[UNMETDEPS] atokx has unmet dependencies

Bug #65415 reported by Sivan Greenberg
24
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
atokx (Debian)
Fix Released
Unknown
atokx (Ubuntu)
Fix Released
Undecided
Unassigned
Dapper
Fix Released
Undecided
Unassigned
Edgy
Won't Fix
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

 affects distros/ubuntu/atokx
 status confirmed
 subscribe motu

text:
A run of
  LC_ALL=C apt-cache -i unmet | grep ^Package | cut -d' ' -f2 | sort -u | \
     xargs apt-cache showsrc | grep Package | sed 's/Package\:\ //g' | sort -u
indicates that the source package atokx has binary packages that are not
installable at the moment.

Please have a look and make sure it's installable again.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFLPXc/GNOP6hwhMIRAmYGAJsGDFKt0vW1Rzt/pi7dPxY55OBtcQCaAvb2
6UZHHcrvx/RSLfPdIC5ACEs=
=GNoS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Revision history for this message
Caroline Ford (secretlondon) wrote :

atokx (1.0-16) depends on

xlibs (>= 4.0) (not available) or

xlib6g (>= 3.3.3.1) (not available)

NB this is non-free software - doesn't allow redistribution.

xlibs was in warty, hoary and breezy.

Revision history for this message
Caroline Ford (secretlondon) wrote :

Can't find a product to file this in so can't link properly but:

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=370194

Grave, atokx: broken hard-coded dependency on non-existent packages

The bug has been filed since June, the maintainer is <email address hidden>

It's been suggested that Debian removes the package from its archive as "there is no version of either package generally available, in or outside of Debian, which is compatible with etch." and popcon suggests low usage.

Revision history for this message
magilus (magilus) wrote :

atokx installs fine for me (I do not get any installation dependency problem), but to completly test the installation process I have to own atokx which I do not do.

Otherwise the installation quits like this:

martin@martin-desktop:~$ LC_ALL=C sudo apt-get install atokx
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required:
  libdb4.2 libbigloo2.8a
Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them.
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  atokx
0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 3 not upgraded.
Need to get 0B/11.2kB of archives.
After unpacking 168kB of additional disk space will be used.
Preconfiguring packages ...
Selecting previously deselected package atokx.
(Reading database ... 299373 files and directories currently installed.)
Unpacking atokx (from .../archives/atokx_1.0-16_i386.deb) ...
Setting up atokx (1.0-16) ...
md5sum: /tmp/atokx-1.0-1.i386.tgz: No such file or directory
Bad archive: /tmp/atokx-1.0-1.i386.tgz
dpkg: error processing atokx (--configure):
 subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1
Errors were encountered while processing:
 atokx
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)

Revision history for this message
magilus (magilus) wrote :

Argh. I am sorry.. I had packages from post-dapper installed..

The same issue appears to me, too.

Changed in atokx:
status: Unknown → Unconfirmed
Changed in atokx:
status: Unconfirmed → Fix Released
Revision history for this message
William Grant (wgrant) wrote :

Fixed in 1.0-18.

Changed in atokx:
status: Confirmed → Fix Released
Revision history for this message
Gauvain Pocentek (gpocentek) wrote :

Reopening for dapper.

The Missing dependency is still there.
The postinst script failure is something different. atokx needs a manual download of 2 archives. If it's not done, the configuration fails.

I'm preparing a patch for an SRU.

Revision history for this message
Gauvain Pocentek (gpocentek) wrote :
Revision history for this message
Gauvain Pocentek (gpocentek) wrote :

The same package is in edgy, and can be fixed in the same way (just needs a different distro target in the changelog).

Revision history for this message
Caroline Ford (secretlondon) wrote :

Is there any news on this? Did anyone apply for an SRU?

Revision history for this message
Luca Falavigna (dktrkranz) wrote :

Please, go ahead and upload to -proposed.

Consider using this versioning:
1.0-16ubuntu0.6.06 for dapper-proposed
1.0-16ubuntu0.6.10 for edgy-proposed

Revision history for this message
Luca Falavigna (dktrkranz) wrote :

Edgy will reach End Of Life status on April 26, so there is no time to release this SRU this in time.

Changed in atokx:
status: New → Won't Fix
Revision history for this message
Luca Falavigna (dktrkranz) wrote :

This will require additional love, see debian 478434.

Revision history for this message
Luca Falavigna (dktrkranz) wrote :

Version 1.0-16ubuntu1 uploaded to hardy-proposed.

Changed in atokx:
status: New → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
Luca Falavigna (dktrkranz) wrote :

I mean dapper-proposed.

Revision history for this message
Martin Pitt (pitti) wrote :

Accepted into dapper-proposed, please test.

Changed in atokx:
status: Confirmed → Fix Committed
description: updated
Revision history for this message
Luca Falavigna (dktrkranz) wrote :

Package in dapper-proposed installs fine.

Revision history for this message
Martin Pitt (pitti) wrote :

Copied to dapper-updates.

Changed in atokx:
status: Fix Committed → Fix Released
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Duplicates of this bug

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.