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 > Ubuntu > Ubuntu User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-07-2008, 03:55 PM
Beartooth Testbedder
 
Default VVDQ : Alpine on Ubuntu??

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:31:36 +0100, Alejandro wrote:

>
> El lun, 07-01-2008 a las 10:35 -0500, Beartooth Testbedder escribió:
>> E: Unmet dependencies. Try 'apt-get -f install' with no packages (or
>> specify a solution).
>
> Have you tried this?
>
> Alejandro

No, of course not -- that's why I asked -- *first* :

> But I'm almighty leery of any kind of -f option, let alone an install
> command with no argument. Do I really want to do that?? What does it
> mean by "(or specify a solution)"??

If I ever saw a computer response that looked more like an invitation to
disaster than that, I don't want to remember. I wouldn't be caught dead
trying such a thing, let alone as root, without some sort of expert
reassurance in advance.

--
Beartooth Staffwright, Neo-Redneck, Double Retiree,
Not Quite Clueless Linux Power User : F8, C5.1, U6.06;
I have precious (very precious) little idea where up is.




--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-07-2008, 03:58 PM
Alejandro
 
Default VVDQ : Alpine on Ubuntu??

El lun, 07-01-2008 a las 11:55 -0500, Beartooth Testbedder escribió:
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:31:36 +0100, Alejandro wrote:
>
> >
> > El lun, 07-01-2008 a las 10:35 -0500, Beartooth Testbedder escribió:
> >> E: Unmet dependencies. Try 'apt-get -f install' with no packages (or
> >> specify a solution).
> >
> > Have you tried this?
> >
> > Alejandro
>
> No, of course not -- that's why I asked -- *first* :

The -f option will only fix broken packages by installing all the
dependancies the broken package needs

for more info: $ man apt-get

Alejandro


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-07-2008, 04:00 PM
Felipe Figueiredo
 
Default VVDQ : Alpine on Ubuntu??

Em Monday 07 January 2008 13:35:37 Beartooth Testbedder escreveu:
>
> My apologies in advance for what must be a Very Very Dumb Question (VVDQ)
> -- one so dumb I don't even know if it's an Alpine Question, an Ubuntu
> question, or what -- nor where to look up an appropriate FAQ. (I'm just
> starting Ubuntu, having never run anything but RH, Fedora, or clones.)
>
> I went to UW, downloaded a .deb for Alpine 1.0, and tried UW's
> instructions for installing it with "dpkg -i alpine_1.00_i386.deb"
>
> That got an error message. I chewed on it, to no avail, while I did some
> other stuff.
>
> Now I've gotten another error message, while doing something unrelated,
> obviously meant to remind me of the loose end. And I can't make head nor
> tail of it, either :
>
> root@SblzUb:/home/btth# qtparted &
> [1] 32684
> root@SblzUb:/home/btth# qtparted: cannot connect to X server
>
> [qtparted never did launch, and I eventually hit ^C]
>
> [1]+ Exit 1 qtparted
> root@SblzUb:/home/btth# apt-get install qtparted
> Reading package lists...
> Done Building dependency tree... Done
> qtparted is already the newest version. You might want to run `apt-get -f
> install' to correct these: The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> alpine: Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3.6-6) but 2.3.6-0ubuntu20.5 is to be
> installed
> Depends: libssl0.9.8 (>= 0.9.8c-1) but 0.9.8a-7ubuntu0.5 is to be
> installed
> E: Unmet dependencies. Try 'apt-get -f install' with no packages (or
> specify a solution).
> root@SblzUb:/home/btth#
>
> Having run Linux since RH7, I'm only too familiar with dependency hells.
> (Maybe Debian has a general solution??)
>
> But I'm almighty leery of any kind of -f option, let alone an install
> command with no argument. Do I really want to do that?? What does it mean
> by "(or specify a solution)"??

Can't say if it's unrelated, because you never gave the alpine error message.
In any case, there's a slightly older alpine version in the repository, did
you try it?

What versions of libc6 and libssl0.9.8 do you have? What distribuition are you
using? Feisty or Gutsy?

Why did you try to install qtparted when it was already installed? Have you
fixed the dpkg database following the instructions you received
(Try 'apt-get -f install' with no packages)?

Please, try to be more informative.

regards
FF

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-07-2008, 04:03 PM
Derek Broughton
 
Default VVDQ : Alpine on Ubuntu??

Beartooth Testbedder wrote:

> I went to UW, downloaded a .deb for Alpine 1.0, and tried UW's
> instructions for installing it with "dpkg -i alpine_1.00_i386.deb"
>
> That got an error message. I chewed on it, to no avail, while I did some
> other stuff

Without the message, there's not much we can do, but I'd suggest that it's
probably partly installed now, and "sudo aptitude -f install" might finish
the job.

> Now I've gotten another error message, while doing something unrelated,
> obviously meant to remind me of the loose end. And I can't make head nor
> tail of it, either :
>
> root@SblzUb:/home/btth# qtparted &
> [1] 32684
> root@SblzUb:/home/btth# qtparted: cannot connect to X server

Again, you don't really give us enough context, but at a guess I'd say you
have used "su" (evil!) or "sudo -i" to get a root shell, and are now trying
to run qtparted with predictable results. Use "kdesudo qtparted" from your
_own_ shell (though I think you need to give it a disk name).

> root@SblzUb:/home/btth# apt-get install qtparted

Not necessary...

> Reading package lists...
> Done Building dependency tree... Done
> qtparted is already the newest version. You might want to run `apt-get -f
> install' to correct these: The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> alpine: Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3.6-6) but 2.3.6-0ubuntu20.5 is to be
> installed

...As I said.

> Having run Linux since RH7, I'm only too familiar with dependency hells.
> (Maybe Debian has a general solution??)

Yes - it involves never installing packages from unknown repositories using
dpkg. alpine is in the "universe" repository, and if you used that (by
enabling it in either /etc/apt/sources.list or /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ -
there should be a commented line somewhere), then all the dependencies
would have been resolved.

I recommend "sudo dpkg --purge remove alpine", then "sudo aptitude update"
(after enabling the universe repository), and "sudo aptitude install
alpine".

>
> But I'm almighty leery of any kind of -f option, let alone an install
> command with no argument. Do I really want to do that?? What does it mean
> by "(or specify a solution)"??

In this case, no you don't want to do that, because you've got a package
that quite possibly isn't compatible with Ubuntu, but it is generally
safe. -f is "fix", which just means do whatever's necessary to resolve
dependency issues - and it won't do them until it tells you what it wants
and gives you a chance to respond.
--
derek


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-07-2008, 04:06 PM
Felipe Figueiredo
 
Default VVDQ : Alpine on Ubuntu??

Em Monday 07 January 2008 14:55:49 Beartooth Testbedder escreveu:
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:31:36 +0100, Alejandro wrote:
>
> >
> > El lun, 07-01-2008 a las 10:35 -0500, Beartooth Testbedder escribió:
> >> E: Unmet dependencies. Try 'apt-get -f install' with no packages (or
> >> specify a solution).
> >
> > Have you tried this?
> >
> > Alejandro
>
> No, of course not -- that's why I asked -- *first* :
>
> > But I'm almighty leery of any kind of -f option, let alone an install
> > command with no argument. Do I really want to do that?? What does it
> > mean by "(or specify a solution)"??
>
> If I ever saw a computer response that looked more like an invitation to
> disaster than that, I don't want to remember. I wouldn't be caught dead
> trying such a thing, let alone as root, without some sort of expert
> reassurance in advance.
>

If you don't specify a package, it's mostly harmless (like the planet earth).
It will rebuild the dependencies DB of the packages (both installed and
installable).

"(or specify a solution)" means you also have the option of trying to resolve
the "dependency hell" manually, assuming it's created by the availability
(and choice) of many different versions of some packages being available.
This is never the case in a normal situation, that is, if you only use the
official repositories. Do you have non-standard repositories in your
sources.list?

FF

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-07-2008, 04:09 PM
Heath Miller
 
Default VVDQ : Alpine on Ubuntu??

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:55:49 -0500
Beartooth Testbedder <Beartooth@swva.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:31:36 +0100, Alejandro wrote:
>
> >
> > El lun, 07-01-2008 a las 10:35 -0500, Beartooth Testbedder escribió:
> >> E: Unmet dependencies. Try 'apt-get -f install' with no packages
> >> (or specify a solution).
> >
> > Have you tried this?
> >
> > Alejandro
>
> No, of course not -- that's why I asked -- *first* :
>
> > But I'm almighty leery of any kind of -f option, let alone
> > an install command with no argument. Do I really want to do that??
> > What does it mean by "(or specify a solution)"??
>
> If I ever saw a computer response that looked more like an
> invitation to disaster than that, I don't want to remember. I
> wouldn't be caught dead trying such a thing, let alone as root,
> without some sort of expert reassurance in advance.

There is nothing to worry about the -f stands for fix broken. What
happened was during the install it failed and left broken packages on
your system the apt-get -f install fixes the broken install.
>

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-07-2008, 09:19 PM
Beartooth Testbedder
 
Default VVDQ : Alpine on Ubuntu??

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:03:18 -0400, Derek Broughton wrote:

> Beartooth Testbedder wrote:
>
>> I went to UW, downloaded a .deb for Alpine 1.0, and tried UW's
>> instructions for installing it with "dpkg -i alpine_1.00_i386.deb"
>>
>> That got an error message. I chewed on it, to no avail, while I did some
>> other stuff
>
> Without the message, there's not much we can do, but I'd suggest that it's
> probably partly installed now, and "sudo aptitude -f install" might finish
> the job.

I'd've quoted the message if I still had it; it was about a dependency
conflict, and much like what I did quote, just below.

>> Now I've gotten another error message, while doing something unrelated,
>> obviously meant to remind me of the loose end. And I can't make head
>> nor tail of it, either :
>>
>> root@SblzUb:/home/btth# qtparted &
>> [1] 32684
>> root@SblzUb:/home/btth# qtparted: cannot connect to X server
>
> Again, you don't really give us enough context, but at a guess I'd say
> you have used "su" (evil!) or "sudo -i" to get a root shell, and are now
> trying to run qtparted with predictable results. Use "kdesudo qtparted"
> from your _own_ shell (though I think you need to give it a disk name).

Well, with respect, from where I stand it's sudo that's evil. I'm no Alpha
Plus Technoid, nor was meant to be. When I found out I'd have to learn vi
just to set it up, I abandoned all hope of it. But, being fortunately in
possession of machines no one else ever touches (Do not do this at work!),
I simply took to keeping one gnome terminal tab logged into root all the
time -- with certain precautions, of course. That was at least ten years
back, and I'm getting old ...

What's a disk name??

(That "SblxUb" in the prompts is either a machine
name, or more likely a name for the partition(s?) containing Ubuntu. I'm
not quite sure which -- won't be, till I can get the triple boot
working. The whole machine has only one 40 GB hard drive.)

>> root@SblzUb:/home/btth# apt-get install qtparted
>
> Not necessary...

So I discovered -- but only when I tried that.

I had to do something : Qtparted does launch, both
from the icon on the panel, and from a prompt with "qtparted &" -- but
only in a useless way. I want it because it seems, at least under Fedora,
to tell me more about what partitions I've got now than gparted does. (I
think Ubuntu hosed my CentOS, even though I tried to use the alternate CD.
More about that in another thread.)

>> Reading package lists...
>> Done Building dependency tree... Done qtparted is already the newest
>> version. You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these:
>> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>> alpine: Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3.6-6) but 2.3.6-0ubuntu20.5 is to be
>> installed
>
> ...As I said.

Yes -- and, again, as I found out only by doing that.

>> Having run Linux since RH7, I'm only too familiar with dependency
>> hells. (Maybe Debian has a general solution??)
>
> Yes - it involves never installing packages from unknown repositories
> using dpkg. alpine is in the "universe" repository, and if you used
> that (by enabling it in either /etc/apt/sources.list or
> /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ - there should be a commented line somewhere),
> then all the dependencies would have been resolved.

OK; the place I looked to find about repos must have confused me. I, if
not my wife, will need apps that neither synaptic nor the other installer
seems able out of the box to get. (The other I mean seems to be called
Package Manager, and to use "usr/bin/gnome-app-install" to install.

> I recommend "sudo dpkg --purge remove alpine", then "sudo aptitude
> update" (after enabling the universe repository), and "sudo aptitude
> install alpine".

The springing point may be your 'after enabling the universe repository'
-- which may prove non-trivial. Again, food for another thread.

I'm starting the sequence you suggest now; it seems to want to check many
doubtless very needful things. Stay tuned.

>> But I'm almighty leery of any kind of -f option, let alone an install
>> command with no argument. Do I really want to do that?? What does it
>> mean by "(or specify a solution)"??
>
> In this case, no you don't want to do that, because you've got a package
> that quite possibly isn't compatible with Ubuntu, but it is generally
> safe.

Hmmm -- 'generally safe' meaning perhaps simply that it's known not to be
malware?

>-f is "fix", which just means do whatever's necessary to resolve
> dependency issues - and it won't do them until it tells you what it
> wants and gives you a chance to respond.

Aha! Ein altes Wort bewaehrt sich leider auch an mir : it's not what you
don't know that does the big damage. It's what you think you know, that
ain't so. I supposed -f for "force" -- erroneously -- to be close to a
unix standard for "force." And failed to question it.

OK, many thanks! There are lots of pointers in this thread, and
especially this post, toward the kinds of things I have to find out about.

LATER : the first cleanup command ran fine :

btth@SblzUb:~$ sudo dpkg --purge remove alpine
Password:
dpkg - warning: ignoring request to remove remove which isn't installed.
(Reading database ... 87227 files and directories currently installed.)
Removing alpine ...
Purging configuration files for alpine ...
btth@SblzUb:~$

But the next one ran into lots of brambles. So I tried this :

btth@SblzUb:~$ cd /etc/apt
btth@SblzUb:/etc/apt$ ls
apt.conf secring.gpg sources.list~ sources.list.save trusted.gpg
apt.conf.d sources.list sources.list.d trustdb.gpg trusted.gpg~
btth@SblzUb:/etc/apt$ ls sources.list.d

[That got no list, despite nano having just assured me sources.list.d was
a directory, but just the prompt back. This seems *very* strange ...]

btth@SblzUb:/etc/apt$ nano -w sources.list.d

[Again, no response -- just the prompt back.]

btth@SblzUb:/etc/apt$ cd sources.list.d
btth@SblzUb:/etc/apt/sources.list.d$ ls
btth@SblzUb:/etc/apt/sources.list.d$

[still no response! What's more, putting sudo in front of it made nano
open -- a new file! Ubuntu says it's there, and won't let me open it.]

I'm stumped -- again.

PS:

A little background may help some of you understand, or even tolerate, my
approach: committed though I am to Fedora for my own use, I can see that
my wife, who takes little interest in computers but does write books --
and who is obviously going to outlive me -- will need something a lot less
subject to change after I'm no longer able to shoot its troubles.

But that means I have to use it, too, at least enough for the purpose;
and, curmudgeon that I am, I'm trying to see how closely I can adapt
either of the obvious candidates to the way I've been doing things.

If I can do that, I can surely adapt to her needs; if not, maybe I still
can. <sigh>

Once more, much thanks for all the help!

--
Beartooth Staffwright, Neo-Redneck, Double Retiree,
Not Quite Clueless Linux Power User : F8, C5.1, U6.06;
I have precious (very precious) little idea where up is.




--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-07-2008, 09:28 PM
Mario Vukelic
 
Default VVDQ : Alpine on Ubuntu??

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 17:19 -0500, Beartooth Testbedder wrote:
> from where I stand it's sudo that's evil. I'm no Alpha
> Plus Technoid, nor was meant to be. When I found out I'd have to learn
> vi just to set it up, I abandoned all hope of it.

You don't have to learn vi.

* You can edit the sudoers file with any text editor if you can
live without sanity checking
* If you want sanity checking (recommended), you just set the
VISUAL environment variable to the editor you like. E.g., by
using the command line "sudo VISUAL=gedit visudo"
* More info is in the manpage of visudo

If you have only small edits to make, you really just need "i", "x",
and ":wq" in vi. Knowing how to use those is useful anyway, since vi is
pretty much guaranteed to exist on any Unix-like system, even in the
case of emergencies


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-07-2008, 09:33 PM
John Mark Walker
 
Default VVDQ : Alpine on Ubuntu??

Excerpts from Beartooth Testbedder's message of Mon Jan 07 14:19:03 -0800 2008:
[stuff deleted]

Ok, so what happens when you do 'sudo apt-get udpate' and 'sudo apt-get
install alpine'?

And if you want to see what repositories you're using, just use
synaptic, which is available (in GNOME) from System -> Administration ->
Synaptic Package Manager

In fact, if you don't want the command line, you can search for alpine
from synaptic and install it that way.

But, if you must use the command-line to see your repos, then 'sudo vi
/etc/apt/sources.list' is your friend - assuming you are correct that there
is nothing in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/

-JM

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-08-2008, 01:09 PM
Derek Broughton
 
Default VVDQ : Alpine on Ubuntu??

Beartooth Testbedder wrote:

>> Again, you don't really give us enough context, but at a guess I'd say
>> you have used "su" (evil!) or "sudo -i" to get a root shell, and are now
>> trying to run qtparted with predictable results. Use "kdesudo qtparted"
>> from your _own_ shell (though I think you need to give it a disk name).
>
> Well, with respect, from where I stand it's sudo that's evil. I'm no Alpha
> Plus Technoid, nor was meant to be.

Nor do you need to be.

> When I found out I'd have to learn vi
> just to set it up, I abandoned all hope of it.

You don't - I'm not sure what hopeless terminal geek-case came up with the
name "visudo", but it (at least in Debian/Ubuntu) runs your EDITOR, not vi
(though the documentation implies that that's not the default case on other
distros). In my case, EDITOR is "joe", and it uses joe. I'm rather
surprised that every distro doesn't come with both a "visudo" and
an "emacsudo" command :-)

> But, being fortunately in
> possession of machines no one else ever touches (Do not do this at work!),
> I simply took to keeping one gnome terminal tab logged into root all the
> time -- with certain precautions, of course. That was at least ten years
> back, and I'm getting old ...

However, in Ubuntu you already have sudo configured for you if you're the
only person using the machine.
>
> What's a disk name??

/dev/sda, /dev/hda, etc. I don't have qtparted installed, so I could be
wrong about needing that, anyway (in fact, I suspect I must be, as I _do_
have parted, and I see it defaults to my only internal hd).

> OK; the place I looked to find about repos must have confused me. I, if
> not my wife, will need apps that neither synaptic nor the other installer
> seems able out of the box to get. (The other I mean seems to be called
> Package Manager, and to use "usr/bin/gnome-app-install" to install.

Both should have options to change the repositories - they use the same
basic configuration, even if they use different front-ends. In synaptic,
the option is under "Settings / Repositories" and you should be able to
just find a check-box for "universe"

> The springing point may be your 'after enabling the universe repository'
> -- which may prove non-trivial. Again, food for another thread.

No, it should be easy.

> Hmmm -- 'generally safe' meaning perhaps simply that it's known not to be
> malware?

No, meaning it's going to prompt you before doing anything and if you tell
it to install something that you have no reason to believe is really
required for your package, you'll get what you deserve. :-)


> Aha! Ein altes Wort bewaehrt sich leider auch an mir : it's not what you
> don't know that does the big damage. It's what you think you know, that
> ain't so.

LOL - well that rather applies to my comment above :-)

> But the next one ran into lots of brambles. So I tried this :
>
> btth@SblzUb:~$ cd /etc/apt
> btth@SblzUb:/etc/apt$ ls
> apt.conf secring.gpg sources.list~ sources.list.save trusted.gpg
> apt.conf.d sources.list sources.list.d trustdb.gpg trusted.gpg~
> btth@SblzUb:/etc/apt$ ls sources.list.d
>
> [That got no list, despite nano having just assured me sources.list.d was
> a directory, but just the prompt back. This seems *very* strange ...]
>
> btth@SblzUb:/etc/apt$ nano -w sources.list.d
>
_Either_ /etc/apt/sources.list (a file) or _at least one_ file
in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ are required (and both may be present). The
current tendency is to put separate files for each repository
in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ but your system may only have the single file
in /etc/apt/sources.list. In either case:

# grep -r universe /etc/apt/sources.list*

will tell you which files contain a source for universe (note only files
named *.list in the sources.list.d directory are used - there could be
backup files in there).
--
derek


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:03 AM.

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