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

Re: Bug#95801: won't let me upgrade perl from stable to unstable

On 1 May 2001, Brian May wrote:

> >>>>> "Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@debian.org> writes:
>     Jason> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Brian May wrote:
>     >> WARNING: The following essential packages will be removed This
>     >> should NOT be done unless you know exactly what you are doing!
>     >> perl-5.004-base (due to perl-base)
>     Jason> I'm confused, why is this a bug? You asked it to remove a
> No I didn't! I asked to upgrade to the latest perl from unstable!

<sigh> Please read exactly what I am saying, I already discussed this
problem with Brendan before I replied to you. The fact that dist-upgrade
works makes this not-a-bug.

By asking it to remove some packages, that implicitly implies others need
to be upgraded, which implies that some perl packages need to be removed.
You asked for that, you have to accept that. You may suggest it not remove
perl-5.004 base by also listing that on the command line, but you may find
it removes more packages that you'd like it to.

> It is a bug. It means that I cannot upgrade from stable to unstable.

No, it means you can't do this specific situation you asked for, you said
dist-upgrade works, so you can in fact upgrade to unstable!
>     >> The thing is, I can't even see how this is meant to work:
>     >> 
>     >> dewey:~# dpkg --print-avail perl-base
>     Jason> Try looking at the current version of perl-base, and then

> conflicts. Perhaps you are confused? Please check the version number
> again.

Read it. Carefully. Your output has no relevence what so ever for 2
reasons, the first being that it is not the installed package, and the
second being that it is dpkg 'avail' output which is not used by APT.

In fact the output you quote below demonstrates exactly what I was talking

> If you do close this bug again without resolving it, then I guess you
> have just demonstrated that Debian has grown too large and

Why are you arguing with me? Instead of taking the time to reopen the bug,
you should have reassgned it to a perl package, or accept that it is
Not-A-Bug. I have already provided sufficient explanation in the first
message to show that it is not an APT bug. 

Since I am not convinced this is even a bug at all, I am not going to
foist it on anyone else. If you still belive something is wrong then it is
up to you to talk to Brendan yourself - that is why I closed the bug, why
you reopened it in spite of my explaination of why it is not an apt bug is
beyond me...


Reply to: