[PlanetCCRMA] Re: Apt problems]

William M. Quarles walrus@bellsouth.net
Fri Nov 26 19:37:01 2004

Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 13:32, William M. Quarles wrote:
>>Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
>>>On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 11:55, William M. Quarles wrote:
>>>>William M. Quarles wrote:
>>>>>Back to my third Up2Date test, I found something curious... if the 
>>>>>packages that would otherwise "conflict" are being downloaded together, 
>>>>>then Up2Date doesn't complain about them (i.e. the LADSPA plugins).  So 
>>>>>this list isn't necessarily complete either, but check it out.
>>>>I got the flipside to the LADSPA plugins conflict.  My theory is that 
>>>>they will all conflict with each other. I think this is my last test, 
>>>>unless you can think of anything else to do.
>>>Not really, except to try with yum instead of apt, just in case the
>>>update logic in up2date using yum is better than the one for apt. 
>>Considering that I really have not had this problem with any of the
>>other repositories that I have been using, I think you should look into
> Maybe the other repositories don't trigger the bug. Or have better
> packages :-) Just curious, any other repository you use has a kernel
> available?

Not that I am aware of, other than the VPI&SU Fedora mirror that I have 
been using.  Those are official Fedora Project packages and header files 
though.  Fedora Legacy Project might have official Fedora Project 
kernels accessible via apt, but it's probably the same story there.

> I could eventually "solve" the ladspa problem by not sharing the
> directory between the packages. But I would just be masking the problem
> in up2date (IMHO), rpm itself does not complain about any conflicts when
> installing the packages, why should up2date? 
> And what about redhat-menus and the kernel? I'm using virtually the same
> spec file as fedora. So I'm not doing, in that case, anything different
> from fedora itself and still you get an error... 

I've got no clue, other than perhaps there is more to making these 
header files for the repositories than just what is in the spec files. 
I'm sure that your spec files are fine.

>>I was going to report a bug to fedora.us, but it appears that we
>>are having the same error with the Yum repository as we were having with
>>the Apt repository when using Up2Date, so I am not going to make the
> Hmmm, why fedora.us? Up2Date should be the responsability of Fedora
> itself, it is a core package that is not maintained by fedora.us, I
> think.

Fedora Legacy Project is using the fedora.us Bugzilla.  Click on the 
links and that's what you'll find.

>>There's probably somebody on the Fedora developers' list
>>familiar enough with Up2Date to give us some advice on this issue.
> Yes, maybe that would be an option. 
> Sorry that yum is not working either...

No problem.  I don't mind using APT except I do mind when it likes to 
uninstall a bunch of packages when I'm tying to install only one 
(someone else on the Fedora developer's list was complaining about that, 
too).  That would be nice as an option, and not as an innate behavior. 
I've got this cool experimental Xine plugin for Mozilla, but the Xine 
package that it requires is named differently from mine, so APT always 
likes to uninstall it.  I knowingly make similar changes to my computer 
as temporary transitions (I need to uninstall a package for a while even 
if it breaks dependencies, or I want to install a package that I know 
will work even if technically it does not think all of the dependencies 
are satisfied), and then APT wants to take them all off, it's really 

Some similar talk about APT/Up2Date problems (but very little of it) is 
out there, hopefully you got one of my replies to the Fedora developer's 
list about it.