Re: APT broken ?
On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Please, I would like to see an example or document or something that
> > supports your claim that dpkg considers a held [but not installed] package
> > as being able to satisfy dependancies.
>
> I have always said that the status file should say "install ok hold" and
> that under those circumstances the package should be considered installed
> but not upgradable.
That is changing the meaning of the Status: line, hold is not valid in the
third position. I can not do this for APT without dpkg implementing it
first.
Jason
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: