SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: [SLUG] apt-get unmet dependencies
- To: slug@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [SLUG] apt-get unmet dependencies
- From: Thom May <thom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon Jul 30 15:15:02 2001
- User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
The other option is to use 'equivs' to bang in a fake netkit package
apt-get install equivs and then follow the manual.
* David Fitch (davidf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote :
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 12:40:19PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Dave Fitch wrote:
> > >So what I want is to make apt-get mark apt-proxy as installed
> > >fine and stop worrying about it. How?
> > >(I won't ask if that's possible, it must be, with the right
> > >incantations and sacrifices apt-get/dpkg can do anything!)
> > I think the problem is that apt-proxy is depending on the netkit package,
> > which doesn't exist in that form in potato, but does in woody. This is
> that's right
> > difficult problem to resolve; you can backport netkit as well, but this will
> > replace some core potato package, and then you'll end up backporting so much
> > you might as well upgrade the whole machine to woody.
> which I don't want to do (I don't need or want the netkit pkg,
> apt-proxy is working fine). Incidentally I found apt-proxy as
> both .tar.gz and .deb format (it's only a single script and a
> conf file basically) but chose the .deb for consistency.
> In hindsight it might have been easier to use the .tar.gz then
> apt-get wouldn't have known it was installed.
> > You may, however, get away with just marking apt-proxy as 'on hold'.
> I noticed there was a "hold" status mentioned in the man pages for
> apt-get, but will that stop apt-get from trying to do anything more
> with apt-proxy? Worth a go I guess...
> SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
> More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug