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

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
satisfied.

if satisified, bar can be upgraded. if not, then bar should NOT be
upgraded.

i believe (but am not certain) that this is the way that culus has
written it.

craig

--
craig sanders


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


Reply to: