Bug#356786: upgrading x11-common from 6.8.2.dfsg.1-7 to 6.9.0.dfsg.1-4 fails with error
Package: x11-common
Version: 6.8.2.dfsg.1-7
On attempting to upgrade x11-common from 6.8.2.dfsg.1-7 to
6.9.0.dfsg.1-4, it fails to upgrade with the error message:
trying to overwite `/usr/include/X11', which is also in package libxft-dev
My installed version of libxft-dev is 2.1.8.2-3
Directory /usr/include/X11 on my system is currently a symlink to
'../X11R6/include/X11'. The (target) directory contains a number of
files and subdirectories.
I have successfully upgraded all other X11 packages to 6.9.0.dsfg.1-7,
except for xserver-xorg (which is still at 6.8.2.dfsg.1-7).
Here is the screen dump from attempting the upgrade of x11-common with
apt-get:
ianma@ianma:/$ sudo apt-get install x11-common
Password:
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
The following packages will be upgraded:
x11-common
1 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 79 not upgraded.
16 not fully installed or removed.
Need to get 0B/1124kB of archives.
After unpacking 135kB of additional disk space will be used.
Preconfiguring packages ...
(Reading database ... 92566 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace x11-common 6.8.2.dfsg.1-7 (using
.../x11-common_6.9.0.dfsg.1-4_all.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement x11-common ...
dpkg: error processing
/var/cache/apt/archives/x11-common_6.9.0.dfsg.1-4_all.deb (--unpack):
trying to overwrite `/usr/include/X11', which is also in package libxft-dev
System startup links for /etc/init.d/x11-common already exist.
Setting up X server socket directory /tmp/.X11-unix...done.
Setting up ICE socket directory /tmp/.ICE-unix...done.
Errors were encountered while processing:
/var/cache/apt/archives/x11-common_6.9.0.dfsg.1-4_all.deb
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
ianma@ianma:/$
__________________________________________________
This Message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender.
Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and not necessarily the views of the Judicial Commission of NSW.
Reply to: