Re: APT broken ?
On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> I'm looking at the other side. I want a package on hold to continue to
> satisfy the dependencies other packages have on it.
> I believe that both of these desires are reasonable and correct and
> that the current dpkg behaves correctly with reguard to this (at least
> in design. I understand that there are bugs in dpkg.) or has, at least
> behaved properly in the past with respect to these issues.
there's more to the question than just the package name - package
versions can also be important.
ok, say you've got package 'foo' version 1.5-1 installed and on hold.
say, also, that another package 'bar' depends on foo.
if bar depends on "foo > 1.5-1," then bar's dependancies are NOT satisfied.
if bar doesn't care what version of foo is installed, or if foo's
version is high enough (e.g. "foo >= 1.0-1") then bar's dependancies ARE
if satisified, bar can be upgraded. if not, then bar should NOT be
i believe (but am not certain) that this is the way that culus has
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com