pidgin-data 2.6.3-1~bpo50+1 brakes pidgin

[Maciej Sieczka-2]

Just a moment ago I have upgraded to pidgin-data 2.6.3-1~bpo50+1 which
uninstalled my pidgin2.6.2-1~bpo50+2. I cannot install pidgin 2.6
anymore now:

$ sudo apt-get install pidgin
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
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:
   pidgin: Depends: pidgin-data (< 2.6.2-z) but 2.6.3-1~bpo50+1 is to be
installed
           Depends: libpurple0 (>= 2.6.0) but it is not going to be
installed
E: Broken packages


It already happened in past, about 2.4.2 > 2.4.3 upgrade.

I guess that pidgin-data and pidgin should be provided in compatible
versions to avoid such broken upgrades.

Now I have to revert to pidgin 2.4.3 until pidgin 2.6.3 is available.
This takes pinning 3 packages: lipurple0, pidgin, pidgin-data at version
2.4.3.

[Gerfried Fuchs-6]

        Hi!

* Maciej Sieczka <msieczka@...> [2009-10-30 06:44:00 CET]:
> Just a moment ago I have upgraded to pidgin-data 2.6.3-1~bpo50+1 which
> uninstalled my pidgin2.6.2-1~bpo50+2. I cannot install pidgin 2.6
> anymore now:

 Out of curiosity, why didn't you stop it to uninstall your pidgin
package?

 pidgin-data is architecture independent and thus uploaded with the
initial upload, the pidgin package itself has to get built for the
various architectures before it can be installed. See the new and
extended FAQ: <http://backports.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faq>

 You can though still download the pidgin-data 2.6.2-1~bpo50+2 package
from the mirrors, it won't get deleted before the package is built on
all architectures. Unfortunately you have to do that manually:

<http://backports.org/debian/pool/main/p/pidgin/pidgin-data_2.6.2-1~bpo50+2_all.deb>

 Hope that helps!
Rhonda

[Paul Harris-2]

2009/10/30 Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@...>

       Hi!

* Maciej Sieczka <msieczka@...> [2009-10-30 06:44:00 CET]:
> Just a moment ago I have upgraded to pidgin-data 2.6.3-1~bpo50+1 which
> uninstalled my pidgin2.6.2-1~bpo50+2. I cannot install pidgin 2.6
> anymore now:

 Out of curiosity, why didn't you stop it to uninstall your pidgin
package?

The same problem hurt me a while ago too.

Out of curiousity, why doesn't the pidgin maintainer ensure the package is built on all platforms before uploading it into the pool?

[Alexander Wirt]

Paul Harris schrieb am Freitag, den 30. Oktober 2009:

> 2009/10/30 Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@...>
>
> >        Hi!
> >
> > * Maciej Sieczka <msieczka@...> [2009-10-30 06:44:00 CET]:
> > > Just a moment ago I have upgraded to pidgin-data 2.6.3-1~bpo50+1 which
> > > uninstalled my pidgin2.6.2-1~bpo50+2. I cannot install pidgin 2.6
> > > anymore now:
> >
> >  Out of curiosity, why didn't you stop it to uninstall your pidgin
> > package?
> >
> >
> The same problem hurt me a while ago too.
>
> Out of curiousity, why doesn't the pidgin maintainer ensure the package is
> built on all platforms before uploading it into the pool?

Ehm, packages are build out of the pool. So how should they ensure that?

Alex
--
Alexander Wirt, formorer@...
CC99 2DDD D39E 75B0 B0AA  B25C D35B BC99 BC7D 020A

[Gerfried Fuchs-6]

* Paul Harris <harris.pc@...> [2009-10-30 12:02:09 CET]:

> 2009/10/30 Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@...>
> > * Maciej Sieczka <msieczka@...> [2009-10-30 06:44:00 CET]:
> > > Just a moment ago I have upgraded to pidgin-data 2.6.3-1~bpo50+1 which
> > > uninstalled my pidgin2.6.2-1~bpo50+2. I cannot install pidgin 2.6
> > > anymore now:
> >
> >  Out of curiosity, why didn't you stop it to uninstall your pidgin
> > package?
>
> The same problem hurt me a while ago too.

 And will hurt you (as including other soo) again next time it will get
uploaded.

> Out of curiousity, why doesn't the pidgin maintainer ensure the package is
> built on all platforms before uploading it into the pool?

 Because that's not the maintainer's call as they don't have access to
the buildd network but rather something the archive software would have
to do. And it would mean that pidgin would still be stuck at 2.5.8
for lenny-backports because ia64 wasn't built since. There are several
approches to the issue, all of them have their benefits and issues.

 Currently only possibility is to be careful and not blindly upgrade the
architecture independent packages when the architecture depending
packages aren't available for your architecture yet. This holds true not
only for pidgin but for all packages from backports. It's just that it's
more visible with pidgin because I do build and upload it on powerpc and
not i386/amd64.

 But you can help me to ensure that it's built for i386/amd64 and
uploaded too with sponsoring me with such a system which would be a
win/win situation. :)

 Hope that helps as explenation. :)
Rhonda

[Paul Harris-2]

2009/10/30 Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@...>

* Paul Harris <harris.pc@...> [2009-10-30 12:02:09 CET]:

> 2009/10/30 Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@...>

> > * Maciej Sieczka <msieczka@...> [2009-10-30 06:44:00 CET]:
> > > Just a moment ago I have upgraded to pidgin-data 2.6.3-1~bpo50+1 which
> > > uninstalled my pidgin2.6.2-1~bpo50+2. I cannot install pidgin 2.6
> > > anymore now:
> >
> >  Out of curiosity, why didn't you stop it to uninstall your pidgin
> > package?
>
> The same problem hurt me a while ago too.

 And will hurt you (as including other soo) again next time it will get
uploaded.

> Out of curiousity, why doesn't the pidgin maintainer ensure the package is
> built on all platforms before uploading it into the pool?

 Because that's not the maintainer's call as they don't have access to
the buildd network but rather something the archive software would have
to do. And it would mean that pidgin would still be stuck at 2.5.8
for lenny-backports because ia64 wasn't built since. There are several
approches to the issue, all of them have their benefits and issues.

Alexander said that "they are built out of the pool".  But you say you don't have access to the buildd network.

So, am I right to say that normally the source packages are uploaded, and buildd does the build work?  But not for backports, instead, backports is built on your own machine and then uploaded.   Right?

 

[Alexander Wirt]

Paul Harris schrieb am Freitag, den 30. Oktober 2009:

> 2009/10/30 Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@...>
>
> > * Paul Harris <harris.pc@...> [2009-10-30 12:02:09 CET]:
> > > 2009/10/30 Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@...>
> > > > * Maciej Sieczka <msieczka@...> [2009-10-30 06:44:00 CET]:
> > > > > Just a moment ago I have upgraded to pidgin-data 2.6.3-1~bpo50+1
> > which
> > > > > uninstalled my pidgin2.6.2-1~bpo50+2. I cannot install pidgin 2.6
> > > > > anymore now:
> > > >
> > > >  Out of curiosity, why didn't you stop it to uninstall your pidgin
> > > > package?
> > >
> > > The same problem hurt me a while ago too.
> >
> >  And will hurt you (as including other soo) again next time it will get
> > uploaded.
> >
> > > Out of curiousity, why doesn't the pidgin maintainer ensure the package
> > is
> > > built on all platforms before uploading it into the pool?
> >
> >  Because that's not the maintainer's call as they don't have access to
> > the buildd network but rather something the archive software would have
> > to do. And it would mean that pidgin would still be stuck at 2.5.8
> > for lenny-backports because ia64 wasn't built since. There are several
> > approches to the issue, all of them have their benefits and issues.
> >
> >
> Alexander said that "they are built out of the pool".  But you say you don't
> have access to the buildd network.
>
> So, am I right to say that normally the source packages are uploaded, and
> buildd does the build work?  But not for backports, instead, backports is
> built on your own machine and then uploaded.   Right?

He is right. You can (theoretically) do all uploads for all arches on your
own. But this is not recommened nor it is something I would expect from
anybody. And of course he has to build a package before it gets uploaded,
after that the source will be picked up from the pool by the buildds and
others arches follow.

Alex - ftpmaster of backports.org
--
Alexander Wirt, formorer@...
CC99 2DDD D39E 75B0 B0AA  B25C D35B BC99 BC7D 020A

[Romain Beauxis-2]

Le vendredi 30 octobre 2009 06:02:09, Paul Harris a écrit :
> >  Out of curiosity, why didn't you stop it to uninstall your pidgin
> > package?
>
> The same problem hurt me a while ago too.

Isn't the apt-get upgrade command made to avoid this and apt-get dist-upgrade
command to force it ?

Romain

[Maciej Sieczka-2]

Romain Beauxis pisze:
> Le vendredi 30 octobre 2009 06:02:09, Paul Harris a écrit :
>> Gerfried Fuchs pisze:
>>> Maciej Sieczka wrote:

>>>> Just a moment ago I have upgraded to pidgin-data
>>>> 2.6.3-1~bpo50+1 which uninstalled my pidgin2.6.2-1~bpo50+2. I
>>>> cannot install pidgin 2.6 anymore now:

>>> Out of curiosity, why didn't you stop it to uninstall your pidgin
>>>  package?

>> The same problem hurt me a while ago too.

> Isn't the apt-get upgrade command made to avoid this and apt-get
> dist-upgrade command to force it ?

I'm using update-manager (I mean the stock Debian stable GUI utility for
upgrades). I don't know if it follows apt-get upgrade or dist-upgrade
behaviour, but I'm pretty sure it didn't warn me that anything would be
unistalled. Maybe because I force backports like this:

$ cat /etc/apt/preferences
Package: *
Pin: release a=lenny-backports
Pin-Priority: 1000

I know that http://www.backports.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=instructions
recommends 200, but I swithed to a higher value because 200 does not
make synaptic prefer backports, for me.

Maciek

[Alexander Wirt]

Maciej Sieczka schrieb am Freitag, den 30. Oktober 2009:

> Romain Beauxis pisze:
> >Le vendredi 30 octobre 2009 06:02:09, Paul Harris a écrit :
> >>Gerfried Fuchs pisze:
> >>>Maciej Sieczka wrote:
>
> >>>>Just a moment ago I have upgraded to pidgin-data
> >>>>2.6.3-1~bpo50+1 which uninstalled my pidgin2.6.2-1~bpo50+2.
> >>>>I cannot install pidgin 2.6 anymore now:
>
> >>>Out of curiosity, why didn't you stop it to uninstall your pidgin
> >>> package?
>
> >>The same problem hurt me a while ago too.
>
> >Isn't the apt-get upgrade command made to avoid this and apt-get
> >dist-upgrade command to force it ?
>
> I'm using update-manager (I mean the stock Debian stable GUI utility for
> upgrades). I don't know if it follows apt-get upgrade or dist-upgrade
> behaviour, but I'm pretty sure it didn't warn me that anything would be
> unistalled. Maybe because I force backports like this:
>
> $ cat /etc/apt/preferences
> Package: *
> Pin: release a=lenny-backports
> Pin-Priority: 1000

You lose.

>
> I know that http://www.backports.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=instructions
> recommends 200, but I swithed to a higher value because 200 does not
> make synaptic prefer backports, for me.
Backports should never be preferred.

Alex

[Maciej Sieczka-2]

Alexander Wirt pisze:
> Maciej Sieczka schrieb am Freitag, den 30. Oktober 2009:

>> I'm using update-manager (I mean the stock Debian stable GUI utility for
>> upgrades). I don't know if it follows apt-get upgrade or dist-upgrade
>> behaviour, but I'm pretty sure it didn't warn me that anything would be
>> unistalled. Maybe because I force backports like this:
>>
>> $ cat /etc/apt/preferences
>> Package: *
>> Pin: release a=lenny-backports
>> Pin-Priority: 1000

> You lose.

>> I know that http://www.backports.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=instructions
>> recommends 200, but I swithed to a higher value because 200 does not
>> make synaptic prefer backports, for me.

> Backports should never be preferred.

http://www.backports.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=instructions doesn't
mention that. You know, I'm just a (l)user.

Maciek

[Gerfried Fuchs-6]

* Maciej Sieczka <msieczka@...> [2009-10-31 11:27:09 CET]:

> Alexander Wirt pisze:
> >Maciej Sieczka schrieb am Freitag, den 30. Oktober 2009:
> >>I know that http://www.backports.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=instructions
> >>recommends 200, but I swithed to a higher value because 200 does not
> >>make synaptic prefer backports, for me.
>
> >Backports should never be preferred.
>
> http://www.backports.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=instructions doesn't
> mention that.

 It also doesn't mention to set Pin-Priority to 1000, your reasoning is
flawed. ;)

 Drifting away from the instructions should be done with thinking about
what one gets by it. Unfortunately there is a side effect with your
approach, I suggest to you to play around with the preferences a bit
more and read up about the meaning of the numbers in man
apt_preferences, section "How APT Interprets Priorities". Unfortunately
fiddling around with apt preferences is a complicated thing and thus
shouldn't be done lightly.

 Hope that helps! :)
Rhonda

[Romain Beauxis-2]

Le vendredi 30 octobre 2009 15:02:02, Alexander Wirt a écrit :
> > $ cat /etc/apt/preferences
> > Package: *
> > Pin: release a=lenny-backports
> > Pin-Priority: 1000
>
> You lose.

Prefering the backports should not cause this trouble. You can also face the
same situation when using a single distribution, say sid, and pidgin is partly
uploaded..


Romain

[Rodney Sumpter]

On Sat October 31 2009, Romain Beauxis wrote:

> Le vendredi 30 octobre 2009 15:02:02, Alexander Wirt a écrit :
> > > $ cat /etc/apt/preferences
> > > Package: *
> > > Pin: release a=lenny-backports
> > > Pin-Priority: 1000
> >
> > You lose.
>
> Prefering the backports should not cause this trouble. You can also
> face the same situation when using a single distribution, say sid,
> and pidgin is partly uploaded..
>
>
> Romain

It seems to me that if you "prefer" backports in this manner, you could
get backports for all packages installed on your system that were
available in the backports repository, and that very well may not be
what you want.