Hi all, (I'm not sure it's needed to get everybody yelling.) Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> (20/12/2009): > And your statement "a package manager cannot proceed ..." is again > simply plain wrong. It *IS* working, do > apt-get dist-upgrade > and it works. What are you talking about? Only because cupt is not > able ... (see next paragraph) I can confirm both apt-get and aptitude can handle the situation. This can be replicated as follows: 1. debootstrap squeeze 2. install tex-common and texlive-common there 3. switch sources.list from squeeze to sid 4. $pm install tex-common texlive-common cupt then fails with the same error message as in my original bugreport (with a slightly updated version number for one package). > Sorry, since when is cupt the default package manager? AFAIR the > last time I checked APT is the reference implementation, and it > works. Being the default package manager has little to do here. What matters is correctness. (Look at the various situations where apt-get — or aptitude — can't find a solution where one exists. That doesn't make apt-get — or aptitude — right.) If I were to be a package manager, I guess I could decide to remove (temporarily) one of those packages, upgrade the other one, and then install the former in this new version. And it looks like that's what apt-get does: | root@kbsd:/# apt-get install -s tex-common texlive-common|egrep 'tex(|live)-common'|egrep -v '^[[:space:]]' | Remv tex-common [1.20] [texlive-common ] | Inst texlive-common [2007.dfsg.2-4] (2009-4 Debian:unstable) [] | Inst tex-common [1.20] (2.03 Debian:unstable) | Conf tex-common (2.03 Debian:unstable) | Conf texlive-common (2009-4 Debian:unstable) I'm not sure there's anything which speaks against doing so. Mraw, KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature