Re: Package conflicts, breaks, and problematic upgrades... with irqbalance
On 02/27/2018 02:46 AM, Zach Marano wrote:
> According to the policy manual [3], using 'breaks' should work here
> because our package is installed already and the kernel is trying to
> install irqbalance on upgrade.
Usually, IIRC, Breaks: is for when 2 packages hold the same file. Here,
it likely would be Conflicts:.
> However, this doesn't seem to work
> correctly in all cases. Using just `apt upgrade` it correctly says it
> cannot install the kernel because it has conflicting dependencies. Using
> `apt-get upgrade` however still removes our package and installs
> irqbalance (same with apt-get dist-upgrade).
This wont happen if you add a Provides:. I believe Bastian thought
irqbalance had a Priority: required, but that's not the case, so it
should be fine to with Conflicts: + Provides:.
> What I did find is that
> changing the priority of our package to 'required' instead of 'optional'
> seems to work correctly with 'breaks'.
Do not do that! Your package certainly isn't to be required on all systems.
> From what I gather about
> 'required', it is reserved for things like the kernel package.
Exactly.
> So, what is the right way to fix this? And yes, I do believe the having
> irqbalance as a recommends for the kernel package is just wrong- however
> lets deal with that separately.
I do believe it's a nice thing that the kernel recommends it, as it is
useful on most system running the kernel.
Also, I agree with Bastian that we should get to understand why
irqbalance is so broken that you can't use it within GCE. I don't
understand this bit. Could you expand on this before taking drastic
measures like I just described? It'd be best to fix irqbalance to fit
your environment, IMO.
I hope this helps.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
P.S: The HTML version of your message has tiny chars, and is therefore
almost unreadable. Please disable it, which is also the sensitive thing
to do for Debian lists.
Reply to: