tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25

APT repository does not contain etch packages #24

New issue

Closed

opened 2007-05-02 04:58:47 +00:00 by arch_o_median · 6 comments

arch_o_median commented

2007-05-02 04:58:47 +00:00

Owner

Since you only requested a single operation it is extremely likely that
the package is simply not installable and a bug report against
that package should be filed.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:

allmydata-tahoe: Depends: python-foolscap but it is not installable
E: Broken packages
100 arc@axe /home/arc> apt-cache search python-foolscap
0 arc@axe /home/arc> apt-cache policy python-foolscap
python-foolscap:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: (none)
Version table:

0 arc@axe /home/arc> sudo apt-get install allmydata-tahoe 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. Since you only requested a single operation it is extremely likely that the package is simply not installable and a bug report against that package should be filed. The following information may help to resolve the situation: The following packages have unmet dependencies: > allmydata-tahoe: Depends: python-foolscap but it is not installable E: Broken packages 100 arc@axe /home/arc> apt-cache search python-foolscap 0 arc@axe /home/arc> apt-cache policy python-foolscap python-foolscap: > Installed: (none) > Candidate: (none) > Version table:

tahoe-lafs added the

packaging

major

defect

labels 2007-05-02 04:58:47 +00:00

zooko commented

2007-05-02 19:57:06 +00:00

Author

Owner

Marking as "blocker" to show that I don't want to announce tahoe until this is fixed.

tahoe-lafs added

blocker

and removed

major

labels 2007-05-02 19:57:06 +00:00

warner commented

2007-05-03 17:34:16 +00:00

Author

Owner

I've added foolscap-0.1.3 .debs to our apt repository for feisty, dapper, and edgy.

I still need to set up an etch machine so we can have both tahoe and foolscap debs.

I've added foolscap-0.1.3 .debs to our apt repository for feisty, dapper, and edgy. I still need to set up an etch machine so we can have both tahoe and foolscap debs.

warner commented

2007-05-04 06:03:28 +00:00

Author

Owner

I'm going to lower the priority of this one, since I think it should be ok for 3 out of 4 platforms.

tahoe-lafs added

major

and removed

blocker

labels 2007-05-04 06:03:28 +00:00

tahoe-lafs added

minor

and removed

major

labels 2007-05-07 00:44:59 +00:00

tahoe-lafs changed title from ~~package does not contain python-foolscap~~ to package does not contain python-foolscap on etch

2007-05-07 00:44:59 +00:00

tahoe-lafs changed title from ~~package does not contain python-foolscap on etch~~ to APT repository does not contain python-foolscap on etch

2007-05-22 00:02:26 +00:00

warner commented

2007-08-21 20:23:43 +00:00

Author

Owner

we need an etch buildslave.

Also, I removed the dapper repository, since we decided to stop trying to build tahoe .debs for dapper (too many backports required). I've updated the DownloadDebianPackages page to mention this.

we need an etch buildslave. Also, I removed the dapper repository, since we decided to stop trying to build tahoe .debs for dapper (too many backports required). I've updated the [DownloadDebianPackages](wiki/DownloadDebianPackages) page to mention this.

tahoe-lafs changed title from ~~APT repository does not contain python-foolscap on etch~~ to APT repository does not contain etch packages

2007-08-21 20:23:43 +00:00

zooko commented

2007-08-21 22:24:55 +00:00

Author

Owner

FWIW the current Packaging page says that feisty is the oldest Ubuntu that we support, so I interpret this topic as being sort of "above and beyond what we promised", and not necessarily as smooth as our support for feisty.

Or do I misunderstand and we should update that page to say that we support etch?

FWIW the current [Packaging page](wiki/Packaging) says that feisty is the oldest Ubuntu that we support, so I interpret this topic as being sort of "above and beyond what we promised", and not necessarily as smooth as our support for feisty. Or do I misunderstand and we should update that page to say that we support etch?

warner commented

2007-08-21 23:52:31 +00:00

Author

Owner

fixed, the etch buildslave is now pumping out etch .deb packages.

zooko: etch is the current stable debian release, so it roughly corresponds to ubuntu "feisty". It has mostly the same packages as feisty does, so it's easy to support both.

For the record, we currently provide .deb packages for:

ubuntu:
- edgy (Ubuntu 6.10, released october 2006)
- feisty (Ubuntu 7.04, released april 2007)
debian:
- etch (Debian 4.0, released august 2007)
- sid (Debian HEAD, never released)

I think tahoe should build from source ok on Ubuntu dapper (6.06, released june 2006, notable because Canonical will provide long-term support contracts for it), but the dependencies must be built manually (starting with setuptools), and there are no .debs available.

I think the existing .deb-building rules will work fine on the next release of Ubuntu (gutsy, scheduled for this fall).

closing this ticket now, since etch works.

fixed, the etch buildslave is now pumping out etch .deb packages. zooko: etch is the current stable debian release, so it roughly corresponds to ubuntu "feisty". It has mostly the same packages as feisty does, so it's easy to support both. For the record, we currently provide .deb packages for: * ubuntu: * edgy (Ubuntu 6.10, released october 2006) * feisty (Ubuntu 7.04, released april 2007) * debian: * etch (Debian 4.0, released august 2007) * sid (Debian HEAD, never released) I think tahoe should build from source ok on Ubuntu dapper (6.06, released june 2006, notable because Canonical will provide long-term support contracts for it), but the dependencies must be built manually (starting with setuptools), and there are no .debs available. I think the existing .deb-building rules will work fine on the next release of Ubuntu (gutsy, scheduled for this fall). closing this ticket now, since etch works.

tahoe-lafs added the

fixed

label 2007-08-21 23:52:31 +00:00

tahoe-lafs added this to the 0.6.0 milestone 2007-08-21 23:52:31 +00:00

warner closed this issue

2007-08-21 23:52:31 +00:00