Subject: Re: broke potato, missing unmet
From: Ron Farrer (rbf@toxic.magnesium.net)
Date: Mon Oct 11 1999 - 14:40:12 PDT
Christopher C Chimelis (chris@debian.org) wrote:
> Could it be saying that dependencies are "unmet" meaning not met? If you
> can, please send a log of "apt-get upgrade" and maybe I can figure it out.
> I've done three slink->potato upgrades so far and may know the problems
> already.
Err, could be... They way it spit it out looked like a package, not a
unmet... My boneheaded mistake, sorry.
>
> As for the unaligned traps, I'm due to look into those shortly. There's
> some unaligned accesses going on in the C++ startup code (which was
> *supposed* to be 64-bit clean). If someone wants to look for the problem,
> be my guest (I've got a nasty binutils bug to look at and fix first).
ok, whatever, used to it with RH anyway.
As for the broken dependencies, I've attached the output of "apt-get
upgrade" if that helps.
TIA,
Ron
-- ========================= = Ronald Burnett Farrer = ========================= ------------------------------------ - "mailto:rbf@magnesium.net" - - "http://www.magnesium.net/~rbf/" - ------------------------------------ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! If you let Windows dominate, expect the worst: ! ! "WORLD.SYS is corrupt, reboot UNIVERSE Y/n" ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ? "How could this [Y2K Bug] be a problem in a country ? ? where we have Intel and Microsoft?" -- Al Gore ? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a22 : Thu Nov 04 1999 - 16:56:57 PST