[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: apt-get install sysvinit-core removes gnome?


David Kalnischkies:
> > Apitude, too, *really* likes to choose 500 deletions rather than upgrading
> > even a single package to a version with slightly-lower priority (as defined
> > in /etc/apt/pref*), but at least you can tell it to try harder. :-/
> I shouldn't, I really shouldn't, but well, I bite…
> This isn't trying harder, it is trying increasingly incorrect solutions
> to the problem because aptitude assumes the users is not able to express
> himself correctly. apt-get is treating its user as its god instead, aka:
> user is always right, even if it makes no sense in apt's simple mind.
My main problem is that, whenever I install a "difficult" package, the
first solution I get presented is always to simply not install the package
in question. The next 2^n-1 "solutions" transitively remove everything that
currently conflicts with installing the thing in question. Rejecting the
removal of a few core packages then gets me the correct solution, e.g.
upgrading two packages.

> Selecting one package in an or-group is a grand example of people not
> understand their tools although the policy is simple and logic: If it
> isn't impossible to let it win, the first alternative wins. If the
> package manager would go for any heuristic based on simplicity of
> installation instead everyone would have lsb-invalid-mta as MTA because
> that is damn easy to install by any standard. Maintainers are very
> heavily relying on this property while e.g. building packages.

You don't have to drop that part of its logic. Choosing a different package
as a dependency should of course be a "last resort" action (i.e. be heavily
penalized). I'm not talking about changing that. I'm talking about the fact
that aptitude treats upgrading to a slightly-lower-prioritized version of a
package as a *way* worse solution than removing that package (and/or 500

Basically, this boils down to the fact that people shouldn't have to read a
manpage about a complex priority scheme in an equally-complex resolver.
All I want is for aptitude to behave in a sane way by default.

Its current behavior is not.

-- Matthias Urlichs

Reply to: