Your message dated Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:36:07 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#393734: debian-zh-faq: FTBFS: tetex/texlive conflict
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-zh-faq
Version: 1.10
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS
Hi,
During a rebuilt of all packages in etch, I discovered that your package
failed to build on AMD64.
Relevant parts:
Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 2.0.72), cjk-latex, gs, slice, zh-autoconvert,
tfm-arphic-bsmi00lp, tfm-arphic-gbsn0
0lp, tfm-arphic-gkai00mp, tfm-arphic-bkai00mp, dvipdfm, tetex-extra
Checking for already installed source dependencies...
debhelper: missing
cjk-latex: missing
gs: missing
slice: missing
zh-autoconvert: missing
tfm-arphic-bsmi00lp: missing
tfm-arphic-gbsn00lp: missing
tfm-arphic-gkai00mp: missing
tfm-arphic-bkai00mp: missing
dvipdfm: missing
tetex-extra: missing
Checking for source dependency conflicts...
dvipdfm is a virtual package provided by: texlive-base-bin tetex-bin
Using texlive-base-bin (no default, using first one)
Reading package lists...
Building dependency tree...
Package dvipdfm is a virtual package provided by:
texlive-base-bin 2005.dfsg.1-1
tetex-bin 3.0-19
You should explicitly select one to install.
E: Package dvipdfm has no installation candidate
dvipdfm is a virtual package provided by: texlive-base-bin tetex-bin
Using texlive-base-bin (no default, using first one)
Reading package lists...
Building dependency tree...
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
tetex-extra: Depends: tetex-bin (>= 2.99) but it is not going to be installed
texlive-base-bin: Conflicts: tetex-base but 3.0-23 is to be installed
Conflicts: tetex-extra but 3.0-23 is to be installed
tfm-arphic-bkai00mp: Depends: tetex-bin but it is not going to be installed
tfm-arphic-bsmi00lp: Depends: tetex-bin but it is not going to be installed
tfm-arphic-gbsn00lp: Depends: tetex-bin but it is not going to be installed
tfm-arphic-gkai00mp: Depends: tetex-bin but it is not going to be installed
E: Broken packages
apt-get failed.
The full build log is available from
http://ox.blop.info/bazaar/buildlogs/20061016/amd64/debian-zh-faq_1.10.buildlog
About the archive rebuilt:
The rebuilt was done on about 40 AMD64 nodes of the Grid'5000 platform,
using a chroot containing an etch environment (not unstable).
Internet was not accessible from the build nodes.
About Grid'5000:
The Grid'5000 project aims at building a highly reconfigurable
experimental Grid platform gathering 9 sites and featuring a total of
5000 CPUs. Its main purpose is to serve as an experimental testbed for
research in Grid Computing. To learn more about Grid'5000, read
https://www.grid5000.fr/
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 06:27:22PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> During a rebuilt of all packages in etch, I discovered that your package
> failed to build on AMD64.
> Relevant parts:
> Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 2.0.72), cjk-latex, gs, slice, zh-autoconvert,
> tfm-arphic-bsmi00lp, tfm-arphic-gbsn0
> 0lp, tfm-arphic-gkai00mp, tfm-arphic-bkai00mp, dvipdfm, tetex-extra
> Checking for already installed source dependencies...
> debhelper: missing
> cjk-latex: missing
> gs: missing
> slice: missing
> zh-autoconvert: missing
> tfm-arphic-bsmi00lp: missing
> tfm-arphic-gbsn00lp: missing
> tfm-arphic-gkai00mp: missing
> tfm-arphic-bkai00mp: missing
> dvipdfm: missing
> tetex-extra: missing
> Checking for source dependency conflicts...
> dvipdfm is a virtual package provided by: texlive-base-bin tetex-bin
> Using texlive-base-bin (no default, using first one)
> Reading package lists...
> Building dependency tree...
> Package dvipdfm is a virtual package provided by:
> texlive-base-bin 2005.dfsg.1-1
> tetex-bin 3.0-19
> You should explicitly select one to install.
> E: Package dvipdfm has no installation candidate
> dvipdfm is a virtual package provided by: texlive-base-bin tetex-bin
> Using texlive-base-bin (no default, using first one)
> Reading package lists...
> Building dependency tree...
> Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
> requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
> distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
> or been moved out of Incoming.
> The following information may help to resolve the situation:
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> tetex-extra: Depends: tetex-bin (>= 2.99) but it is not going to be
> installed
> texlive-base-bin: Conflicts: tetex-base but 3.0-23 is to be installed
> Conflicts: tetex-extra but 3.0-23 is to be installed
> tfm-arphic-bkai00mp: Depends: tetex-bin but it is not going to be installed
> tfm-arphic-bsmi00lp: Depends: tetex-bin but it is not going to be installed
> tfm-arphic-gbsn00lp: Depends: tetex-bin but it is not going to be installed
> tfm-arphic-gkai00mp: Depends: tetex-bin but it is not going to be installed
> E: Broken packages
> apt-get failed.
At most, this appears to be a build-dependency problem; but I can't
reproduce it on amd64 with either sid or etch, so I'm closing it as
unreproducible.
If you think this is still a bug, please provide an analysis of the
build-dependencies which shows *why* they are uninstallable on your system;
for as complicated a dependency tree as we have here, simply saying that
they *are* uninstallable isn't helpful if no one can reproduce the problem
themselves.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
--- End Message ---
