Ubuntu
splashy package

package splashy (not installed) failed to install/upgrade: trying to overwrite '/etc/lsb-base-logging.sh', which is also in package lsb-base 0:4.0-0ubuntu5

Bug #517924 reported by JMichaelSullz on 2010-02-06

This bug report is a duplicate of: Bug #328089: splashy 0.3.13-3ubuntu1 fresh install conflicts with lsb-base. Edit Remove

This bug affects 1 person

Affects		Status	Importance	Assigned to	Milestone
	splashy (Ubuntu)	Confirmed	Undecided	Unassigned

Bug Description

Binary package hint: splashy

My Ubuntu 9.04 had issues installing packages wherein it kept showing an error about Unable to lock /var/cache....../lock then I went to the terminal and issues sudo aptitude update then sudo aptitude upgrade and went through the process just fine. I have then restarted the PC and found out its already showing Ubuntu 9.10 instead of Ubuntu 9.04 and since then I started having more issues. This very first one I have reported is the installation of splashy.

I might consider switching to other distros of Linux but I do love Ubuntu.

ProblemType: Package
Architecture: amd64
Date: Sat Feb 6 12:22:54 2010
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 9.10
ErrorMessage: trying to overwrite '/etc/lsb-base-logging.sh', which is also in package lsb-base 0:4.0-0ubuntu5
Package: splashy (not installed)
SourcePackage: splashy
Title: package splashy (not installed) failed to install/upgrade: trying to overwrite '/etc/lsb-base-logging.sh', which is also in package lsb-base 0:4.0-0ubuntu5
Uname: Linux 2.6.31-14-generic x86_64

Tags:

Revision history for this message

JMichaelSullz (jmichaelsullz) wrote on 2010-02-06:

AptOrdering.txt Edit (1.7 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
Dmesg.txt Edit (54.6 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
DpkgTerminalLog.gz Edit (101.8 KiB, application/x-gzip)

Revision history for this message

Jean-Baptiste Lallement (jibel) wrote on 2010-02-06:

Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better. This particular bug has already been reported and is a duplicate of bug 328089, so it is being marked as such. Please look at the other bug report to see if there is any missing information that you can provide, or to see if there is a workaround for the bug. Additionally, any further discussion regarding the bug should occur in the other report. Please continue to report any other bugs you may find.