[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: be careful with Replaces, please

On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Yann Dirson wrote:

> Yes: e2fsprogs used to contain shared libs, on which dump and quota
> depend. Thus, e2fsprogs was assumed to be a package with libc5 libs,
> and I could not keep the name, without breaking dump and quota on a
> hamm upgrade.
> I thought that, e2fsprogsg being essential, would be flaged for
> installation as soon as it appears in the available packages. Is this
> not the case ?

For me, the problem was that e2fsprogs, e2fsprogsg, and e2fslibsg
are all "required base", but since 2 of them conflict, I ended up
with only e2fslibsg.  This happened on two quite different systems;
one that was a fresh install last week, and one that I've been upgrading
for at least a year.  After installing e2fsprogsg, I'm left with the
following "Available Required packages"; the very existence of this
section makes me nervous.

    ------- Available Required packages in section base -------                 
  __ Req base    comerr2     <none>     1.10-7      The Common Error Descript
  __ Req base    e2fsprogs   <none>     1.10-7      The EXT2 file system util
  __ Req base    mawk        <none>     1.3.3-1.1   a pattern scanning and te
  __ Req base    sysklogd    <none>     1.3-17.1    Kernel and system logging
  __ Req base    timezones   <none>     2.0.5c-0.1  Time zone data files and 
  __ Req base    update      <none>     1.3-2       daemon to periodically fl

e2fsprogsg and e2fsprogs were both in there at one point.  I suppose that
being "required base" doesn't cause a package to be installed, and none of
my installed packages required e2fsprogsg or anything that's provided by

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: