On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 20:17, Erik LaBianca wrote: > > > > [erik@mises SPECS]$ sudo apt-get install 'perl(Digest::SHA1)' > > 'perl(Digest::Nilsimsa)' > > Reading Package Lists... Done > > Building Dependency Tree... Done > > Selecting perl-Digest-SHA1 for 'perl(Digest::SHA1)' > > Package perl(Digest::Nilsimsa) is a virtual package provided by: > > perl-Digest-Nilsimsa 0:0.06-0.fdr.4.1 > > You should explicitly select one to install. > > E: Package perl(Digest::Nilsimsa) has no installation candidate > > > > > > Ok, I've found another (maybe easily fixed) bug on the apt-get side > things. > > [root@mises root]# apt-get install perl-Digest-Nilsimsa > Reading Package Lists... Done > Building Dependency Tree... Done > The following NEW packages will be installed: > perl-Digest-Nilsimsa (0.06-0.fdr.4.1) > 0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 removed and 0 not upgraded. > Need to get 0B/26.1kB of archives. > After unpacking 47.8kB of additional disk space will be used. > Checking GPG signatures... > Committing changes... > Preparing... ########################################### > [100%] > 1:perl-Digest-Nilsimsa ########################################### > [100%] > Done. > > [root@mises root]# apt-get install 'perl(Digest::Nilsimsa)' > Reading Package Lists... Done > Building Dependency Tree... Done > Package perl(Digest::Nilsimsa) is a virtual package provided by: > perl-Digest-Nilsimsa 0:0.06-0.fdr.4.1 > You should explicitly select one to install. > E: Package perl(Digest::Nilsimsa) has no installation candidate > > [root@mises root]# rpm -q --whatprovides 'perl(Digest::Nilsimsa)' > perl-Digest-Nilsimsa-0.06-0.fdr.4.1 > > What's happening here is that apt isn't checking rpm for a whatprovides > before it tries to do the install. This wouldn't be a problem, IF the > virtual provides resolution worked properly in all cases, but since it > doesn't, apt-get fails when asked to install bugged virtual provides, > even if there is something installed satisfying the dependency. > > Not sure if this portion of the problem is really an apt bug or not, > it's easy enough to workaround by manually checking provides first. It's a bug in apt alright, but not quite what you think. There is code in apt-get which should handle this case but something in the lower level stuff causes the code to fail. Need to dig deeper... - Panu -
