Bug 14905 - Squeezebox server 7.4 and 7.5 not compatible with Kubuntu 9.10 due to mysql 5.1 dependency
: Squeezebox server 7.4 and 7.5 not compatible with Kubuntu 9.10 due to mysql 5...
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: SB Transporter
Classification: Unclassified
Component: SB Server
: unspecified
: Other Linux (other)
: P1 normal with 4 votes (vote)
: 7.4.x
Assigned To: Andy Grundman
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2009-10-23 06:46 UTC by mike redman
Modified: 2011-07-23 00:41 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Category: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description mike redman 2009-10-23 06:46:57 UTC
Kubuntu uses KDE4 and when upgrading to 9.10 uses aversion of KDe that relies on Mysql 5.1. I think it may be moving to akonadi server.

With Mysql in place I cannot upgrade to 9.10. I uninstalled SBS and then upgraded to 9.10, removed Mysql 5.1 and installed 5.0. this is OK until you reboot as removing Mysql 5.1 breaks akonadi which seems to be a dependency of KDE4 for kubuntu.
Comment 1 James Richardson 2009-10-26 09:35:58 UTC
Andy will look at fixing this, it should be easy
Comment 2 Andy Grundman 2009-10-26 09:49:11 UTC
*** Bug 14928 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 mike redman 2009-10-26 09:56:27 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> *** Bug 14928 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

thanks for the attention chaps.

it appears that this might be also affecting ubuntu. See linux on squeezebox forum.

I think a fix is very urgent as 9.10 is out on the 29th.

also how do you roll out a fix for peopel who don't use 7.5?

mike.
Comment 4 Andy Grundman 2009-10-26 10:33:51 UTC
Agreed, bumping this back to 7.4.x, and will fix it today.  It should be as simple as updating the dependencies to allow MySQL 5.1.
Comment 5 SVN Bot 2009-10-26 13:08:30 UTC
 == Auto-comment from SVN commit #29012 to the slim repo by andy ==
 == https://svn.slimdevices.com/slim?view=revision&revision=29012 ==

Fixed bug 14905, allow MySQL 5.1 as server in Debian
Comment 6 mike redman 2009-10-27 02:30:14 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> == Auto-comment from SVN commit #29012 to the slim repo by andy ==
>  == https://svn.slimdevices.com/slim?view=revision&revision=29012 ==
> 
> Fixed bug 14905, allow MySQL 5.1 as server in Debian

Andy, I've successfully installed SBS 29017  7.5.0 using synaptic. (i don't like kpackage)

thanks, mike
Comment 7 karel.de-vriendt 2009-10-30 01:25:40 UTC
With Kubuntu 9.10, I tried, using Kpackagemanager and each of the 3 slimdevices Debian repositories (stable, testing and unstable). I have also tried to download the nightly builds for 7.4.2 and 7.4.5 and install these. They all continue to request Mysql 5.0 and refuse to install because of the presence of Mysql 5.1.

Is this bug really fixed?
Comment 8 Manoj Kasichainula 2009-10-30 01:54:10 UTC
7.4.2 out of the testing repository is also working fine for me now.
Comment 9 karel.de-vriendt 2009-10-30 04:38:27 UTC
I got one of the nightly builds working by removing the references to mysql 4.1 and 5.0 from the control file - but that obviously is not the way to proceed. Any idea what I do wrong?
Comment 10 James Richardson 2009-10-30 06:32:49 UTC
*** Bug 14991 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 11 mike redman 2009-10-30 16:41:16 UTC
Andy,

I have had to reinstall kubuntu 9.10 and when I tried to reinstall SBS 7.4.2 I had the same error problems with dependencies. Ie mysql-server-5.0 not installed and needs installing but can't be installed (or whatever it is).

The basic isnatllation of kubuntu 9.10 seems to install mysql-server-core-5.1.

I installed mysql-server-5.1 (which also puts in mysql-client and other packages) and this then satisfies the dependencies.

So I think a fix would be either to rewrite the ,deb installation instructions to install mysql-server-5.1 or change the control file apparopriately.

by the way installing mysql-server-5.1 over mysql-server-core doesn't appear to break kubuntu.

i hope this information is correct and helpful.

Mike
Comment 12 Andy Grundman 2009-10-30 16:46:37 UTC
Can anyone provide a patch to this file that works?

http://svn.slimdevices.com/repos/slim/7.4/trunk/platforms/debian/control
Comment 13 karel.de-vriendt 2009-10-31 00:12:57 UTC
I do not know if this helps but I removed squeezeboxserver again (including all dependencies), installed mysql-server 5.1 manually and then tried again to install squeezeboxserver (stable repository). But without success - the errormessage saying that mysql-server 4.1 or 5.0 is needed remains.
Comment 14 mike redman 2009-10-31 03:18:17 UTC
(In reply to comment #13)
> I do not know if this helps but I removed squeezeboxserver again (including all
> dependencies), installed mysql-server 5.1 manually and then tried again to
> install squeezeboxserver (stable repository). But without success - the
> errormessage saying that mysql-server 4.1 or 5.0 is needed remains.

karel, the semi fix hasn't been applied to stable 4.2.1. Try the testing .deb, 7.4.2.
Comment 15 karel.de-vriendt 2009-10-31 04:04:27 UTC
Mike,

With the testing branch (7.4.2~29082):

- Starting from a clean environment (no mysql-server, no squeezeboxserver) the error now has become (why is mysql-server-5.1 not going to be installed? - maybe because in reality it is mysql-server-5.1.37-1ubuntu5?):
   sudo apt-get install squeezeboxserver
   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:
     squeezeboxserver: Depends: mysql-server-4.1 but it is not installable or
                                mysql-server-5.0 but it is not going to be installed or
                                mysql-server-5.1 but it is not going to be installed
   E: Broken packages

- After installing mysql-server (5.1) separately, squeezeboxserver can be installed without further problems.
Comment 16 mike redman 2009-10-31 05:15:05 UTC
(In reply to comment #15)
> Mike,
> 
> With the testing branch (7.4.2~29082):
> 
> - Starting from a clean environment (no mysql-server, no squeezeboxserver) the
> error now has become (why is mysql-server-5.1 not going to be installed? -
> maybe because in reality it is mysql-server-5.1.37-1ubuntu5?):
>    sudo apt-get install squeezeboxserver
>    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:
>      squeezeboxserver: Depends: mysql-server-4.1 but it is not installable or
>                                 mysql-server-5.0 but it is not going to be
> installed or
>                                 mysql-server-5.1 but it is not going to be
> installed
>    E: Broken packages
> 
> - After installing mysql-server (5.1) separately, squeezeboxserver can be
> installed without further problems.

I'm glad you are now able to get going. unfortunately I am not a developer and cannot help those that can fix this. I am a bandit user only trying to help fellow sufferers by passing on information that I hope is helpful!
Comment 17 Claes Löfqvist 2010-01-06 05:54:17 UTC
I was relayed over here from the duplicate bug 15332 and just want to say that upgrading (from my own patched 7.4.1) to the new 7.4.2 version via apt-get from your "testing" repository worked like a charm!

I'm now running an "official" version of the SqueezeBoxServer on Ubuntu Server 9.10 without any problems. I'm once again a very satisfied customer! Thank's people! I will now switch back to the "stable" repository.

The "but it is not going to be installed" matter seems to be Ubuntu or apt related and is probably nothing the squeezeboxserver developers should waste time upon trying to solve (googling the matter gave me that opinion).

FYI: When I upgraded the following output were produced:
=================================================
slarti@Server1:~$ sudo apt-get upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages will be upgraded:
  squeezeboxserver
1 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 37.5MB of archives.
After this operation, 197kB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]?
WARNING: The following packages cannot be authenticated!
  squeezeboxserver
Install these packages without verification [y/N]? y
Get:1 http://debian.slimdevices.com testing/main squeezeboxserver 7.4.2~29707 [37.5MB]
Fetched 37.5MB in 12s (2,944kB/s)
(Reading database ... 53471 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace squeezeboxserver 7.4.1 (using .../squeezeboxserver_7.4.2~29707_all.deb) ...
Stopping Squeezebox Server.
Unpacking replacement squeezeboxserver ...
Setting up squeezeboxserver (7.4.2~29707) ...
Installing new version of config file /etc/squeezeboxserver/modules.conf ...
Installing new version of config file /etc/squeezeboxserver/convert.conf ...
 * Reloading AppArmor profiles
Warning: found usr.sbin.ntpd in /etc/apparmor.d/force-complain, forcing complain mode
                                             [ OK ]


Making sure that Squeezebox Server is not running first: No squeezeboxserve found running; none killed.
Starting Squeezebox Server.

slarti@Server1:~$ 
=================================================

Best regards!
Comment 18 karel.de-vriendt 2011-07-23 00:41:42 UTC
We are now two years later, there is (K,X,L)Ubuntu 11.04 and still the same problem persists. What can we do to help?

Should this bug be re-opened or another bug be filed?