[aptitude] Reihenfolge der zu installierenden Pakete relevant?
Hallo,
mir ist heute aufgefallen, dass die Reihenfolge der zu installierenden
Pakete bei aptitude relevant zu sein scheint.
Wenn ich auf einem debian lenny die Pakete aspectj und openjdk-6-jdk
installieren möchte erhalte ich, je nach Reihenfolge, folgende
Abhängigkeiten:
# aptitude -s install aspectj openjdk-6-jdk
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Reading extended state information
Initializing package states... Done
Reading task descriptions... Done
The following NEW packages will be installed:
aspectj defoma{a} fastjar{a} fontconfig{a} fontconfig-config{a}
gcj-4.3-base{a}
gij-4.3{a} java-common{a} java-gcj-compat{a} java-gcj-compat-headless{a}
libaccess-bridge-java{a} libasound2{a} libatk1.0-0{a} libbcel-java{a}
libcairo2{a} libdatrie0{a} libdirectfb-1.0-0{a} libfontconfig1{a}
libfreetype6{a} libgcj-bc{a} libgcj-common{a} libgcj9-0{a}
libgcj9-0-awt{a}
libgcj9-jar{a} libgif4{a} libglib2.0-0{a} libgtk2.0-0{a}
libgtk2.0-common{a}
libice6{a} liblcms1{a} liblog4j1.2-java{a} libmx4j-java{a}
libpango1.0-0{a}
libpango1.0-common{a} libpixman-1-0{a} libregexp-java{a} libsm6{a}
libsysfs2{a}
libthai-data{a} libthai0{a} libts-0.0-0{a} libx11-6{a} libx11-data{a}
libxau6{a} libxcb-render-util0{a} libxcb-render0{a} libxcb-xlib0{a}
libxcb1{a}
libxcomposite1{a} libxcursor1{a} libxdamage1{a} libxdmcp6{a} libxext6{a}
libxfixes3{a} libxft2{a} libxi6{a} libxinerama1{a} libxrandr2{a}
libxrender1{a}
libxtst6{a} openjdk-6-jdk openjdk-6-jre{a} openjdk-6-jre-headless{a}
openjdk-6-jre-lib{a} rhino{a} ttf-dejavu{a} ttf-dejavu-core{a}
ttf-dejavu-extra{a} x11-common{a}
The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
hicolor-icon-theme libatk1.0-data libglib2.0-data libgtk2.0-bin
liblog4j1.2-java-gcj libxt-dev ttf-arphic-uming ttf-baekmuk
ttf-indic-fonts
ttf-kochi-gothic ttf-kochi-mincho ttf-sazanami-gothic ttf-sazanami-mincho
ttf-unfonts ttf-unfonts-core tzdata-java x-ttcidfont-conf
0 packages upgraded, 69 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 92.1MB of archives. After unpacking 239MB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]
Would download/install/remove packages.
# aptitude -s install openjdk-6-jdk aspectj
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Reading extended state information
Initializing package states... Done
Reading task descriptions... Done
The following NEW packages will be installed:
aspectj java-common{a} libaccess-bridge-java{a} libasound2{a}
libfreetype6{a}
libgif4{a} liblcms1{a} libx11-6{a} libx11-data{a} libxau6{a}
libxcb-xlib0{a}
libxcb1{a} libxdmcp6{a} libxext6{a} libxi6{a} libxtst6{a} openjdk-6-jdk
openjdk-6-jre{a} openjdk-6-jre-headless{a} openjdk-6-jre-lib{a} rhino{a}
x11-common{a}
The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
libxt-dev ttf-arphic-uming ttf-baekmuk ttf-indic-fonts ttf-kochi-gothic
ttf-kochi-mincho ttf-sazanami-gothic ttf-sazanami-mincho ttf-unfonts
ttf-unfonts-core tzdata-java
0 packages upgraded, 22 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 51.0MB of archives. After unpacking 131MB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]
Would download/install/remove packages.
Ich bin bis jetzt davon ausgegangen, dass die Reihenfolge egal ist. Ich
habe diesbezüglich auch noch keinen Hinweis irgendwo gelesen. Kann mir
jemand erklären, wodurch dieser Unterschied von fast 50 Paketen entsteht?
Vielen Dank,
PJ
Reply to: