Bug#603680: libnautilus-extension1: breaks nautilus-share upgrade from lenny
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 09:24, Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> wrote:
> On Dienstag, 16. November 2010, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>> First of all: I can't reproduce this E:-message,
>
> thats from piuparts...
the message I meant was:
> > E: Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generated breaks, this may be
> > caused by held packages.
that should be an error message from APT and I can't trigger this one -
it would be a serious problem if APT would really print that on a normal
dist-upgrade try (without holds of course)…
>> So, what we could do now?
>> If i see it correctly, we basically have two options:
>> a) use a newer apt for upgrade
>> b) drop the or
>>
>> b) isn't really an option as other cases will arise (and have already)
>
> or you aware of any? Cause if it's really just a few packages, it sounds
> better to fix those, than to force/recommmend everyone to upgrade apt first.
I wouldn't say force, I would "just" recommend it. Its not a strict
requirement as this specific case is handled by the recommends
which are activated by default. Other cases will lead to the removal
of the offending package, which is awkward, but not fatal as it can
be reinstalled if needed after the upgrade. Also, as said, the notes
already recommend a split upgrade by first 'upgrade' and then
'dist-upgrade' which should take care of getting a new apt & friends
in as well in most (not all) cases.
The general likelihood of this should be relatively low, given that you
need an or-group in a candidate version which if upgraded alone can
be satisfied with an installed package while the candidate of this
package is unsuitable for satisfying it.
Should only happen in <</=< dependencies (as it does here) or
if another package breaks/conflicts the candidate (which could be
the currently installed one, too - happens if maintainers want to clean
up after e.g. package renames instead of trusting 'autoremove' and co)
>> P.P.S.: Offtopic, but Holger, why does piuparts uses --fix-broken switch?
>
> where do you see this?
"apt-get -yf dist-upgrade" in your steps -- the -f stands for --fix-broken
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
Reply to: