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

Re: apt-get should correctly process dependencies



On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 05:40:15PM +0000, Pedro Miguel Guerreiro wrote:
> > > Package mailx has broken dep on smail
> > 
> > This is fine, because it's:
> > 
> > Depends: libc6, smail | mail-transport-agent
> 
> What do you mean "This is fine"? :-)

It's fine dependency-wise... read on

> What about that policy rule that says that a package shouldn't depend on a
> package with a lower priority? mailx (priority: Important) is depending on
> smail, that's not even on the archive.
> AFAICT this is a bug.

Yes, but something I haven't thought of at the time of writing :)

> And what about when I try to install smail with 'apt-get install smail'?
> It says that smail doesn't exist, and it offers to install ssmtp.
That's a problem I hadn't thought of: smail package no longer exists...

> WHAT?> ssmtp? This is a package with 'priority: Extra'. Shouldn't it suggest
> exim? I think it should, because exim is 'priority: Important' (and is the
> Debian default MTA).

Perhaps apt is doing a random guess, not based on priorities...

> > > Package mailx has broken dep on mail-transport-agent
> > >   Considering zmailer-ssl 0 as a solution to mailx 8
> > >   Holding Back mailx rather than change mail-transport-agent
> > 
> > Now this is wrong, it should have picked zmailer-ssl. Anyway, there should
> > be other packages providing mail-transport-agent, not just zmailer-ssl...
> 
> Read above. It _must_ pick exim. After all, what's the use of having a
> default MTA, if the packages don't pick it up when thay need a MTA? ;-)

Because of the default installs? :)

> When I package need some service provided by a virtual package
> (mail-transport-agent, x-terminal, whatever), apt should pick up the one with
> the highest priority, not the first one it sees. From what I'm seeing, it
> isn't. Or am I missing something?

Maintainers help the tools pick the right thing by having:

Depends: real-package-providing-virtual-package-foo | virtual-package-foo

However in this case the first component doesn't exist, so something went
wrong with apt-get logic...

-- 
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification


Reply to: