Bug#200261: dist-upgrade in testing wants to remove tetex-bin and friends
Hi Ross,
last summer you reported this bug to our BTS, sorry for not reacting so
long.
Ross Boylan <RossBoylan@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
> Package: tetex-bin
> Version: 1.0.7+20011202-8
> Severity: normal
>
[...]
> apt-get dist-upgrade gives
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
> abiword abiword-gtk apt-listchanges artsbuilder clanlib-vorbis
> diploma dvidvi gaim-common gaim-gnome gphoto2-dev jadetex
> kdebase-audiolibs kdebase-dev kreatecd latex2rtf libarts-mpeglib
> libdb4.0-dev libgc6 libpspell-ispell1 libpspell4
> libvorbis0 libwxgtk2.2-python libxine0 lyx mpeglib python-apt
> python-bobo python-bobodtml python-bobopos python-ldap
> python-pcgi race tetex-bin tetex-eurosym tetex-extra texdoctk wajig
> xchat-gnome
> Note the tetex packages on the last line.
This also removes packages that seem to be totally unrelated to
tetex-bin (e.g. the python packages, most of the libraries,
apt-listchanges). Therefore I guess there was more broken at that time.
> apt-get -ud -o Debug::pkgProblemResolver=Yes dist-upgrade
> shows, in part
> Investigating tetex-bin
> Or group remove for tetex-bin
> Package tetex-bin has broken dep on dvipdfm
> Considering dvipdfm 0 as a solution to tetex-bin 8
> Added dvipdfm to the remove list
This shows that dvipdfm shall be removed, doesn't it? And that's just
what the upgrade should do, according to tetex-bin's
provides/conflicts/replaces.
Therefore I cannot see at the moment how this problem is related to
tetex-bin. Most probably, I'd say, it was a temporary problem in
unstable at that time, and the package that caused it was presumably
fixed long ago.
> I have just noticed that apt-get install tetex-bin seems to work.
Which shows that there's no problem with tetex-bin.
> I guess this problem has something to do with the package providing
> and replacing dvipdfm, which used to be a separate package.
The mechanism of provides/replaces/conflicts is _the_ official way to
incorporate the functionality and files of one package into an other,
see e.g.
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s7.5.2
Therefore, if you cannot provide further information that sheds a
different light on the issue, I think we should close the bug. Usually
this should be done by you, the submitter, by sending mail to
200261-done@bugs.debian.org.
Thank you, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Reply to: