Bill Allombert wrote: > Is it a request I report one ? I will if you want. Shrug, I can ignore useless bug reports and/or orphan packages when things get too annoying with the best of them. (Hmm, didn't I already do that?) > I cannot point you exactly why _this_ circular dependency is going to > be a problem, no. > However I can point you to bug #310490 which show a woody system that > could not be upgraded to sarge without removing most of KDE. I've read that bug before and I appreciate the time you've spent in chasing down these upgrade issues but I think you're generalising too far from that bug to a conclusion that any given trivial dependency loop will cause similar problems. > and that apt was not able to deal with that optimally. In the end we > were not able to fix the problem, because we could not fix woody and > sarge apt did not fare better anyway. Although sarge's aptitude did.. > The situation is too complex to > expect the software to make the optimal solution of what should be > removed to allow upgrade. I'm not so sure, have you seen the work that's been done recently on aptitude's problem resolver? > So maybe it is not a bug in the uqm package specifically, but it is still > a problem for Debian in the big picture. Filing scattershot but reports with no useful justifications might result in enough people going ahead and making changes to make it seem worth your time to do so, on the presumption that one of the changes will avoid some real problem, but please realize that you run the risk of annoying people when you do it. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature