Bug#560896: E: unable to schedule circular actions 'unpack tex-common 2.02, unpack texlive-common 2009-4'
On 2009-12-20 09:33 +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> > So what do you suggest? Adding Breaks instead of Conflicts?
>>
>> Generally speaking, this would be preferable.
>
> Why? "Generally speaking" this is not a helpful explanation.
Because it avoids the temporary removal of a package and the resulting
auto-deconfiguration of its dependencies. This is the reason why it was
invented in the first place.
>> > The facts are that we cannot have tex-common >= 2 with old TeX Live,
>> > and at the same time new TeX Live with old tex-common, both are
>> > combinations ripe for breakage.
>>
>> But texlive-common 2009-4 already depends on tex-common (>= 2.0) which
>> rules out the second combination. So why does it need to conflict with
>> older tex-common?
>
> I don't know. Maybe because we need exactely this behaviour (remove,
> upgrade other, reinstall) behaviour to make sure that upgrades are
> working.
But the current situation is already non-deterministic because AFAICS
there is no way to tell whether tex-common or texlive-common will be
removed during the upgrade.
If you take out the Conflicts in tex-common, the order becomes more
predictable at least.
Sven
Reply to: