Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #221865 > unrolled thread

Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch Dale Harris <rodmur@gmail.com> - 2020-04-23 19:20 +0200
    Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-04-23 19:40 +0200
      Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch Dale Harris <rodmur@gmail.com> - 2020-04-23 21:20 +0200
        Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-04-23 21:40 +0200
          Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch Dale Harris <rodmur@gmail.com> - 2020-04-27 18:50 +0200
            Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-04-27 19:30 +0200
              Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-04-27 20:30 +0200
                Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch Dale Harris <rodmur@gmail.com> - 2020-04-27 21:10 +0200
                  Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-04-29 15:00 +0200
                    Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch Dale Harris <rodmur@gmail.com> - 2020-04-29 15:40 +0200
                      Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch Dale Harris <rodmur@gmail.com> - 2020-04-29 16:10 +0200
                        Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-04-29 16:40 +0200
                      Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-04-29 19:00 +0200
                        Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch Dale Harris <rodmur@gmail.com> - 2020-05-01 20:10 +0200
                          Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-05-02 06:30 +0200
    Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch Klaus Singvogel <deb-user-ml@singvogel.net> - 2020-04-23 20:20 +0200
      Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch Klaus Singvogel <deb-user-ml@singvogel.net> - 2020-04-23 22:20 +0200
        Re: Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch Dale Harris <rodmur@gmail.com> - 2020-04-27 18:30 +0200

#221865 — Trouble installing wine on system with foreign arch

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

I have a system where I have tried to install wine32 and the newer wine5
version, It can't resolve dependencies, like so:

# apt install --install-recommends wine-stable
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.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 wine-stable : Depends: wine-stable-i386 (= 5.0.0~buster)
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

If I try to follow this down the chain of all the dependencies the aren't
installing and attempt to install that individually, I get to a point where
the system will try to uninstall a bunch of packages, most notably apt,
which is kind of annoying.  So does anyone have any suggestions how I fix
this?   The maddening thing is I have another system, almost identical,
that all this installed fine on!  So I'm a little bit at wit's end
presently.

-- 
Dale Harris
rodmur@maybe.org
rodmur@gmail.com
/.-)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#221867

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2020-04-23 at 13:11, Dale Harris wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I have a system where I have tried to install wine32 and the newer
> wine5 version, It can't resolve dependencies, like so:
> 
> # apt install --install-recommends wine-stable
> 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.
> The following information may help to resolve the situation:
> 
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>  wine-stable : Depends: wine-stable-i386 (= 5.0.0~buster)
> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

What is your sources.list like?

I track Debian testing+stable (main + contrib + non-free), and I get:

========
$ apt-get --dry-run install wine-stable
NOTE: This is only a simulation!
      apt-get needs root privileges for real execution.
      Keep also in mind that locking is deactivated,
      so don't depend on the relevance to the real current situation!
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Package wine-stable is not available, but is referred to by another package.
This may mean that the package is missing, has been obsoleted, or
is only available from another source
However the following packages replace it:
  wine-development wine

E: Package 'wine-stable' has no installation candidate
========

I also already have wine installed, via the wine-development package. If
I wanted to install the stable version of wine, I'd just install the
package named 'wine', which would pull in wine32 and wine64 as needed.

If I search the package repository for 'wine-stable', the only things I
find are a hint that this may be a package name that's available in
Ubuntu. I haven't dug any deeper than that as of yet.

> If I try to follow this down the chain of all the dependencies the
> aren't installing and attempt to install that individually, I get to
> a point where the system will try to uninstall a bunch of packages,
> most notably apt, which is kind of annoying.

Generally, before you get to that point, it's wise to start doing
'apt-cache policy' on some of the package names you're specifying and
see what versions they're available at. This type of error is frequently
caused by available-version mismatches between different packages which
have versioned dependencies towards one another.

> So does anyone have any suggestions how I fix this?   The maddening
> thing is I have another system, almost identical, that all this
> installed fine on!  So I'm a little bit at wit's end presently.

Assuming you're running Debian and not Ubuntu, I'd suggest trying to
install the 'wine' package instead.

If you're running Ubuntu, you may need to ask in their forums instead.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#221875

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:39 PM The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> (Is there a reason you replied off-list? This sort of thing is generally
> better handled in public, so that others can chime in if they have
> something to contribute.)
>

Sorry, user error.

(It does seem *really* odd to be getting Debian packages from an
> OpenSUSE repository, but I have no specific reason to expect them to be
> a problem.)
>

I don't disagree.

...that looks like an unnecessarily complicated install procedure, to
> me. I'm not sure what the benefit is supposed to be, vs. just installing
> the wine or wine-development package from the official Debian
> repositories. I certainly don't think it came from anyone on the Debian
> side, nor is it something that Debian is likely to particularly support.
>


Right, well, I went that route hoping to get anything installed, because
wine32 was failing.


> What do you get if you just try
>
> # apt-get install wine
>

 # apt install wine32
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.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 wine32:i386 : Depends: libwine:i386 (= 4.0-2) but it is not going to be
installed
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.


> ? Without specifying any architecture, or bitness, or similar.
>
> In my experience, with just the plain official Debian repositories, this
> successfully installs Wine without issues. I'll admit that it's an older
> version by this point, though.
>

Yeah, I've never had problems before now.


> The wine-development package available in stable has version 4.2-4, and
> the one in testing has version 5.4-1, at least as of a few days ago or
> so. For myself, I run the latter, when I need to run Wine.
>

I don't necessarily need a newer version of wine, I just need anything, and
that's what I'm not getting currently, because nothing is installing.



-- 
Dale Harris
rodmur@maybe.org
rodmur@gmail.com
/.-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#221877

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2020-04-23 at 15:18, Dale Harris wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:39 PM The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>> (It does seem *really* odd to be getting Debian packages from an
>> OpenSUSE repository, but I have no specific reason to expect them to be
>> a problem.)
> 
> I don't disagree.

FTR for the list's awareness: this is in regard / reference to one of
the two repositories added as a result of following the directions at

https://computingforgeeks.com/how-to-install-wine-on-debian/

>> ...that looks like an unnecessarily complicated install procedure, to
>> me. I'm not sure what the benefit is supposed to be, vs. just installing
>> the wine or wine-development package from the official Debian
>> repositories. I certainly don't think it came from anyone on the Debian
>> side, nor is it something that Debian is likely to particularly support.
> 
> Right, well, I went that route hoping to get anything installed, because
> wine32 was failing.
> 
>> What do you get if you just try
>>
>> # apt-get install wine
> 
>  # apt install wine32

This isn't actually the same package. I expect that the same result
would follow, because wine will pull in wine32, but exact package names
can be important and I think this may be the second time in this process
that you've tried installing a different one from what was suggested.

> 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.
> The following information may help to resolve the situation:
> 
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>  wine32:i386 : Depends: libwine:i386 (= 4.0-2) but it is not going to be
> installed
> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

What (if anything) do you get from the following commands?

$ apt-mark showhold

$ grep wine /etc/apt/preferences /etc/apt/preferences.d/*

What does the following command report?

$ apt-cache policy wine wine32 wine64 libwine

>> The wine-development package available in stable has version 4.2-4, and
>> the one in testing has version 5.4-1, at least as of a few days ago or
>> so. For myself, I run the latter, when I need to run Wine.
> 
> I don't necessarily need a newer version of wine, I just need anything, and
> that's what I'm not getting currently, because nothing is installing.

That you don't need newer than what's in stable is good, because the
failure of any such packages to install is something we can probably
troubleshoot and get fixed. It might take a bit of working at, but this
sort of thing is resolved all of the time.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#222006

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 3:37 PM The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>
>
> >
> >> What do you get if you just try
> >>
> >> # apt-get install wine
> >
> >  # apt install wine32
>

The application I need to run requires the 32 bit version of wine, so if I
can't get this installed, this will all become rather academic. But I can
install wine. Really it just seems like the system doesn't like the i386
foreign arch, for some reason.


> What (if anything) do you get from the following commands?
>
> $ apt-mark showhold
>

Nothing.


> $ grep wine /etc/apt/preferences /etc/apt/preferences.d/*
>

grep: /etc/apt/preferences: No such file or directory
grep: /etc/apt/preferences.d/*: No such file or directory


> What does the following command report?
>
> $ apt-cache policy wine wine32 wine64 libwine
>

wine:
  Installed: 4.0-2
  Candidate: 4.0-2
  Version table:
 *** 4.0-2 500
        500 https://deb.debian.org/debian stable/main amd64 Packages
        500 https://deb.debian.org/debian stable/main i386 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
wine32:i386:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 4.0-2
  Version table:
     4.0-2 500
        500 https://deb.debian.org/debian stable/main i386 Packages
wine64:
  Installed: 4.0-2
  Candidate: 4.0-2
  Version table:
 *** 4.0-2 500
        500 https://deb.debian.org/debian stable/main amd64 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
libwine:
  Installed: 4.0-2
  Candidate: 4.0-2
  Version table:
 *** 4.0-2 500
        500 https://deb.debian.org/debian stable/main amd64 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status


>
>
> That you don't need newer than what's in stable is good, because the
> failure of any such packages to install is something we can probably
> troubleshoot and get fixed. It might take a bit of working at, but this
> sort of thing is resolved all of the time.
>

Let's hope.



-- 
Dale Harris
rodmur@maybe.org
rodmur@gmail.com
/.-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#222007

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2020-04-27 at 12:43, Dale Harris wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 3:37 PM The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
>> >> What do you get if you just try
>> >>
>> >> # apt-get install wine
>> >
>> >  # apt install wine32
> 
> The application I need to run requires the 32 bit version of wine, so if I
> can't get this installed, this will all become rather academic. But I can
> install wine. Really it just seems like the system doesn't like the i386
> foreign arch, for some reason.

Yeah, it looks like that's the issue that we need to troubleshoot.
Either that, or you've somehow gotten a version mismatch somewhere in
the i386 package stack, and we need to track down where and get it
brought back into balance.

>> What (if anything) do you get from the following commands?
>>
>> $ apt-mark showhold
> 
> Nothing.

That's normal.

>> $ grep wine /etc/apt/preferences /etc/apt/preferences.d/*
> 
> grep: /etc/apt/preferences: No such file or directory
> grep: /etc/apt/preferences.d/*: No such file or directory

That's a touch odd, but far from unheard-of, and not harmful.

>> What does the following command report?
>>
>> $ apt-cache policy wine wine32 wine64 libwine
> 
> wine:
>   Installed: 4.0-2
>   Candidate: 4.0-2
>   Version table:
>  *** 4.0-2 500
>         500 https://deb.debian.org/debian stable/main amd64 Packages
>         500 https://deb.debian.org/debian stable/main i386 Packages
>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> wine32:i386:
>   Installed: (none)
>   Candidate: 4.0-2
>   Version table:
>      4.0-2 500
>         500 https://deb.debian.org/debian stable/main i386 Packages
> wine64:
>   Installed: 4.0-2
>   Candidate: 4.0-2
>   Version table:
>  *** 4.0-2 500
>         500 https://deb.debian.org/debian stable/main amd64 Packages
>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> libwine:
>   Installed: 4.0-2
>   Candidate: 4.0-2
>   Version table:
>  *** 4.0-2 500
>         500 https://deb.debian.org/debian stable/main amd64 Packages
>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

And you still get those failures. That's *decidedly* odd.

What do you get from

$ apt-cache show wine wine32:i386 libwine

? The result is likely to be a bit lengthy; I specifically want to
verify the dependencies lines.

Based on looking at those dependencies on my own computer, I also want
to see what you get from

$ apt-cache policy libc6

as a starting point, because that's the only dependency of wine32 except
for libwine.

If that shows that the version you have installed is compatible with the
version listed as required in the wine32 dependencies from the previous
command, then I think my next fallback would be to ask for the output of
something like

apt-cache policy $(apt-cache show libwine | grep Depends | sed 's/[:,]
/\n/g' | sed 's/\([^ ]*\) .*$/\1/g' | grep -v Depends | sort -u )

which is kind of ugly and is likely to produce some lengthy output; the
idea is to let us check every dependency of libwine to see which one is
producing the version mismatch that's leading libwine to not be installed.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#222009

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2020-04-27 at 14:14, Dale Harris wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 1:21 PM The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
>> What do you get from
>>
>> $ apt-cache show wine wine32:i386 libwine
>>
>> $ apt-cache policy libc6
>>
>> apt-cache policy $(apt-cache show libwine | grep Depends | sed 's/[:,] /\n/g' | sed 's/\([^ ]*\) .*$/\1/g' | grep -v Depends | sort -u )
>
> I'll attach the gzip'ed output from those commands.

On initial examination, I see no meaningful issues in that output.

Just to check: is the output of that 'apt-cache policy' command any
different if you replace 'libwine' with 'libwine:i386'?

If so, please pass along the output from the latter version of the
command. (My bad; I forgot to specify it in the original case.)

If not, I'll have to think about the next step. I know what I'd do if I
had the problem, or had shell access to the box with the problem, but
trying to turn it into steps someone else can follow remotely (without
realtime supervision) is a bit trickier.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#222011

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 2:29 PM The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>
> On initial examination, I see no meaningful issues in that output.
>
> Just to check: is the output of that 'apt-cache policy' command any
> different if you replace 'libwine' with 'libwine:i386'?
>
> If so, please pass along the output from the latter version of the
> command. (My bad; I forgot to specify it in the original case.
>

Here's that output:

# apt-cache policy libwine:i386
libwine:i386:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 4.0-2
  Version table:
     4.0-2 500
        500 https://deb.debian.org/debian stable/main i386 Packages



> If not, I'll have to think about the next step. I know what I'd do if I
> had the problem, or had shell access to the box with the problem, but
> trying to turn it into steps someone else can follow remotely (without
> realtime supervision) is a bit trickier.
>
>
Yeah, I understand that, aways easier to do something yourself.
Unfortunately, I can't give you shell access.

-- 
Dale Harris
rodmur@maybe.org
rodmur@gmail.com
/.-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#222083

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Sorry for the delayed response; I was responding in gaps mid-shift on
Monday, and then spent Tuesday actually in the office instead of working
remotely.

On 2020-04-27 at 15:05, Dale Harris wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 2:29 PM The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
>> On initial examination, I see no meaningful issues in that output.
>>
>> Just to check: is the output of that 'apt-cache policy' command any
>> different if you replace 'libwine' with 'libwine:i386'?
>>
>> If so, please pass along the output from the latter version of the
>> command. (My bad; I forgot to specify it in the original case.
> 
> Here's that output:
> 
> # apt-cache policy libwine:i386

I'm sorry, I didn't specify clearly enough.

By "that 'apt-cache policy' command", I meant the long and complicated
one that already referred to libwine. It should have referred to
libwine:i386 instead.

In other words, at full length:

apt-cache policy $(apt-cache show libwine:i386 | grep Depends | sed
's/[:,] /\n/g' | sed 's/\([^ ]*\) .*$/\1/g' | grep -v Depends | sort -u)

It'll probably be easier to diff (or otherwise compare) that against the
output of the original long-and-complicated command yourself, and just
let me know about the differences, but if you want to provide the full
output I can work with that too.

(It's occurred to me that there's probably a way to simplify this
command, using 'apt-cache depends' or similar, but since we already have
this version and it works I'm not too concerned about optimizing it at
this point.)

>> If not, I'll have to think about the next step. I know what I'd do if I
>> had the problem, or had shell access to the box with the problem, but
>> trying to turn it into steps someone else can follow remotely (without
>> realtime supervision) is a bit trickier.
>
> Yeah, I understand that, aways easier to do something yourself.
> Unfortunately, I can't give you shell access.

Entirely understandable.

Random stabs in the direction of developing a usable set of steps to
follow: since you suspect the system may have a problem with i386
packages to begin with, it might be useful to know whether you actually
have any already installed. The first way of finding that out which came
to my mind is:

dpkg -l '*' | grep ':i386'

You can pipe that to wc if you want to get a count, or to less if you
want to view the results (since, if there are any, there are likely to
be quite a few of them; by coincidence, on my system there are exactly
386).


The basic procedure would be an iteration over adding the "will not be
installed" packages (or, in the case of a remove-the-wrong-things
explosion, the important packages that would otherwise be removed)
explicitly to the command line, and repeating with the ones from the
next failure, until it shows you the actual conflict.

After that, it should be possible to upgrade, downgrade, or remove the
right packages - usually, just one, or one small set of related ones -
to resolve the problem.

That's not detailed step-by-step, however, and it probably looks more
daunting as you start in on it than it really is. If you want to do the
back-and-forth with giving me output, me suggesting a modified install
command, you running it, repeat as needed, I can work with that.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#222086

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:54 AM The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>
> Random stabs in the direction of developing a usable set of steps to
> follow: since you suspect the system may have a problem with i386
> packages to begin with, it might be useful to know whether you actually
> have any already installed. The first way of finding that out which came
> to my mind is:
>
> dpkg -l '*' | grep ':i386'
>

I do have a few installed, 8 actually, basically libc6:i386 and
gcc-8-base:i386 and a few others.

The basic procedure would be an iteration over adding the "will not be
> installed" packages (or, in the case of a remove-the-wrong-things
> explosion, the important packages that would otherwise be removed)
> explicitly to the command line, and repeating with the ones from the
> next failure, until it shows you the actual conflict.
>

Okay, did some of that, the one that really blows up is libicu63:i386, when
I try to install that it was to remove most of the amd64 packages.

# apt-cache policy libicu63:i386
libicu63:i386:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 63.1-6
  Version table:
     63.1-6 500
        500 https://deb.debian.org/debian stable/main i386 Packages

Compared to it's amd64 package:

# apt-cache policy libicu63
libicu63:
  Installed: 63.1-6+deb10u1
  Candidate: 63.1-6+deb10u1
  Version table:
 *** 63.1-6+deb10u1 100
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
     63.1-6 500
        500 https://deb.debian.org/debian stable/main amd64 Packages

if I try to install...

# apt install libicu63:i386

Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer
required:
  acl alsa-utils ant ant-contrib ant-optional at-spi2-core atril-common
bubblewrap ca-certificates-java
  coinor-libcbc3 coinor-libcgl1 coinor-libclp1 coinor-libcoinmp1v5
coinor-libcoinutils3v5


etc etc etc





-- 
Dale Harris
rodmur@maybe.org
rodmur@gmail.com
/.-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#222088

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 9:35 AM Dale Harris <rodmur@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:54 AM The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> The basic procedure would be an iteration over adding the "will not be
>> installed" packages (or, in the case of a remove-the-wrong-things
>> explosion, the important packages that would otherwise be removed)
>> explicitly to the command line, and repeating with the ones from the
>> next failure, until it shows you the actual conflict.
>>
>
> Okay, did some of that, the one that really blows up is libicu63:i386,
> when I try to install that it was to remove most of the amd64 packages.
>
> # apt-cache policy libicu63:i386
> libicu63:i386:
>   Installed: (none)
>   Candidate: 63.1-6
>   Version table:
>      63.1-6 500
>         500 https://deb.debian.org/debian stable/main i386 Packages
>
>
Okay, so this was the problem, there was several differences in versions
with some of the amd64 packages and the i386 version I wanted to install.
So I had to downgrade some of the amd64 packages and I was finally able to
install wine32. W00t!

Thanks!


-- 
Dale Harris
rodmur@maybe.org
rodmur@gmail.com
/.-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#222091

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2020-04-29 at 10:04, Dale Harris wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 9:35 AM Dale Harris <rodmur@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:54 AM The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>> The basic procedure would be an iteration over adding the "will not be
>>> installed" packages (or, in the case of a remove-the-wrong-things
>>> explosion, the important packages that would otherwise be removed)
>>> explicitly to the command line, and repeating with the ones from the
>>> next failure, until it shows you the actual conflict.
>>>
>>
>> Okay, did some of that, the one that really blows up is libicu63:i386,
>> when I try to install that it was to remove most of the amd64 packages.
>>
>> # apt-cache policy libicu63:i386
>> libicu63:i386:
>>   Installed: (none)
>>   Candidate: 63.1-6
>>   Version table:
>>      63.1-6 500
>>         500 https://deb.debian.org/debian stable/main i386 Packages
>
> Okay, so this was the problem, there was several differences in versions
> with some of the amd64 packages and the i386 version I wanted to install.
> So I had to downgrade some of the amd64 packages and I was finally able to
> install wine32. W00t!

Yep, that's the usual expected problem here; the trick is figuring out
which packages are the ones with the version mismatch.

The reason this crops up with the symptom that it does is, as far as I
can tell, that apt will basically never consider downgrading one package
in order to install or upgrade another. (aptitude might, in the right
circumstances, but whether that will ever be the first proposed
dependency solution I don't know.)

I'm glad I was able to point you in the right direction!

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#222100

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mi, 29 apr 20, 09:35:12, Dale Harris wrote:
> 
> Okay, did some of that, the one that really blows up is libicu63:i386, when
> I try to install that it was to remove most of the amd64 packages.
> 
> # apt-cache policy libicu63:i386
> libicu63:i386:
>   Installed: (none)
>   Candidate: 63.1-6
>   Version table:
>      63.1-6 500
>         500 https://deb.debian.org/debian stable/main i386 Packages
> 
> Compared to it's amd64 package:
> 
> # apt-cache policy libicu63
> libicu63:
>   Installed: 63.1-6+deb10u1
>   Candidate: 63.1-6+deb10u1
>   Version table:
>  *** 63.1-6+deb10u1 100
>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
>      63.1-6 500
>         500 https://deb.debian.org/debian stable/main amd64 Packages

Apparently your system has received the security update for amd64, but 
not for i386.

My guess is this the reason for the divergence between the amd64 and 
i386 on your system and you should look into it.

> if I try to install...
> 
> # apt install libicu63:i386
> 
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer
> required:
>   acl alsa-utils ant ant-contrib ant-optional at-spi2-core atril-common
> bubblewrap ca-certificates-java
>   coinor-libcbc3 coinor-libcgl1 coinor-libclp1 coinor-libcoinmp1v5
> coinor-libcoinutils3v5

Full output would have been better here. Automatically installed 
packages that *may* be removed are not a problem, what apt wants to 
actually remove is.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#222172

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 12:54 PM Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Apparently your system has received the security update for amd64, but
> not for i386.
>
> My guess is this the reason for the divergence between the amd64 and
> i386 on your system and you should look into it.
>

It was pretty much a fresh install from DVD.  I did have some issues
remounting the install DVD from the ILO, but otherwise it pretty normal
install. It's working now.


> Full output would have been better here. Automatically installed
> packages that *may* be removed are not a problem, what apt wants to
> actually remove is.
>

I could send logs, I suppose, if you want?  Otherwise I didn't really keep
track of each problem package.

-- 
Dale Harris
rodmur@maybe.org
rodmur@gmail.com
/.-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#222177

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Vi, 01 mai 20, 14:05:42, Dale Harris wrote:
> 
> It was pretty much a fresh install from DVD.  I did have some issues
> remounting the install DVD from the ILO, but otherwise it pretty normal
> install.

Was the system fully up-to-date before attempting to install wine32?

> It's working now.

That depends on your definition of "working". Mine includes "all 
security updates installed" ;)

> > Full output would have been better here. Automatically installed
> > packages that *may* be removed are not a problem, what apt wants to
> > actually remove is.
> >
> 
> I could send logs, I suppose, if you want?  Otherwise I didn't really keep
> track of each problem package.

Might not be necessary. Does 'apt update' followed by 'apt upgrade' 
complete cleanly, without any packages "held back"?

While unorthodox[1], the downgrading of packages might have fixed the 
version skew. Just make sure your system is not in a situation where 
security updates are not applied.

As a general rule, before doing any package operations make sure your 
system is fully updated.

[1] package downgrades are generally not supported. You probably got 
away with it in this particular case because the difference in versions 
was minor.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#221870

Hi,

you'll need the libfaudio0 package, which is only avail at opensuse.org

https://wiki.winehq.org/Debian

For details about hotwo, look at the second point with an "!" from this site.
https://forum.winehq.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32192

Add the opensuse.org repo as suggested and install all at once again.

Regards,
	Klaus.

Dale Harris wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have a system where I have tried to install wine32 and the newer wine5
> version, It can't resolve dependencies, like so:
> 
> # apt install --install-recommends wine-stable
> 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.
> The following information may help to resolve the situation:
> 
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>  wine-stable : Depends: wine-stable-i386 (= 5.0.0~buster)
> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
> 
> If I try to follow this down the chain of all the dependencies the aren't
> installing and attempt to install that individually, I get to a point where
> the system will try to uninstall a bunch of packages, most notably apt,
> which is kind of annoying.  So does anyone have any suggestions how I fix
> this?   The maddening thing is I have another system, almost identical,
> that all this installed fine on!  So I'm a little bit at wit's end
> presently.
> 
> -- 
> Dale Harris
> rodmur@maybe.org
> rodmur@gmail.com
> /.-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#221878

You didn't respond to the Mailinglist...

Did you do an "apt-get update" etc. (as explained later) after adding it?

Yesterday, when I did it as written, everything worked fine at my side.

Regards,
	Klaus.

Dale Harris wrote:
> Yeah, I did that.
> 
> I have
> 
> deb
> https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/Emulators:/Wine:/Debian/Debian_10
> ./
> 
> in my sources.
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:11 PM Klaus Singvogel <deb-user-ml@singvogel.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > you'll need the libfaudio0 package, which is only avail at opensuse.org
> >
> > https://wiki.winehq.org/Debian
> >
> > For details about hotwo, look at the second point with an "!" from this
> > site.
> > https://forum.winehq.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32192
> >
> > Add the opensuse.org repo as suggested and install all at once again.
> >
> > Regards,
> >         Klaus.
> >
> > Dale Harris wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have a system where I have tried to install wine32 and the newer wine5
> > > version, It can't resolve dependencies, like so:
> > >
> > > # apt install --install-recommends wine-stable
> > > 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.
> > > The following information may help to resolve the situation:
> > >
> > > The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> > >  wine-stable : Depends: wine-stable-i386 (= 5.0.0~buster)
> > > E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
> > >
> > > If I try to follow this down the chain of all the dependencies the aren't
> > > installing and attempt to install that individually, I get to a point
> > where
> > > the system will try to uninstall a bunch of packages, most notably apt,
> > > which is kind of annoying.  So does anyone have any suggestions how I fix
> > > this?   The maddening thing is I have another system, almost identical,
> > > that all this installed fine on!  So I'm a little bit at wit's end
> > > presently.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dale Harris
> > > rodmur@maybe.org
> > > rodmur@gmail.com
> > > /.-)
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dale Harris
> rodmur@maybe.org
> rodmur@gmail.com
> /.-)

-- 
Klaus Singvogel
GnuPG-Key-ID: 1024R/5068792D  1994-06-27

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#222005

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Yes, I did do the apt update, several times.

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 4:13 PM Klaus Singvogel <deb-user-ml@singvogel.net>
wrote:

> You didn't respond to the Mailinglist...
>
> Did you do an "apt-get update" etc. (as explained later) after adding it?
>
> Yesterday, when I did it as written, everything worked fine at my side.
>
> Regards,
>         Klaus.
>
> Dale Harris wrote:
> > Yeah, I did that.
> >
> > I have
> >
> > deb
> >
> https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/Emulators:/Wine:/Debian/Debian_10
> > ./
> >
> > in my sources.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 2:11 PM Klaus Singvogel <
> deb-user-ml@singvogel.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > you'll need the libfaudio0 package, which is only avail at
> opensuse.org
> > >
> > > https://wiki.winehq.org/Debian
> > >
> > > For details about hotwo, look at the second point with an "!" from this
> > > site.
> > > https://forum.winehq.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32192
> > >
> > > Add the opensuse.org repo as suggested and install all at once again.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >         Klaus.
> > >
> > > Dale Harris wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I have a system where I have tried to install wine32 and the newer
> wine5
> > > > version, It can't resolve dependencies, like so:
> > > >
> > > > # apt install --install-recommends wine-stable
> > > > 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.
> > > > The following information may help to resolve the situation:
> > > >
> > > > The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> > > >  wine-stable : Depends: wine-stable-i386 (= 5.0.0~buster)
> > > > E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
> > > >
> > > > If I try to follow this down the chain of all the dependencies the
> aren't
> > > > installing and attempt to install that individually, I get to a point
> > > where
> > > > the system will try to uninstall a bunch of packages, most notably
> apt,
> > > > which is kind of annoying.  So does anyone have any suggestions how
> I fix
> > > > this?   The maddening thing is I have another system, almost
> identical,
> > > > that all this installed fine on!  So I'm a little bit at wit's end
> > > > presently.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Dale Harris
> > > > rodmur@maybe.org
> > > > rodmur@gmail.com
> > > > /.-)
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dale Harris
> > rodmur@maybe.org
> > rodmur@gmail.com
> > /.-)
>
> --
> Klaus Singvogel
> GnuPG-Key-ID: 1024R/5068792D  1994-06-27
>


-- 
Dale Harris
rodmur@maybe.org
rodmur@gmail.com
/.-)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web