Re: APT broken ?

[Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>]

On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

> 
> 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.

I'm certainly willing to admit I got it backwards. I am working from
memory here (all the way back to 1.3 testing ;-)

So what you are saying is the line in status should look like:

hold ok installed

Is that right?

Sorry for the crud, 

Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"  _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-


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