[livesupport-dev] Installing 1.0.1 on Ubuntu 5.10 "Breezy"
  • Vote Up0Vote Down importimport
    Posts: 0Member
    I've updated my system to a clean install of Ubuntu 5.10 "Breezy", but am
    having problems with installing the LiveSupport 1.0.1 packages. I get the
    following dependency error, even though the package is apparently later
    than the requirement LS sets out:

    The package in question that I have installed is:

    libboost-date-time1.33.0 (1.32.0+1.33.0-cvs20050727-1ubuntu1)

    LS gives me the following error message:

    livesupport-libs:
    Depends: libboost-date-time1.32.0 (>=1.31) but it is not installable

    and then I can't install the package.

    What can be done about this (besides filing a bug)?


    doug


    =============================================
    Media Development Loan Fund
    =============================================
    Douglas Arellanes
    Head of Research and Development
    Center for Advanced Media--Prague (CAMP)
    Na vinicnich horach 24a/1834, 160 00 Prague 6
    Czech Republic
    Tel: + 420 2 3333 5356, Fax: +420 2 2431 5419
    Mobile: +420 724 073 364
    http://www.mdlf-camp.net
    http://www.campware.org
    =============================================
    http://www.mdlf.org
    =============================================
  • 10 Comments sorted by
  • Vote Up0Vote Down importimport
    Posts: 0Member
    Douglas.Arellanes@mdlf.org wrote:
    > libboost-date-time1.33.0 (1.32.0+1.33.0-cvs20050727-1ubuntu1)
    >
    > LS gives me the following error message:
    >
    > livesupport-libs:
    > Depends: libboost-date-time1.32.0 (>=1.31) but it is not installable
    >
    > and then I can't install the package.
    >
    > What can be done about this (besides filing a bug)?

    Debian package builds should be built and targeted for Debian unstable
    (which currently doesn't include libboost-date-time1.32.0 - it includes
    libboost-date-time1.33.0 as you've found). Ubuntu releases are periodic
    snapshots of Debian unstable with some package tweaks. If you target
    Debian Unstable, the packages should work on Ubuntu without much issue.

    If people want to use another Debian release (like Sarge), a backport
    (basically a rebuild of a package in a given environment) should be
    done.


    --
    -------------------------------
    Michael Schultheiss
    E-mail: livesupport@amellus.com
  • Vote Up0Vote Down importimport
    Posts: 0Member
    Hi Michael,


    Should I try to use a Debian unstable repository to get items like
    libboost-date-time 1.33? I'm presuming that would be "Sid" at this point.

    doug






    Michael Schultheiss
    10/19/2005 04:28 PM
    Please respond to livesupport-dev


    To: livesupport-dev@campware.org
    cc:
    Subject: Re: [livesupport-dev] Installing 1.0.1 on Ubuntu 5.10 "Breezy"


    Douglas.Arellanes@mdlf.org wrote:
    > libboost-date-time1.33.0 (1.32.0+1.33.0-cvs20050727-1ubuntu1)
    >
    > LS gives me the following error message:
    >
    > livesupport-libs:
    > Depends: libboost-date-time1.32.0 (>=1.31) but it is not installable
    >
    > and then I can't install the package.
    >
    > What can be done about this (besides filing a bug)?

    Debian package builds should be built and targeted for Debian unstable
    (which currently doesn't include libboost-date-time1.32.0 - it includes
    libboost-date-time1.33.0 as you've found). Ubuntu releases are periodic
    snapshots of Debian unstable with some package tweaks. If you target
    Debian Unstable, the packages should work on Ubuntu without much issue.

    If people want to use another Debian release (like Sarge), a backport
    (basically a rebuild of a package in a given environment) should be
    done.


    --
    -------------------------------
    Michael Schultheiss
    E-mail: livesupport@amellus.com
  • Vote Up0Vote Down importimport
    Posts: 0Member
    You could try to force the installation using
    dpkg -i --force-depends-version livesupport-libs_1.0.1-2_i386.deb

    Note: this is your own risk. Like anything.
  • Vote Up0Vote Down importimport
    Posts: 0Member
    Hi Sebastian,

    That may be an option, as the Ubuntu developers seem to think that their
    libboost-date-time is 1.33 even if it's labeled as something like
    1.32+cvsblahblahblahUbuntu

    doug






    "Sebastian Goebel"
    10/19/2005 04:50 PM
    Please respond to livesupport-dev


    To:
    cc:
    Subject: AW: [livesupport-dev] Installing 1.0.1 on Ubuntu 5.10 "Breezy"


    You could try to force the installation using
    dpkg -i --force-depends-version livesupport-libs_1.0.1-2_i386.deb

    Note: this is your own risk. Like anything.
  • Vote Up0Vote Down importimport
    Posts: 0Member
    Douglas.Arellanes@mdlf.org wrote:
    > Hi Michael,
    >
    > Should I try to use a Debian unstable repository to get items like
    > libboost-date-time 1.33? I'm presuming that would be "Sid" at this point.

    Sid is always Debian unstable. Installing libboost-date-time-1.33 won't
    help since the package was built against the -dev package of
    libboost-date-time-1.32. I would rebuild the package in a Debian
    unstable environment, personally.

    --
    -------------------------------
    Michael Schultheiss
    E-mail: livesupport@amellus.com
  • Vote Up0Vote Down importimport
    Posts: 0Member
    Michael Schultheiss wrote:
    > If people want to use another Debian release (like Sarge), a backport
    > (basically a rebuild of a package in a given environment) should be
    > done.

    yes, we should have debian packages for a range of popular
    debian-related distros.

    the same for (eventual) RPMs, for Fedora, RHEL, CentOS, etc....
  • Vote Up0Vote Down importimport
    Posts: 0Member
    Douglas.Arellanes@mdlf.org wrote:
    >
    > Hi Sebastian,
    >
    > That may be an option, as the Ubuntu developers seem to think that their
    > libboost-date-time is 1.33 even if it's labeled as something like
    > 1.32+cvsblahblahblahUbuntu

    this is one of the reasons I dislike debian - because they have managed
    to put version numbers into the names (!) of the packages.

    last time I saw this was on Windows, where they had like win32.dll ant
    mfc42.dll & the like

    for example, even apache is not called apache - it's called apache2 (yuck)
  • Vote Up0Vote Down importimport
    Posts: 0Member
    ?kos Mar?y wrote:
    > this is one of the reasons I dislike debian - because they have managed
    > to put version numbers into the names (!) of the packages.

    How would you distinguish between similarly named packages?

    > last time I saw this was on Windows, where they had like win32.dll ant
    > mfc42.dll & the like
    >
    > for example, even apache is not called apache - it's called apache2 (yuck)

    apache is Apache 1.3. apache2 is Apache 2.x

    --
    -------------------------------
    Michael Schultheiss
    E-mail: livesupport@amellus.com
  • Vote Up0Vote Down importimport
    Posts: 0Member
    Michael Schultheiss wrote:
    > How would you distinguish between similarly named packages?

    well, every package has a version number, that's how..

    > apache is Apache 1.3. apache2 is Apache 2.x

    yes, but vim is vim 6.x, but the package is still called vim (not vim6)

    apache 1.x is not called apache1 either

    it's totally incosistent...
  • Vote Up0Vote Down importimport
    Posts: 0Member
Add a Comment