On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:01:24AM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote: > Dear all, > during upgrade tests from stable to sid I found that upgrading > TeX Live does not work. > The reason is that although texlive-common is uninstalled, > and texlive-base (2012) *depends* on texlive-common, > texlive-base is still in installed and proper state: > un texlive-common <none> <none> (no description available) > ii texlive-base 2012.2012061 all TeX Live: Essential programs and > Is this *supposed* to be? If yes, how can I guarantee that a package > is *deconfigured* when some of the dependencies are uninstalled? I think your root cause analysis is wrong. If you want help understanding why your dist-upgrade didn't work, you should show the output of the actual apt command. What you're showing here is a snapshot at some point in the middle of an upgrade, when texlive-common has been removed (because the package no longer exists, and the new texlive-base conflicts with it) and texlive-base has not yet been upgraded. It's legitimate to do this during an upgrade; in fact, normally the very next step is for apt to unpack the new version of texlive-base which had declared the Conflicts: with texlive-common. But something else stopped apt before it got that far. For the record, the removal of texlive-common without the deconfiguring of texlive-base is because apt will pass --force-depends to dpkg. It does this because in various scenarios, dpkg when left to its own devices can find itself in a catch-22 on dist-upgrades. So apt deliberately lets the dependencies be broken, with the expectation that it can fix them up again afterwards. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature