On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:55:13 +0000, Camaleón wrote: > On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:15:10 +0000, Ramon Hofer wrote: > >> I'm trying to put the MythTV PVR XBMC version on my Shuttle box. I need >> a newer alsa version than the one from Squeeze because the stable >> version doesn't see the soundcard. So I wanted to install alsa from >> testing. >> And because I use a SSD I thought it would be a good idea to use the >> squeeze-backports kernel. >> >> What do you think it would be better to completely go with testing. > > Testing is currently quite stable but there are significant differences > between wheezy and squeeze, like the gnome environment.
I think this won't make any difference for me because I will only use the base system with xorg and xbmc without any window manager. >> There are two reasons why I didn't want to do this: >> >> First I need to compile the jme module manually to be able to use the >> network interface. So I thought the less changes to the kernel makes me >> less often compile that module again. > > My wild guess is that wheezy kernel is not going to change much since > now (3.2.12 is the current one) and IIRC, wheezy will be relased with > this (3.2.x) branch but well... this can change at any time so yes, you > will have to recompile the kernel module for every kernel change. Ok, so at least I don't have to expect kernel changes every day :-) >> Second the XBMC version I want to install needs libboost version 1.47 >> or older. > > Any specific reason for you to stick with a specific version of XBMC? > :-? Yes, I want to use xbmc as a frontend for mythtv. And there's a branch of xbmc pvr that can connect to mythbackend: http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=110694 >> Unfortunately this doesn't work. I suppose my problem are wrong apt- >> preferences numbers or something like this. >> >> Here's my sources.list: http://pastebin.com/5SQhvDqw And apt >> preferences: http://pastebin.com/VcndLA6C > > (tip: when sending a pastebin link, I prefer to use the "raw" mode, it > reads better, i.e.: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=VcndLA6C) Didn't know that. Thanks for the tip I will post it like this from now on :-) > I'm not going to make any comments about pinning because I've never used > but just a question: have you considered in using pinning only for the > packages you want to be kept for a specific flavour? That is, being more > "selective" to avoid additional problems or messing up too many > packages. This sounds good. I thought I can do that by installing via "apt-get -t wheezy alsa-utils". >> And here's the error I get when I try to install linux-headers-686-pae >> from squeeze-backports: http://pastebin.com/RcAPE36t >> >> The following packages have unmet dependencies: >> linux-headers-686-pae : Depends: linux-headers-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae >> but >> it is not going to be installed >> E: Broken packages > > Mmm... "linux-headers-686-pae" is a metapackage that has to pull "linux- > headers-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae" automatically, I would open Sypatic to > see what's going on with this although manually installing "linux- > headers-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae" in addition to the metacpake should work. I installed the two metapackages linux-headers-686-pae and linux- image-686-pae so that I always have the newest backport kernel with the matching headers. Unfortunately I don't have synaptic. I only have the terminal since I don't want to use any window manager for xbmc. I can't as well install build-essential. There are many dependencies which usually are solved automatically. I think this is something that shouldn't be. When I want to install build- essential it asks for libc6-dev which depends on libc but a newer version is to be installed: http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=FCBUeaVg It seems as if I made a mess because there already is a libc6 package from testing installed. >> Yesterday I had the problem with alsa but today witchcraft made the >> problem with alsa disappear but the one with the kernel header and as >> well build-essential appear. >> >> Is this really a problem of the apt pinning numbers? Or what can you >> suggest me to do? >> Maybe stick with the stable kernel and compile alsa from source? > > Your first plan seems good, it may just need to be polished a bit :-) Ok, thanks. I will try to again maybe with a clean install again. Like that the mess with the package dependencies should be gone. Best regards Ramon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jkkhc7$k3p$1...@dough.gmane.org
