Norbert Preining wrote: > Sorry, you didn't give an explanation!! You wrote >> tex-common: Conflicts: texlive-common (<< 2009) >> texlive-common: Conflicts: tex-common (<< 2.00) >> This is probably a bug because if someone have lesser versions installed for >> both packages, a package manager cannot proceed with unpacking of any of these. > > > which is simply *WRONG*. Suppose you have two packages: Package: a Version: 20 Conflicts: b (<< 150) Package: b Version: 200 Conflicts: a (<< 15) Your system has 'a' version 10 and 'b' version 100. The package manager searches for upgrade path. We cannot upgrade the package 'a' first, because dpkg will correctly refuse to unpack 'a' 20 because of 'Conflicts: b (<< 150)', and 'b' 10 is installed. The same way we cannot upgrade 'b' first because 'b' 200 'Conflicts: a (<< 15)', and 'a' 10 is installed. So I don't see a valid upgrade scenario for packages with "mutual back-conflicts". Do you? > Sorry, since when is cupt the default package manager? This is completely unrelated to the bug. > AFAIR the last > time I checked APT is the reference implementation The reference implementation of what? -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature