[solved]Error messages installing Samba – packages could not be installed broken

[Member Robin]

Helpful

Up

1

::

spaz wrote:

Any pointers on how you diagnosed this?

OK, I’m not that experienced in packaging and package management. But in my postings above I had highlighted the important lines which contained the needed pieces of information to resolve this issue already. A brief summary:

From your start posting:

spaz wrote:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
samba : Depends: python3-samba but it is not going to be installed
Depends: samba-common-bin (= 2:4.13.13+dfsg-1~deb11u5) but it is not going to be installed
Depends: libwbclient0 (= 2:4.13.13+dfsg-1~deb11u5) but 2:4.17.4+dfsg-2~bpo11+1 is to be installed
Depends: samba-libs (= 2:4.13.13+dfsg-1~deb11u5) but it is not going to be installed

Here obviously the line
Depends: libwbclient0 (= 2:4.13.13+dfsg-1~deb11u5) but 2:4.17.4+dfsg-2~bpo11+1 is to be installed
discloses what keeps the packages from being installed.

First idea was some other package might request this version explicitly (creating a version conflict), so I asked you to show the output of a command disclosing which packages depend on this package:
apt-get --simulate purge libwbclient0

Your answer was:

spaz wrote:

Purg connectshares-antix [0.3.6]
Purg cifs-utils [2:6.11-3.1+deb11u1]
Purg libwbclient0 [2:4.17.4+dfsg-2~bpo11+1]

Which means: The first two packages depend on the package libwbclient0, since they would get removed when removing the package to be checked.
The third line discloses the recently installed version of libwbclient0, which is the backported version as you can see yourself.
Now, since no other programs besides the default antiX preinstalled packages depend on this, which are known to work properly with the default libwbclient0 version, I suggested to give a downgrade of the libwbclient0 package to the default version a chance.

That was my path of thinking, and that’s all I can tell you. It’s simply about applying strictly logically considerations on the findings, deriving most promising next steps, and applying logically considerations again from their output, and so on.

spaz wrote:

and I see it that :
libwbclient0 [2:4.17.4+dfsg-2
is an unofficial port, as you say

This is not what I said. I said, you installed a backport version, but this does not mean it is inofficial. On contrary, these are official debian backports. For further information about backports see: Debian Backports

spaz wrote:

What would give me a good understanding of Debian installation problems?

This is a question I can’t answer unfortunately, this exceeds my knowledge. I only know it is quite difficult. For further information about what issues are to be dealt with please read: Dependency Hell
This might shed some light on all the pitfalls of package management.

Windows is like a submarine. Open a window and serious problems will start.

[Moderator caprea]

Helpful

Up

1

::

Good, will mark it solved. Though the question remains, how did the version from backports get onto your system ?
According to the rules of updates and the logic this should not happen, unless it is explicitly requested.
I also tried your way to install brave on antiX21, no problem.

[Member Robin]

Helpful

Up

0

::

caprea wrote:

the question remains, how did the version from backports get onto your system ?

My guess is: There was some program we don’t know about installed and later removed again on this system, a program requiring this very package version from the backports, which would leave the updated one behind on the system.

Windows is like a submarine. Open a window and serious problems will start.

[Author]

Posts