Re: APT broken ?
On Sat, 4 Apr 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > Hold is certianly not the correct thing for either sitatuation.
>
> If the package is marked in the status file as installed and on hold, I
> would hope that the packages that depend on this package will have those
> dependencies satisfied.
If the package was marked as installed then there would be no problem as
it has met dependancies! Overloading installed to mean 'maybe installed'
is not a good idea. It changes what hold means and it changes what
installed means - very bad.
> I don't see what is wrong with this, as it falls within original
> definitions of the behaviour.
How so?
Installed - Means that the package is unpacked and configured and is in a
good state
Hold - Means the package should never be upgraded automatically
Neither of these things say anything about the dependents on the package
or dependents of the package. I have a flag mechanism in place for several
other things and it might cleanly solve these problems as well without
overloading well specified functionality.
Jason
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: