[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> No, it means you can't do this specific situation you asked
>     Jason> for, you said dist-upgrade works, so you can in fact
>     Jason> upgrade to unstable!
> I don't recall saying that. If so, I did, I am sorry, I must have been
> confused at the time (or maybe the archive has changed since then, or

You seem to be confused. It is in the bug log.

> apt-get dist-upgrade would work, but I want to remove my Helix packages
> first (otherwise things will break), and apt wont let me do that without

> It has the highest version number???? I always run dselect update???

I don't care? It is not the installed package! Why are you ignoring that
absolutely critical detail?? Lets review my first message:

> Try looking at the current version of perl-base, and then look at the
> thing that actually provides the pre-depends it needs, which in this case
> will be perl-5.004-base. This has very little to do with the packages you
> are going to install. 

Now, hold my hand. Your installed perl-base looks like this: 

> Package: perl-base
> Essential: yes
> Priority: required
> Section: base
> Installed-Size: 10
> Maintainer: Darren Stalder <torin@daft.com>
> Architecture: all
> Version: 5.004.05-1.1
> Pre-Depends: perl5-base

And your perl-5.004-base looks like this!

> snoopy:nfsroot:/# dpkg -s perl-5.004-base
> Package: perl-5.004-base
> Provides: perl5-base


Now, the *only* ground you can attempt to stand on to claim this is an APT
bug is that it is erronously giving the error.

The above proves the relationship between perl-base and perl-5.004-base
and it also proves the fact that perl-base is essential -- on your system,
as it is now. 

I established this in the last paragraph of my first message, which you
totally ignored. Establishing this absolves me of all responsibility so I
closed the bug.

> details to explain the problem, which you don't seem to understand,
> you are constantly accusing me of being wrong. However, thank-you for

Yes, of course, I have no idea how the software I wrote works. Silly me.


Reply to: