Package dependency weirdness
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
I wanted to install the package mozvoikko but it told me I'd need to install thunderbird as well. This sounds strange because mozvoikko depends on firefox or thunderbird (or...). Firefox on Trisquel is a virtual package provided by abrowser which I do have installed. This was apt-get's and Synaptic's take on the situation.
Then I tried for the heck of it to manually download the mozvoikko .deb from repos. When double clicking the package gdebi opened and lo and behold, it said all is cool, dependencies satisfied. So I went happily ahead but when the deed was done gdebi tersely informed me that I now had broken packages.
I fired Synaptic again and told it to fix broken packages. Now it says mozvoikko is installed by it's status is "broken dependencies" and insists that I do install thunderbird. One of the tools also said something about old cache.
Interesting...
It indeed looks like a bug on Trisquel's part: "or abrowser" is missing in the dependency.
Could you contact quidam (Trisquel's leader) and tell him that? You can try this contact form. However, the experience has shown it is more efficient to catch him on the #trisquel IRC channel.
Yeah, thanks for the reply. I think I'll wait a few days in case somebody has some more insight and then go ahead and file a bug. Just to make the bug report as concise and to-the-point as possible.
I think it should just work as it is now but obviously it doesn't. Perhaps this has something to do with (virtual) package versions? Or do virtual packages even have versions? Or maybe the dependency is the package instead of the virtual package? I'm not familiar enough with the packaging scheme to make heads or tails of this. It's a bug all right but I can't put my finger on it. Then again, knowing the solution is of course not required for filing a bug! :)
Yeah, thanks for the reply. I think I'll wait a few days in case somebody has
some more insight and then go ahead and file a bug. Just to make the bug
report as concise and to-the-point as possible.
I think it should just work as it is now but obviously it doesn't. Perhaps
this has something to do with (virtual) package versions? Or do virtual
packages even have versions? Or maybe the dependency is the package instead
of the virtual package? I'm not familiar enough with the packaging scheme to
make heads or tails of this. It's a bug all right but I can't put my finger
on it. Then again, knowing the solution is of course not required for filing
a bug! :)
Aha!
Maybe it indeed does have to do with version as the Debian policy manual [1]
states that
"If a relationship field has a version number attached, only real packages
will be considered to see whether the relationship is satisfied (or the
prohibition violated, for a conflict or breakage). In other words, if a
version number is specified, this is a request to ignore all Provides for
that package name and consider only real packages."
apt-cache show xul-ext-mozvoikko shows the dependency indeed contains a
version number:
Depends: libvoikko1, voikko-fi, firefox (>= 4.0)...
And apt-cache policy firefox shows the real package is not available.
firefox:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: (none)
Version table:
Case closed, dontcha think?
[1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-virtual
Aha!
Maybe it indeed does have to do with version as the Debian policy manual [1] states that
"If a relationship field has a version number attached, only real packages will be considered to see whether the relationship is satisfied (or the prohibition violated, for a conflict or breakage). In other words, if a version number is specified, this is a request to ignore all Provides for that package name and consider only real packages."
apt-cache show xul-ext-mozvoikko shows the dependency indeed contains a version number:
Depends: libvoikko1, voikko-fi, firefox (>= 4.0)...
And apt-cache policy firefox shows the real package is not available.
firefox:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: (none)
Version table:
Case closed, dontcha think?
[1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-virtual
ps. I guess the gdebi behavior could warrant another bug...
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios