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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #188110 > unrolled thread

Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed?

Started byCelejar <celejar@gmail.com>
First post2017-10-20 06:00 +0200
Last post2017-10-24 19:10 +0200
Articles 20 on this page of 23 — 6 participants

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

Contents

  Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2017-10-20 06:00 +0200
    Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2017-10-20 10:30 +0200
      Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2017-10-20 19:10 +0200
        Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2017-10-20 23:30 +0200
          Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2017-10-23 02:50 +0200
            Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2017-10-23 12:00 +0200
              Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Roger Lynn <Roger@rilynn.me.uk> - 2017-10-23 22:30 +0200
                Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2017-10-24 01:30 +0200
                  Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-10-24 02:20 +0200
                    Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2017-10-24 04:20 +0200
                  Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2017-10-24 03:10 +0200
              Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2017-10-24 01:20 +0200
                Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2017-10-24 09:00 +0200
                  Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2017-10-24 19:10 +0200
                    Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2017-10-29 13:00 +0100
                      Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-10-29 13:30 +0100
                        Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2017-10-30 03:50 +0100
                          Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2017-10-30 11:20 +0100
                            Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2017-10-30 16:00 +0100
                              Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2017-10-30 16:10 +0100
                            Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2017-10-30 18:40 +0100
    Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Roger Lynn <Roger@rilynn.me.uk> - 2017-10-21 18:30 +0200
      Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2017-10-24 19:10 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#188110 — Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed?

FromCelejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Date2017-10-20 06:00 +0200
SubjectCan imagemagick really be safely purged or removed?
Message-ID<uCwDv-7aA-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Hi,

The description of the imagemagick package (8:6.9.7.4+dfsg-11+deb9u1)
on my Stable system includes the statements:

"This is a dummy package.  You can safely purge or remove it."

But trying to remove it rips out cups, because:

~$ aptitude why imagemagick
i   cups         Depends cups-filters (>= 1.0.24-3~)
i A cups-filters Depends imagemagick (>= 6.4~)

What gives?

Celejar

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#188116

FromJörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de>
Date2017-10-20 10:30 +0200
Message-ID<uCAQN-1nZ-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188110
Take a look which imagemagick packages are installed:

$ aptitude search '~iimagemagick'

Probably there is a line beginning with

i A  imagemagick-6.q16

which shall replace imagemagick. Also see the dependencies of package imagemagick:

$ dpkg -s imagemagick

So before purging imagemagick you have to

$ aptitude unmarkauto imagemagick-6.q16

Regards,
jvp.

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

#188130

FromCelejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Date2017-10-20 19:10 +0200
Message-ID<uCIY1-6sq-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188116
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:21:24 +0200
Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> wrote:

> Take a look which imagemagick packages are installed:
> 
> $ aptitude search '~iimagemagick'
> 
> Probably there is a line beginning with
> 
> i A  imagemagick-6.q16
> 
> which shall replace imagemagick. Also see the dependencies of package imagemagick:
> 
> $ dpkg -s imagemagick
> 
> So before purging imagemagick you have to
> 
> $ aptitude unmarkauto imagemagick-6.q16

Thanks. Okay, I did that, and I was then able to remove imagemagick, but only
if imagemagick:i386 is installed instead - and that's also marked as a
dummy package that can be safely removed or purged.

At this point:

~$ aptitude search '~iimagemagick'
idA imagemagick:i386                                                   - image manipulation programs -- binaries                                      
i A imagemagick-6-common                                               - image manipulation programs -- infrastructure                                
i   imagemagick-6.q16                                                  - image manipulation programs -- quantum depth Q16

Celejar

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

#188136

FromJörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de>
Date2017-10-20 23:30 +0200
Message-ID<uCN1D-uh-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188130
Celejar wrote on 10/20/17 19:05:
<snip>> Thanks. Okay, I did that, and I was then able to remove imagemagick, but
only
> if imagemagick:i386 is installed instead - and that's also marked as a
> dummy package that can be safely removed or purged.
> 
> At this point:
> 
> ~$ aptitude search '~iimagemagick'
> idA imagemagick:i386                                                   - image manipulation programs -- binaries                                      
> i A imagemagick-6-common                                               - image manipulation programs -- infrastructure                                
> i   imagemagick-6.q16                                                  - image manipulation programs -- quantum depth Q16
> 
> Celejar
> 
> 
Package imagemagick:i386 is to be replaced by imagemagick-6.q16:i386.
Try to install that.

Regards,
jvp.

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

#188192

FromCelejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Date2017-10-23 02:50 +0200
Message-ID<uDz6h-6Z6-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188136
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 23:22:55 +0200
Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> wrote:

> Celejar wrote on 10/20/17 19:05:
> <snip>> Thanks. Okay, I did that, and I was then able to remove imagemagick, but
> only
> > if imagemagick:i386 is installed instead - and that's also marked as a
> > dummy package that can be safely removed or purged.
> > 
> > At this point:
> > 
> > ~$ aptitude search '~iimagemagick'
> > idA imagemagick:i386                                                   - image manipulation programs -- binaries                                      
> > i A imagemagick-6-common                                               - image manipulation programs -- infrastructure                                
> > i   imagemagick-6.q16                                                  - image manipulation programs -- quantum depth Q16
> > 
> > Celejar
> > 
> > 
> Package imagemagick:i386 is to be replaced by imagemagick-6.q16:i386.
> Try to install that.

Okay - I've installed imagemagick-6.q16:i386, but I still can't remove
dummy package 'imagemagick' without either installing dummy package
'imagemagick:i386' or removing cups.

Currently:

aptitude search '~iimagemagick'
i A imagemagick                                                        - image manipulation programs -- binaries                                      
i A imagemagick-6-common                                               - image manipulation programs -- infrastructure                                
i A imagemagick-6.q16:i386                                             - image manipulation programs -- quantum depth Q16

Celejar

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

#188199

FromJörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de>
Date2017-10-23 12:00 +0200
Message-ID<uDHGy-4bm-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188192
Since I use a pure 64-bit system, I overlooked that only one of
imagemagick-6.q16 or imagemagick-6.q16:i386 can be installed.
I think it's better to re-install imagemagick-6.q16.
And then show the output when trying to purge imagemagick, please.
I think there must be involved a i386 version of some cups package.

Regards,
jvp.

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

#188217

FromRoger Lynn <Roger@rilynn.me.uk>
Date2017-10-23 22:30 +0200
Message-ID<uDRwd-1V1-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188199
On 23/10/17 11:00, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:
> Since I use a pure 64-bit system, I overlooked that only one of
> imagemagick-6.q16 or imagemagick-6.q16:i386 can be installed.
> I think it's better to re-install imagemagick-6.q16.
> And then show the output when trying to purge imagemagick, please.
> I think there must be involved a i386 version of some cups package.

Celejar answered the question in the first post. It's very simple:
imagemagick can not be removed because cups-filters depends on it.

Roger

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

#188224

FromCelejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Date2017-10-24 01:30 +0200
Message-ID<uDUkp-3CI-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188217
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 20:23:46 +0100
Roger Lynn <Roger@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:

> On 23/10/17 11:00, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:
> > Since I use a pure 64-bit system, I overlooked that only one of
> > imagemagick-6.q16 or imagemagick-6.q16:i386 can be installed.
> > I think it's better to re-install imagemagick-6.q16.
> > And then show the output when trying to purge imagemagick, please.
> > I think there must be involved a i386 version of some cups package.
> 
> Celejar answered the question in the first post. It's very simple:
> imagemagick can not be removed because cups-filters depends on it.

Okay, but why do packages depend on other packages that declare that
they are dummies and can be safely removed? Is this a bug in the
dummy package' description, or in the package that has the dependency,
or just unclear / misleading terminology?

Celejar

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

#188226

FromThe Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm>
Date2017-10-24 02:20 +0200
Message-ID<uDV6N-48F-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188224

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

On 2017-10-23 at 19:24, Celejar wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 20:23:46 +0100 Roger Lynn <Roger@rilynn.me.uk>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 23/10/17 11:00, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:
>> 
>>> Since I use a pure 64-bit system, I overlooked that only one of 
>>> imagemagick-6.q16 or imagemagick-6.q16:i386 can be installed. I
>>> think it's better to re-install imagemagick-6.q16. And then show
>>> the output when trying to purge imagemagick, please. I think
>>> there must be involved a i386 version of some cups package.
>> 
>> Celejar answered the question in the first post. It's very simple: 
>> imagemagick can not be removed because cups-filters depends on it.
> 
> Okay, but why do packages depend on other packages that declare that 
> they are dummies and can be safely removed? Is this a bug in the 
> dummy package' description, or in the package that has the
> dependency, or just unclear / misleading terminology?

Generally (though perhaps not universally), the dummy package was not
originally a dummy, but was split out into two or more separate packages
and now exists only to aid the transition to those new packages.

In other words, it's usually for historical reasons.

Failures like the one you're looking at crop up when other packages
haven't yet been updated to depend on the new packages instead of the
old one.

-- 
   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]

#188230

FromCelejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Date2017-10-24 04:20 +0200
Message-ID<uDWYV-5lz-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188226
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 20:09:59 -0400
The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> On 2017-10-23 at 19:24, Celejar wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 20:23:46 +0100 Roger Lynn <Roger@rilynn.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> On 23/10/17 11:00, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Since I use a pure 64-bit system, I overlooked that only one of 
> >>> imagemagick-6.q16 or imagemagick-6.q16:i386 can be installed. I
> >>> think it's better to re-install imagemagick-6.q16. And then show
> >>> the output when trying to purge imagemagick, please. I think
> >>> there must be involved a i386 version of some cups package.
> >> 
> >> Celejar answered the question in the first post. It's very simple: 
> >> imagemagick can not be removed because cups-filters depends on it.
> > 
> > Okay, but why do packages depend on other packages that declare that 
> > they are dummies and can be safely removed? Is this a bug in the 
> > dummy package' description, or in the package that has the
> > dependency, or just unclear / misleading terminology?
> 
> Generally (though perhaps not universally), the dummy package was not
> originally a dummy, but was split out into two or more separate packages
> and now exists only to aid the transition to those new packages.
> 
> In other words, it's usually for historical reasons.
> 
> Failures like the one you're looking at crop up when other packages
> haven't yet been updated to depend on the new packages instead of the
> old one.

So should I file a bug against the other packages?

Celejar

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

#188229

FromDoug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net>
Date2017-10-24 03:10 +0200
Message-ID<uDVTb-4Df-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188224
On 10/23/2017 06:24 PM, Celejar wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 20:23:46 +0100
> Roger Lynn <Roger@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 23/10/17 11:00, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:
>>> Since I use a pure 64-bit system, I overlooked that only one of
>>> imagemagick-6.q16 or imagemagick-6.q16:i386 can be installed.
>>> I think it's better to re-install imagemagick-6.q16.
>>> And then show the output when trying to purge imagemagick, please.
>>> I think there must be involved a i386 version of some cups package.
>> Celejar answered the question in the first post. It's very simple:
>> imagemagick can not be removed because cups-filters depends on it.
> Okay, but why do packages depend on other packages that declare that
> they are dummies and can be safely removed? Is this a bug in the
> dummy package' description, or in the package that has the dependency,
> or just unclear / misleading terminology?
>
> Celejar
>
>
Isn't this a consequence of systemd?

--doug

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

#188223

FromCelejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Date2017-10-24 01:20 +0200
Message-ID<uDUaJ-3zB-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188199
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:58:53 +0200
Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> wrote:

> Since I use a pure 64-bit system, I overlooked that only one of
> imagemagick-6.q16 or imagemagick-6.q16:i386 can be installed.
> I think it's better to re-install imagemagick-6.q16.

Done.

> And then show the output when trying to purge imagemagick, please.
> I think there must be involved a i386 version of some cups package.

Thanks for helping me to try to figure this out.

~# aptitude remove imagemagick
The following packages will be REMOVED:  
  imagemagick 
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 199 kB will be freed.
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 cups-filters : Depends: imagemagick (>= 6.4~) but it is not going to be installed
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:

     Install the following packages:                       
1)     imagemagick:i386 [8:6.9.7.4+dfsg-11+deb9u1 (stable)]

Celejar

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

#188233

FromJörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de>
Date2017-10-24 09:00 +0200
Message-ID<uE1lT-7VF-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188223
I forgot that you showed the dependency on cups-filters in your original mail.
On testing cups-filters 1.17.9-1 does not depend on imagemagick, it only
recommends it. And I use APT::Install-Recommends "false"; in /etc/apt/apt.conf.
Therefore, on this system imagemagick could be removed.

Regards,
jvp.

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

#188246

FromCelejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Date2017-10-24 19:10 +0200
Message-ID<uEaSe-5Aa-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188233
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:52:46 +0200
Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> wrote:

> I forgot that you showed the dependency on cups-filters in your original mail.
> On testing cups-filters 1.17.9-1 does not depend on imagemagick, it only
> recommends it. And I use APT::Install-Recommends "false"; in /etc/apt/apt.conf.
> Therefore, on this system imagemagick could be removed.

Interesting, thanks. So they changed the dependency from 'depends' to
'recommends', but they're still 'recommending' a dummy package.

Celejar

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

#188445

FromJörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de>
Date2017-10-29 13:00 +0100
Message-ID<uFUpY-6J1-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188246
Celejar wrote on 10/24/17 15:09:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:52:46 +0200
> Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> wrote:
> 
>> I forgot that you showed the dependency on cups-filters in your original mail.
>> On testing cups-filters 1.17.9-1 does not depend on imagemagick, it only
>> recommends it. And I use APT::Install-Recommends "false"; in /etc/apt/apt.conf.
>> Therefore, on this system imagemagick could be removed.
> 
> Interesting, thanks. So they changed the dependency from 'depends' to
> 'recommends', but they're still 'recommending' a dummy package.

Taking another look at package imagemagick-6.q16 (version 8:6.9.7.4+dfsg-16) it
states that it provides imagemagick. Therefore, I don't understand what's going
on on your system and there's nothing wrong with package cups-filters, I think.

Regards,
jvp.

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

#188447

FromThe Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm>
Date2017-10-29 13:30 +0100
Message-ID<uFUSZ-792-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188445

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

On 2017-10-29 at 07:49, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:

> Celejar wrote on 10/24/17 15:09:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:52:46 +0200
>> Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> I forgot that you showed the dependency on cups-filters in your original mail.
>>> On testing cups-filters 1.17.9-1 does not depend on imagemagick, it only
>>> recommends it. And I use APT::Install-Recommends "false"; in /etc/apt/apt.conf.
>>> Therefore, on this system imagemagick could be removed.
>> 
>> Interesting, thanks. So they changed the dependency from 'depends' to
>> 'recommends', but they're still 'recommending' a dummy package.
> 
> Taking another look at package imagemagick-6.q16 (version 8:6.9.7.4+dfsg-16) it
> states that it provides imagemagick. Therefore, I don't understand what's going
> on on your system and there's nothing wrong with package cups-filters, I think.

My guess involves vague memories of there being an issue with versioned
Provides: - although I thought that was more "you can't Provides: a
specific version", not "a versioned Depends: won't be satisfied by a
Provides: from a package with a suitable version number".


-- 
   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]

#188457

FromCelejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Date2017-10-30 03:50 +0100
Message-ID<uG8jf-705-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188447
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 08:28:46 -0400
The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> On 2017-10-29 at 07:49, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:
> 
> > Celejar wrote on 10/24/17 15:09:
> >
> >> On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:52:46 +0200
> >> Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> I forgot that you showed the dependency on cups-filters in your original mail.
> >>> On testing cups-filters 1.17.9-1 does not depend on imagemagick, it only
> >>> recommends it. And I use APT::Install-Recommends "false"; in /etc/apt/apt.conf.
> >>> Therefore, on this system imagemagick could be removed.
> >> 
> >> Interesting, thanks. So they changed the dependency from 'depends' to
> >> 'recommends', but they're still 'recommending' a dummy package.
> > 
> > Taking another look at package imagemagick-6.q16 (version 8:6.9.7.4+dfsg-16) it
> > states that it provides imagemagick. Therefore, I don't understand what's going
> > on on your system and there's nothing wrong with package cups-filters, I think.
> 
> My guess involves vague memories of there being an issue with versioned
> Provides: - although I thought that was more "you can't Provides: a
> specific version", not "a versioned Depends: won't be satisfied by a
> Provides: from a package with a suitable version number".

I don't understand this stuff well enough to add anything to the
conversation. All I know is that I still can't remove imagemagick
despite the fact that imagemagick-6.q16 "Provides:" imagemagick.

Celejar

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

#188458

FromRichard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz>
Date2017-10-30 11:20 +0100
Message-ID<uGfkJ-4hS-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188457

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

On 30/10/17 15:46, Celejar wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 08:28:46 -0400
> The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
>> On 2017-10-29 at 07:49, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:
>>
>>> Celejar wrote on 10/24/17 15:09:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:52:46 +0200
>>>> Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I forgot that you showed the dependency on cups-filters in your original mail.
>>>>> On testing cups-filters 1.17.9-1 does not depend on imagemagick, it only
>>>>> recommends it. And I use APT::Install-Recommends "false"; in /etc/apt/apt.conf.
>>>>> Therefore, on this system imagemagick could be removed.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting, thanks. So they changed the dependency from 'depends' to
>>>> 'recommends', but they're still 'recommending' a dummy package.
>>>
>>> Taking another look at package imagemagick-6.q16 (version 8:6.9.7.4+dfsg-16) it
>>> states that it provides imagemagick. Therefore, I don't understand what's going
>>> on on your system and there's nothing wrong with package cups-filters, I think.
>>
>> My guess involves vague memories of there being an issue with versioned
>> Provides: - although I thought that was more "you can't Provides: a
>> specific version", not "a versioned Depends: won't be satisfied by a
>> Provides: from a package with a suitable version number".
> 
> I don't understand this stuff well enough to add anything to the
> conversation. All I know is that I still can't remove imagemagick
> despite the fact that imagemagick-6.q16 "Provides:" imagemagick.
> 
> Celejar
> 

imagemagick-6.q16 Provides: imagemagick, but not a specific version

cups-filters Depends: imagemagick (>= 6.4~)

The real imagemagick package is at 8:6.9.7.4+dfsg-11+deb9u1 (on my
machine anyway), which satisifies the cups-filters dependency.

The system doesn't know whether the version of imagemagick Provided by
imagemagick-6.q16 is new enough, so you still need the real package.

Richard

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

#188461

FromJörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de>
Date2017-10-30 16:00 +0100
Message-ID<uGjHJ-6Nr-45@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188458
Richard Hector wrote on 10/30/17 11:13:
<snip>
> imagemagick-6.q16 Provides: imagemagick, but not a specific version
> 
> cups-filters Depends: imagemagick (>= 6.4~)
> 
> The real imagemagick package is at 8:6.9.7.4+dfsg-11+deb9u1 (on my
> machine anyway), which satisifies the cups-filters dependency.
> 
> The system doesn't know whether the version of imagemagick Provided by
> imagemagick-6.q16 is new enough, so you still need the real package.
> 
> Richard
> 
So you would suggest a versioned "Provides:" for package imagemagick-6.q16?

Regards,
jvp.

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

#188462

FromJörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de>
Date2017-10-30 16:10 +0100
Message-ID<uGjRn-75T-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#188461
Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote on 10/30/17 15:54:
> Richard Hector wrote on 10/30/17 11:13:
> <snip>
>> imagemagick-6.q16 Provides: imagemagick, but not a specific version
>>
>> cups-filters Depends: imagemagick (>= 6.4~)
>>
>> The real imagemagick package is at 8:6.9.7.4+dfsg-11+deb9u1 (on my
>> machine anyway), which satisifies the cups-filters dependency.
>>
>> The system doesn't know whether the version of imagemagick Provided by
>> imagemagick-6.q16 is new enough, so you still need the real package.
>>
>> Richard
>>
> So you would suggest a versioned "Provides:" for package imagemagick-6.q16?

No, version 1.17.9-1 of cups-filters recommends imagemagick unversioned.
Therefore, I recommend to update the cups-filters package to get rid of the
dummy imagemagick package.

Regards,
jvp.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web