Re: Uninstallable packages in woody
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Specifically what I want is:
>
> Conform to the rule that "optional" packages may not conflict.
>
> It is easy to fix: move offending packages into extra.
Actually, it's not so easy, but I tried in this way:
(1) Upgrade some extra packages to optional to satisfy as many dependencies
as possible among optional or higher packages.
(2) Repeat (1) again.
(3) Downgrade some optional packages to extra to eliminate as many conflicts
as possible.
(4) Repeat (3) again.
(5) Downgrade optional packages which depend on extra packages to extra.
(6) Repeat (5) again.
After this I looked at the popularity contest data to make sure some
very popular packages had not been downgraded to extra.
I've put the result in:
http://people.debian.org/~sanvila/override
Before I get flames... I'm well aware that it's not perfect. Whenever
packages A and B conflict at each other, the result is often that both
packages are downgraded to extra. But we could accept this as a fact
of life and try to upgrade one of them back to optional in woody+1.
In either case it fixes more than one hundred bad dependencies/conflicts.
BTW: The first five priority changes in this file are "mandatory" and
give little room for discussion, they are:
# Packages which conflict with virtual packages provided by standard
# or higher packages:
#
nullmailer extra conflicts with mail-transport-agent (exim)
gidentd extra conflicts with ident-server (pidentd)
nullidentd extra conflicts with ident-server (pidentd)
#
# Packages which conflicts with real standard or higher packages:
#
mailutils extra conflicts with mailx
xt extra conflicts with bind9-host
If some ftpmaster or the release manager is willing to help fixing wrong
priorities, they are more than welcome to start fixing these five ones.
Thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: