg

$ sudo apt-get -t squeeze-backports install build-essential

> It seems as if I made a mess because there already is a libc6 package
> from testing installed.

Mmm, I can't see such that package available for the backports :-?

>> Your first plan seems good, it may just need to be polished a bit :-)
>
> Ok, thanks.
> I will try to again maybe with a clean install again. Like that the mess
> with the package dependencies should be gone.

Wow... no need to re-install :-), just be sure about the steps you're
doing. Whether in doubt, launch aptitude and try from there, it usually
provides insightful information when having to deal with different/mixed
sources.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: jkkkfd$7bd$6@dough.gmane.org">http://lists.debian.org/jkkkfd$7bd$6@dough.gmane.org
 
Old 03-24-2012, 01:46 PM
Ramon Hofer
 
Default Apt-pinning confusion

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:15:10 +0000, Ramon Hofer wrote:

> So I thought I'd go with Stable, the kernel from backports and alsa from
> testing.
> Unfortunately this doesn't work. I suppose my problem are wrong apt-
> preferences numbers or something like this.

Could it be that it's not possible to have the squeeze-backports kernel,
wheezy alsa-utils and any build-essential installed at the same time is
not possible?

Here's the output of apt-get install build-essential and apt-get -t
wheezy install alsa-utils.

http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=njV7phnL

So I switched to the wheezy build essential. It deinstalled the 2.6
headers.
Then I was able to install alsa-utils from wheezy.

But when I want to install a dependency from xbmc "libcurl4-gnutls-dev" I
have to install pkg-config which remove build-essential again.

Maybe it's easier for me to switch to Wheezy and install the libbost
package from Squeeze.

Or am I missing something?


Best regards
Ramon


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: jkkmo2$81t$1@dough.gmane.org">http://lists.debian.org/jkkmo2$81t$1@dough.gmane.org
 
Old 03-25-2012, 12:15 PM
Camaleón
 
Default Apt-pinning confusion

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:46:27 +0000, Ramon Hofer wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:15:10 +0000, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>
>> So I thought I'd go with Stable, the kernel from backports and alsa
>> from testing.
>> Unfortunately this doesn't work. I suppose my problem are wrong apt-
>> preferences numbers or something like this.
>
> Could it be that it's not possible to have the squeeze-backports kernel,
> wheezy alsa-utils and any build-essential installed at the same time is
> not possible?

What makes you think that?

> Here's the output of apt-get install build-essential and apt-get -t
> wheezy install alsa-utils.
>
> http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=njV7phnL

$ sudo apt-get install build-essential

That went good.

sudo apt-get -t wheezy install alsa-utils

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
libc6-dev : Breaks: gcc-4.4 (< 4.4.6-4) but 4.4.5-8 is to be installed
E: Broken packages

$ apt-cache policy gcc-4.4
gcc-4.4:
Installed: 4.4.5-8
Candidate: 4.4.5-8
Version table:
4.4.7-1 0
600 http://ftp.ch.debian.org/debian/ wheezy/main i386 Packages
*** 4.4.5-8 0
990 http://ftp.ch.debian.org/debian/ squeeze/main i386 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

Mmm, my guess (as I told you earlier in the first post) is that maybe you
are being "too wide" with your pinning configuration and thus allowing
other packages for being upgraded.

You can cherry pick the packages you want to get for wheezy (e.g., alsa-
utils) and keep the rest of the libraries stick to squeeze (gcc-4.4).
There can be situations where this is not possible and you require to
upgrade the libraries as well but better having a message warning, stop
and decide what to do than worry.

> So I switched to the wheezy build essential. It deinstalled the 2.6
> headers.
> Then I was able to install alsa-utils from wheezy.
>
> But when I want to install a dependency from xbmc "libcurl4-gnutls-dev"
> I have to install pkg-config which remove build-essential again.
>
> Maybe it's easier for me to switch to Wheezy and install the libbost
> package from Squeeze.

I would consider installing wheezy, you will get less headches and most
recent packages. You can do a parallel install (or use a VM) and see how
it goes.

> Or am I missing something?

I don't know if this can be done with a fine-grained pinning
configuration, let's see what others suggest.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: jkn29n$q88$13@dough.gmane.org">http://lists.debian.org/jkn29n$q88$13@dough.gmane.org
 
Old 03-25-2012, 02:10 PM
Rob Owens
 
Default Apt-pinning confusion

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:15:10PM +0000, Ramon Hofer wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I'm trying to put the MythTV PVR XBMC version on my Shuttle box.
> I need a newer alsa version than the one from Squeeze because the stable
> version doesn't see the soundcard. So I wanted to install alsa from
> testing.
> And because I use a SSD I thought it would be a good idea to use the
> squeeze-backports kernel.
>
It might make your life a little bit easier to forget about pinning and
just put this in you /etc/apt/apt.conf file:

APT:efault-Release "stable";

That will prevent your system from upgrading to Wheezy on you, but it'll
allow you to install files from wheezy (provided wheezy is in your
sources.list).

-Rob


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120325141008.GA24309@aurora.owens.net">http://lists.debian.org/20120325141008.GA24309@aurora.owens.net
 
Old 03-25-2012, 06:46 PM
Ramon Hofer
 
Default Apt-pinning confusion

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:10:08 -0400, Rob Owens wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:15:10PM +0000, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> I'm trying to put the MythTV PVR XBMC version on my Shuttle box. I need
>> a newer alsa version than the one from Squeeze because the stable
>> version doesn't see the soundcard. So I wanted to install alsa from
>> testing.
>> And because I use a SSD I thought it would be a good idea to use the
>> squeeze-backports kernel.
>>
> It might make your life a little bit easier to forget about pinning and
> just put this in you /etc/apt/apt.conf file:
>
> APT:efault-Release "stable";
>
> That will prevent your system from upgrading to Wheezy on you, but it'll
> allow you to install files from wheezy (provided wheezy is in your
> sources.list).

This makes it much easier.
Thanks alot for the tipp :-)


Best regards
Ramon


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: jknp5a$o5n$1@dough.gmane.org">http://lists.debian.org/jknp5a$o5n$1@dough.gmane.org
 
Old 03-25-2012, 06:59 PM
Ramon Hofer
 
Default Apt-pinning confusion

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:07:41 +0000, Camaleón wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 13:14:47 +0000, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:55:13 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>
>>>> What do you think it would be better to completely go with testing.
>>>
>>> Testing is currently quite stable but there are significant
>>> differences between wheezy and squeeze, like the gnome environment.
>>
>> I think this won't make any difference for me because I will only use
>> the base system with xorg and xbmc without any window manager.
>
> Oh, that will make things easier (in the event you want to go with
> testing) :-)
>
>>> I'm not going to make any comments about pinning because I've never
>>> used but just a question: have you considered in using pinning only
>>> for the packages you want to be kept for a specific flavour? That is,
>>> being more "selective" to avoid additional problems or messing up too
>>> many packages.
>>
>> This sounds good.
>> I thought I can do that by installing via "apt-get -t wheezy
>> alsa-utils".
>
> Yes, if you manually specify in that way it's even safer.
>
> (...)
>
>> Unfortunately I don't have synaptic. I only have the terminal since I
>> don't want to use any window manager for xbmc.
>
> Aptitude can be a good "replacement" for Synaptic.
>
>> I can't as well install build-essential. There are many dependencies
>> which usually are solved automatically. I think this is something that
>> shouldn't be. When I want to install build- essential it asks for
>> libc6-dev which depends on libc but a newer version is to be installed:
>>
>> http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=FCBUeaVg
>
> $ sudo apt-get -t squeeze-backports install build-essential
>
>> It seems as if I made a mess because there already is a libc6 package
>> from testing installed.
>
> Mmm, I can't see such that package available for the backports :-?
>
>>> Your first plan seems good, it may just need to be polished a bit :-)
>>
>> Ok, thanks.
>> I will try to again maybe with a clean install again. Like that the
>> mess with the package dependencies should be gone.
>
> Wow... no need to re-install :-), just be sure about the steps you're
> doing. Whether in doubt, launch aptitude and try from there, it usually
> provides insightful information when having to deal with different/mixed
> sources.

Thanks again for your help, Camaleón!

I now was able to install the backports kernel, nvidia-glx and add wheezy
alsa.
The packages which I need for building xbmc are most from squeeze, some
from backports and some from wheezy.
I was just trying to install each package from squeeze. If it didn't work
I went for backports but most of them can't be found there so I went for
wheezy.

Btw what's the difference between linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.1-686-pae and
linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae and why are both in the backports repos.
I was looking at packages.debian.org but couldn't find any explenation.
Is there a place where I could find more infos?


Best regards
Ramon


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: jknpuu$o5n$2@dough.gmane.org">http://lists.debian.org/jknpuu$o5n$2@dough.gmane.org
 
Old 03-26-2012, 01:40 PM
Camaleón
 
Default Apt-pinning confusion

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:59:42 +0000, Ramon Hofer wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:07:41 +0000, Camaleón wrote:

(...)

>> Wow... no need to re-install :-), just be sure about the steps you're
>> doing. Whether in doubt, launch aptitude and try from there, it usually
>> provides insightful information when having to deal with
>> different/mixed sources.
>
> Thanks again for your help, Camaleón!
>
> I now was able to install the backports kernel, nvidia-glx and add
> wheezy alsa.
> The packages which I need for building xbmc are most from squeeze, some
> from backports and some from wheezy.
> I was just trying to install each package from squeeze. If it didn't
> work I went for backports but most of them can't be found there so I
> went for wheezy.

Glad you finally got it working without reinstalling.

> Btw what's the difference between linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.1-686-pae and
> linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae and why are both in the backports
> repos. I was looking at packages.debian.org but couldn't find any
> explenation. Is there a place where I could find more infos?

AFAICT, the last number in ".bpo.1"/".bpo.2" indicates a revision. A
higher number means is the latest one.

More info:

5.6.12 Version
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: jkprku$4vf$3@dough.gmane.org">http://lists.debian.org/jkprku$4vf$3@dough.gmane.org
 
Old 03-27-2012, 10:45 AM
Ramon Hofer
 
Default Apt-pinning confusion

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:40:47 +0000, Camaleón wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:59:42 +0000, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:07:41 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> Btw what's the difference between linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.1-686-pae and
>> linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae and why are both in the backports
>> repos. I was looking at packages.debian.org but couldn't find any
>> explenation. Is there a place where I could find more infos?
>
> AFAICT, the last number in ".bpo.1"/".bpo.2" indicates a revision. A
> higher number means is the latest one.
>
> More info:
>
> 5.6.12 Version
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html

Thanks for the info!

I was just thinking if it would be better to switch from linux-
image-3.2.0-0.bpo.1-686-pae on another machine to linux-
image-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae?
But maybe the difference isn't immense so I probably shouldn't change the
running system :-)


Best regards
Ramon


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: jks5o7$8ao$1@dough.gmane.org">http://lists.debian.org/jks5o7$8ao$1@dough.gmane.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:26 AM.

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