[Aptitude-devel] Bug#799918: Bug#799918: apt-get proves I am innocent
積丹尼 Dan Jacobson
jidanni at jidanni.org
Fri Oct 23 23:15:46 UTC 2015
>>>>> "MAFM" == Manuel A Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo at gmail.com> writes:
MAFM> The idea is that you install libgdal1i from testing first
MAFM> (1.11.2+dfsg-3), then install qgis also from testing (with all of the
MAFM> versions of the dependency chain from testing). Which maybe you do,
MAFM> but not shown in the actions above.
Oops you are right, I never imagined you meant that I needed to adjust my
sources.lists, so still haven't tried that method in fact. (And don't
MAFM> In any case, gdal is in a middle of a transition . In unstable,
MAFM> qgis depends on libgdal.so.1-1.11.2, provided by
MAFM> libgdal1i=1.11.2+dfsg-3, and qgis also depends on python-qgis, which
MAFM> in turn depends on python-qgis-common, which in turn depends on
MAFM> python-gdal, which depends on libgdal.so.1-1.11.3 provided by
MAFM> libgdal1i=1.11.3+dfsg-2, which of course cannot stay in the system as
MAFM> the same time as libgdal1i=1.11.2+dfsg-3.
MAFM> So the packages will not be able to be installed/upgraded until all of
MAFM> the chain of dependencies decide move on to depend on
MAFM> libgdal.so.1-1.11.3 (provided by libgdal1i=1.11.3+dfsg-2), or in other
MAFM> words, until the transition is over.
MAFM>  https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/gdal-1.11.3.html
So apt-get and aptitude are right, and indeed the package is
uninstallable (unless one adjusts their sources.lists perhaps.) So
therefore this bug should be transferred back to the offending package
in the first place (please do), with the final court verdict that indeed
it is doing something wrong, no?
More information about the Aptitude-devel