[SOLVED] spacefm 1.0.6 upgrade-error in MX-17.1
[SOLVED] spacefm 1.0.6 upgrade-error in MX-17.1
Moin,
last weeks upgrade made the file manager spacefm to disappear within my
MX-17.1 installation due to a dependency issue.
Changing (patching) manually the dependency from libeudev1 to libudev1
within spacefm_1.0.6-1_amd64.deb fixed it.
Upgrading from spacefm-1.0.5 will result in un-installing spacefm.
As a very long time spacefm-user and a very long-time MX-user
unbelievable - my first post!!
last weeks upgrade made the file manager spacefm to disappear within my
MX-17.1 installation due to a dependency issue.
Changing (patching) manually the dependency from libeudev1 to libudev1
within spacefm_1.0.6-1_amd64.deb fixed it.
Upgrading from spacefm-1.0.5 will result in un-installing spacefm.
As a very long time spacefm-user and a very long-time MX-user
unbelievable - my first post!!
Last edited by fehlix on Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gigabyte Z77M-D3H, Intel Xeon E3-1240 V2 (Quad core), 32GB RAM,
GeForce GTX 770, Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB, Seagate Barracuda 4TB
GeForce GTX 770, Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB, Seagate Barracuda 4TB
Re: spacefm 1.0.6 upgrade-error in MX-17.1
Is the new spacefm coming from the antiX repository?
It would seem that allowing for both udev and eudev as alternative dependencies in the deb package would also work. Or we may have to build an MX version which will be seen as newer by apt.
It would seem that allowing for both udev and eudev as alternative dependencies in the deb package would also work. Or we may have to build an MX version which will be seen as newer by apt.
- dolphin_oracle
- Developer
- Posts: 19926
- Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:17 pm
Re: spacefm 1.0.6 upgrade-error in MX-17.1
yeah, we need to fix that deb. the depend needs to be either udev or eudev. BTW, udev should be provided by eudev.[Stevo wrote:Is the new spacefm coming from the antiX repository?
It would seem that allowing for both udev and eudev as alternative dependencies in the deb package would also work. Or we may have to build an MX version which will be seen as newer by apt.
http://www.youtube.com/runwiththedolphin
lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme Gen 4 - MX-23
FYI: mx "test" repo is not the same thing as debian testing repo.
lenovo ThinkPad X1 Extreme Gen 4 - MX-23
FYI: mx "test" repo is not the same thing as debian testing repo.
Re: spacefm 1.0.6 upgrade-error in MX-17.1
Yes, exactly - this is from the antix-repository (antix.list). As MX uses udev and antiX eudev having bothe alternativ dependencies (libeudev1|libudev1) for spacefm would satisfy both linux environments.Stevo wrote:Is the new spacefm coming from the antiX repository?
Gigabyte Z77M-D3H, Intel Xeon E3-1240 V2 (Quad core), 32GB RAM,
GeForce GTX 770, Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB, Seagate Barracuda 4TB
GeForce GTX 770, Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB, Seagate Barracuda 4TB
Re: spacefm 1.0.6 upgrade-error in MX-17.1
Wow, I thought the project was dead. I missed this announcement: http://ignorantguru.github.io/spacefm/news.html#1.0.6
Re: spacefm 1.0.6 upgrade-error in MX-17.1
It depends on whether the package creates the dependency automatically with the ${shlibs:Depends} variable if the maintainer could make it have the alternate Depends, though I guess it's worth a try to see if putting them in manually will work...I think doing that overrides the automatic one.
Does anyone know where the source for the antiX version is...oh, wait, it's in Sid. Is there any way we can talk antiX packagers into using an "-antix" suffix to their packages to allow for a possible smooth upgrade to ~mx versions and even a Buster-based MX, like the debian backports do?
Does anyone know where the source for the antiX version is...oh, wait, it's in Sid. Is there any way we can talk antiX packagers into using an "-antix" suffix to their packages to allow for a possible smooth upgrade to ~mx versions and even a Buster-based MX, like the debian backports do?
- anticapitalista
- Developer
- Posts: 4160
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:40 am
Re: spacefm 1.0.6 upgrade-error in MX-17.1
Sorry about that - I will remove the latest version 1.0.6 from the antiX repository for now.
anticapitalista
Reg. linux user #395339.
Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.
antiX with runit - lean and mean.
https://antixlinux.com
Reg. linux user #395339.
Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.
antiX with runit - lean and mean.
https://antixlinux.com
Re: spacefm 1.0.6 upgrade-error in MX-17.1
Wait, amending "that deb" (spacefm package) would amount to treating the symptom, not the problem, yes?yeah, we need to fix that deb. the depend needs to be either udev or eudev. BTW, udev should be provided by eudev.
AFAICT, the solution would be to amend both the libeudev1 and eudev packages, as follows:
Package: libeudev1
Provides: libudev1
Replaces: libudev1 (and do not state a version)
Package: eudev
Provides: udev
Replaces: udev (and do not state a version)
ref: https://debian-handbook.info/browse/sta ... ation.html
Re: spacefm 1.0.6 upgrade-error in MX-17.1
I'm building a MX package that will be seen as higher than the antiX one. If anti builds 1.0.6-1~antix for the antiX repo, that should not be seen as higher than our repo version, but will still be available to the antiX users.
The libeudev1 dependency was added automatically by shlibs, but I'm trying the alternate build-depends and depends method to see what comes out the other end...though just the alternate build-depends method should also work if the antiX eudev build stays in its own repo. I'm assuming that the package is libeudev-dev for antiX, since I don't know for sure.
The libeudev1 dependency was added automatically by shlibs, but I'm trying the alternate build-depends and depends method to see what comes out the other end...though just the alternate build-depends method should also work if the antiX eudev build stays in its own repo. I'm assuming that the package is libeudev-dev for antiX, since I don't know for sure.
Re: spacefm 1.0.6 upgrade-error in MX-17.1
As I have now the deb version 1.0.6 (manually patched) installed I'm quite happy with itStevo wrote:I'm building a MX package that will be seen as higher than the antiX one. If anti builds 1.0.6-1~antix for the antiX repo, that should not be seen as higher than our repo version, but will still be available to the antiX users.
.
as spacefm is extremly useful and powerfull. I do have spacefm on all my different linux instillations in addition to the default file manager.
Actually their is another issue within that deb-package (1.0.6) as within the postrm-file the remove-tag is missing which results in dpkg-error during remove: "postrm called with unknown argument'remove' " within in MX-17.1 and antiX-17.1!
Manualy patching this postrm by using the postrm from version 1.0.5 made dpkg happy again.
I've tested successively this patched install/remove on both MX-17.1 and antix-17.1.
Gigabyte Z77M-D3H, Intel Xeon E3-1240 V2 (Quad core), 32GB RAM,
GeForce GTX 770, Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB, Seagate Barracuda 4TB
GeForce GTX 770, Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB, Seagate Barracuda 4TB