LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Search this Thread
Old 01-03-2009, 10:42 PM   #1
BCarey
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: New Mexico
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,455

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
package management and dependency checking


I just had to laugh when I came across the following. Installing flash-player is really just a question of putting one file (libflashplayer.so) in one directory (/usr/lib/mozilla or /usr/lib/firefox). However, if you try to do it on one of the distros with a package manager with dependency checking, apparently you get the following:

Quote:
root@edubuntu:~# sudo dpkg -i install_flash_player_10_linux.deb
Selecting previously deselected package adobe-flashplugin.
(Reading database ... 126808 files and directories currently installed.)
Unpacking adobe-flashplugin (from install_flash_player_10_linux.deb) ...
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of adobe-flashplugin:
adobe-flashplugin depends on libatk1.0-0 (>= 1.20.0); however:
Version of libatk1.0-0 on system is 1.11.4-0ubuntu1.
adobe-flashplugin depends on libc6 (>= 2.4); however:
Version of libc6 on system is 2.3.6-0ubuntu20.5.
adobe-flashplugin depends on libcairo2 (>= 1.6.0); however:
Version of libcairo2 on system is 1.0.4-0ubuntu1.2.
adobe-flashplugin depends on libfontconfig1 (>= 2.4.0); however:
Version of libfontconfig1 on system is 2.3.2-1.1ubuntu12.
adobe-flashplugin depends on libfreetype6 (>= 2.3.5); however:
Version of libfreetype6 on system is 2.1.10-1ubuntu2.5.
adobe-flashplugin depends on libgcc1 (>= 1:4.1.1-21); however:
Version of libgcc1 on system is 1:4.0.3-1ubuntu5.
adobe-flashplugin depends on libglib2.0-0 (>= 2.12.0); however:
Version of libglib2.0-0 on system is 2.10.3-0ubuntu1.
adobe-flashplugin depends on libgtk2.0-0 (>= 2.12.0); however:
Version of libgtk2.0-0 on system is 2.8.20-0ubuntu1.1.
adobe-flashplugin depends on libnspr4-0d; however:
Package libnspr4-0d is not installed.
adobe-flashplugin depends on libnss3-1d; however:
Package libnss3-1d is not installed.
adobe-flashplugin depends on libpango1.0-0 (>= 1.20.1); however:
Version of libpango1.0-0 on system is 1.12.3-0ubuntu3.
adobe-flashplugin depends on libstdc++6 (>= 4.1.1-21); however:
Version of libstdc++6 on system is 4.0.3-1ubuntu5.
dpkg: error processing adobe-flashplugin (--install):
dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
Errors were encountered while processing:
adobe-flashplugin
opps--forgot this!
(taken from http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...player-694796/)

I love Slackware.

Brian
 
Old 01-03-2009, 11:01 PM   #2
Mega Man X
Guru
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: ~
Distribution: Ubuntu, FreeBSD, Solaris, DSL
Posts: 5,339

Rep: Reputation: 63
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCarey View Post
I just had to laugh when I came across the following. Installing flash-player is really just a question of putting one file (libflashplayer.so) in one directory (/usr/lib/mozilla or /usr/lib/firefox). However, if you try to do it on one of the distros with a package manager with dependency checking, apparently you get the following:


(taken from http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...player-694796/)

I love Slackware.

Brian
I think this is quite possibly the most mean post I have ever seen here. The problem in that thread (which I am doing my best to help) is because Adobe only provides packages for newer version of Ubuntu and the Ubuntu in question is old.

And how is Slackware any better if you can also copy the file in the exactly same manner as you can with Ubuntu (and I replied with that option, in that thread as well). So in theory, Slackware is offering less.

Why exactly did you join a Linux forum? To laugh at other people problems? The man over there is trying to fix a computer to his grand kids, and instead of helping with your knowledge, you create a thread to laugh at somebody?

I found your thread by looking on 0 reply threads. I am adding you to my ignore list as well.

I see attitudes as yours daily coming from Slackware users and that is one of the reasons I left Slackware (and even LQ.org for a while).

You really have some growing up to do mate... think about it.

Last edited by Mega Man X; 01-03-2009 at 11:02 PM.
 
Old 01-03-2009, 11:25 PM   #3
astrogeek
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2008
Distribution: Slackware: 12.1, 13.1, 14.1, 64-14.1, -current, FreeBSD-10
Posts: 1,771

Rep: Reputation: 602Reputation: 602Reputation: 602Reputation: 602Reputation: 602Reputation: 602
That is unfair...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mega Man X View Post
I think this is quite possibly the most mean post I have ever seen here...
Why exactly did you join a Linux forum? To laugh at other people problems? The man over there is trying to fix a computer to his grand kids, and instead of helping with your knowledge, you create a thread to laugh at somebody?
I don't think that is a fair representation of BCarey's post at all!

He in no way made light of ANY problem ANY person was having. He simply used a snippet from another thread to demonstrate a very real and very bad consequence that can arise from dependency checking package systems. Had he not added the link to the original thread it might have seemed less so, but then he would be asked a "Where did you get your data?" kind of question.

Examples of dependency checking problems are entirely appropriate here if only because Slackware does it differently and for good reason, as BCarey pointed out.
 
Old 01-03-2009, 11:31 PM   #4
BCarey
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: New Mexico
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,455

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Sorry if you are offended. It was a light-hearted post, not meant to be mean. The whole dependency checking issue comes up often in relation to Slackware, even to the extent that people claim that Slackware has no package management tools. A lot of people don't seem to understand the negative side of dependency checking package managers, and I thought that was a good example.

Feel free to ignore me, I take no offence.

Brian
 
Old 01-03-2009, 11:39 PM   #5
BCarey
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: New Mexico
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,455

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Thanks, astrogeek.
 
Old 01-03-2009, 11:48 PM   #6
astrogeek
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2008
Distribution: Slackware: 12.1, 13.1, 14.1, 64-14.1, -current, FreeBSD-10
Posts: 1,771

Rep: Reputation: 602Reputation: 602Reputation: 602Reputation: 602Reputation: 602Reputation: 602
You are welcome Brian - and thanks for the example, you gotta' love Slackware!
 
Old 01-04-2009, 12:16 AM   #7
ErV
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: Russia
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 1,202
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCarey View Post
I just had to laugh when I came across the following. Installing flash-player is really just a question of putting one file (libflashplayer.so) in one directory (/usr/lib/mozilla or /usr/lib/firefox). However, if you try to do it on one of the distros with a package manager with dependency checking, apparently you get the following:


(taken from http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...player-694796/)

I love Slackware.

Brian
I can understand Mega Man X's reaction, because you have no problem and posted link to ubuntu-based trouble in slackware forum.
As far as I know, flashplayer installs fine on ubuntus, so in the linked thread author probably took wrong package. Besides, there is always "standard" *.tar.gz package available, which requires no dependency checking rubbish.

If you wanted to show possible dependency checking problems, then I'd recommend to take Ubuntu 8.04, install wine 0.9.53 using ubuntu 6.0 package, pin package down, then attempt to make system update. System will complain about libldap package (in 8.04 it is present but is called libldap2) won't be able to do system update, and it will atempt to delete package despite pinning it down.
 
Old 01-04-2009, 01:20 AM   #8
allend
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Melbourne
Distribution: Slackware-current
Posts: 3,408

Rep: Reputation: 835Reputation: 835Reputation: 835Reputation: 835Reputation: 835Reputation: 835Reputation: 835
Quote:
Why exactly did you join a Linux forum? To laugh at other people problems? The man over there is trying to fix a computer to his grand kids, and instead of helping with your knowledge, you create a thread to laugh at somebody?
What has wearable computing got to do with a dependency checking thread, mate?
 
Old 01-04-2009, 01:39 AM   #9
Mega Man X
Guru
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Location: ~
Distribution: Ubuntu, FreeBSD, Solaris, DSL
Posts: 5,339

Rep: Reputation: 63
Thanks ErV!

Quote:
Originally Posted by allend View Post
What has wearable computing got to do with a dependency checking thread, mate?
Could you please explain? I don't really understand what you are trying to accomplish with that question...
 
Old 01-04-2009, 03:04 AM   #10
allend
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Melbourne
Distribution: Slackware-current
Posts: 3,408

Rep: Reputation: 835Reputation: 835Reputation: 835Reputation: 835Reputation: 835Reputation: 835Reputation: 835
Quote:
Could you please explain? I don't really understand what you are trying to accomplish with that question...
My question arose from the iconoclastic, comedic tradition of pricking the pomposity of people who demonstrate a closed mind attitude. I found your response to BCarey's lighthearted post to be a personal attack that smacked of a presumption of superiority and an inability to accept an alternative viewpoint. It was based on your misreading of BCarey's post and a lack of current knowledge of the discussion about criticism of Slackware and how dependency checking is handled. I chose to respond by literally reading a phrasing error
Quote:
fix a computer to his grand kids
in your post as a way of showing how easy it is to twist and misinterpret another's post.

In the vernacular, I was "taking the piss".
 
Old 01-04-2009, 07:00 AM   #11
XavierP
Moderator
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Kent, England
Distribution: Lubuntu
Posts: 19,176
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430
Closing this as it stopped serving any purpose really early on. New Year's Resolution for all LQ members: be less ready to take offence so very quickly.
 
  


Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Slackware Package Management HowTo: Needs checking :) DJ_Barney Slackware 13 04-24-2008 07:51 PM
removing a package without dependency checking whitesuit Debian 1 10-25-2006 12:13 AM
Dependency Checking??? Southpaw76 Slackware 4 09-03-2006 12:56 PM
dependency checking in slackware? hottdogg Slackware 8 09-02-2006 05:41 PM
i need a command for checking the dependency of a package Uday123 Suse/Novell 7 12-19-2005 12:03 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:20 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration