Bug#159574: marked as done (general: Policy, Dependancy, Conflics - breaches - many)
Your message dated Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:56:07 +0200
with message-id <20020904105607.GD23656@wiggy.net>
and subject line Bug#159574: general: Policy, Dependancy, Conflics - breaches - many
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Sep 2002 10:46:09 +0000
>From jdh@hend.net Wed Sep 04 05:46:09 2002
Return-path: <jdh@hend.net>
Received: from ip68-100-131-54.nv.nv.cox.net (link.hunter) [68.100.131.54]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 17mXfl-0005Js-00; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 05:46:09 -0500
Received: (from jdh@localhost)
by link.hunter (8.11.3/8.11.3) id g846kJq04765;
Wed, 4 Sep 2002 02:46:19 -0400
Message-Id: <[🔎] 200209040646.g846kJq04765@link.hunter>
From: "John D. Hendrickson" <jdh@hend.net>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: general: Policy, Dependancy, Conflics - breaches - many
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.50
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 02:46:19 -0400
X-BadReturnPath: jdh@link.hunter rewritten as jdh@hend.net
using "From" header
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Package: general
Version: N/A; reported 2002-09-04
Severity: important
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux link 2.2.20 #1 Sat Apr 20 11:45:28 EST 2002 i586
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Hi,
I really like Debians huge collection and the fact that it gives the
user full liberty to choose.
However - the liberty is every harder use as many packages are no longer following either Debian Policy or the Debian Social Contract.
DEBIAN BUG: Many packages have dependacies that don't actually exist.
DEBIAN BUG: Many packages have 'conflicts' that don't actually exist.
There are WAY to many example. "gdm and xdm conflict": Thats
complete bull. I use both. They don't conflict. They don't
even need to use "alternatives" because they don't use the same
resources.
"xpaint and xfree86 conflict". If you install the classic "xpaint"
then you have to remove X. That's so brain damaged it has to be
criminal in origin. Infact: force install xpaint without the
"required" lib: you'll find it works great, the marking is bull.
If I uninstall "exim" - "cron" is selected for removal EVEN
THOUGH I've selected otherwise. Obviously - cron doesn't need
a mailer - but the system needs cron. What kind of idiot marked
that package? Fact is: cron runs its service - mailer or no.
DEBIAN BUG: Many packages break when "removed". Reinstalling does not
correct. Reconfigure does not correct.
DEBIAN BUG: Many packages are marked as using libraries that they don't
actually use - causeing extraneous dependancies and conflicts.
DEBIAN BUG: 'dselect' is WAY to 'helpful' in removing packages you have
installed and preventing you from installing what you need installed.
For instance: SVGA and S3 are both needed on one of my boxes. Is it
*really* necessary to have stop and reconfigure the installer every time
something simple and complete cogent is being done?? My point is: a
warning is appreciated. But an "all stop - you can't do that" where I
have to go out of my way to install a package -- that's just bull.
DEBIAN BUG: dselect often removes packages which aren't selected for
removal
DEBIAN BUG: the "remove old cache y/n" message too easily clobbers the
cache.
DEBIAN BUG: Many packages break once "removed".
1) they do not remove all files (ok)
2) BUT when reinstall - they don't reinstall all files
3) you remove package, then all files, then reinstall
4) --> you STILL don't have all the files required <--
Gnome is one of these - but their are many.
DEBIAN BUG: Many packages are *not* using the 'alternative' methods so
they can co-exist with applications using similar resources.
Thanks,
John D. Hendrickson
jdh@hend.net
johndhendrickson22124@yahoo.com
Oh, and Have Fun :)
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 159574-done) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Sep 2002 10:56:12 +0000
>From wichert@wiggy.net Wed Sep 04 05:56:12 2002
Return-path: <wichert@wiggy.net>
Received: from cabal.xs4all.nl (mx1.wiggy.net) [213.84.101.140] ([/mMySD491G07RKpQwTa1FqAb/AAVOFTX])
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 17mXpT-0005qB-00; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 05:56:12 -0500
Received: from wichert by mx1.wiggy.net with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 17mXpP-0005gk-00; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 12:56:07 +0200
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 12:56:07 +0200
From: Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net>
To: "John D. Hendrickson" <jdh@hend.net>, 159574-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#159574: general: Policy, Dependancy, Conflics - breaches - many
Message-ID: <20020904105607.GD23656@wiggy.net>
References: <[🔎] 200209040646.g846kJq04765@link.hunter>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 200209040646.g846kJq04765@link.hunter>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Delivered-To: 159574-done@bugs.debian.org
Previously John D. Hendrickson wrote:
> DEBIAN BUG: Many packages have dependacies that don't actually exist.
Those are bugs, and we already have lists of those that are generated
automatically every day.
> DEBIAN BUG: Many packages have 'conflicts' that don't actually exist.
Those are not necessarily bugs, they might be there for upgrades (ie
conflict with a package has been obsoleted).
> There are WAY to many example. "gdm and xdm conflict": Thats
> complete bull. I use both. They don't conflict. They don't
> even need to use "alternatives" because they don't use the same
> resources.
In their default configuration they do conflict, although I'll agree
the conflict isn't necessary here if that would be handled better.
> "xpaint and xfree86 conflict". If you install the classic "xpaint"
> then you have to remove X. That's so brain damaged it has to be
> criminal in origin. Infact: force install xpaint without the
> "required" lib: you'll find it works great, the marking is bull.
They don't conflict at all. xpaint might require a newer version of X
than you have installed, but that is perfectly reasonable.
> If I uninstall "exim" - "cron" is selected for removal EVEN
> THOUGH I've selected otherwise. Obviously - cron doesn't need
> a mailer - but the system needs cron. What kind of idiot marked
> that package? Fact is: cron runs its service - mailer or no.
cron needs mail to send its logs.
> DEBIAN BUG: Many packages break when "removed". Reinstalling does not
> correct. Reconfigure does not correct.
File bugs in the individual packages.
> DEBIAN BUG: Many packages are marked as using libraries that they don't
> actually use - causeing extraneous dependancies and conflicts.
File bugs in the individual packages.
> DEBIAN BUG: 'dselect' is WAY to 'helpful' in removing packages you have
> installed and preventing you from installing what you need installed.
dselect just honours the relations packages define.
> DEBIAN BUG: dselect often removes packages which aren't selected for
> removal
It does not.
> DEBIAN BUG: the "remove old cache y/n" message too easily clobbers the
> cache.
It asks you.. have is that `too easily' ? If you don't want it to clean
the cache configure it that way.
> DEBIAN BUG: Many packages break once "removed".
> 1) they do not remove all files (ok)
> 2) BUT when reinstall - they don't reinstall all files
> 3) you remove package, then all files, then reinstall
> 4) --> you STILL don't have all the files required <--
> Gnome is one of these - but their are many.
Sounds like a classic case of not understanding the packaging system
correctly.
Wichert.
--
_________________________________________________________________
/wichert@wiggy.net This space intentionally left occupied \
| wichert@deephackmode.org http://www.wiggy.net/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Reply to: