Re: Question on dependencies
[No need to cc me, I read the list.]
On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 01:28:34PM -0400, Mike Dresser wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > Um, that looks risky. Wouldn't it be safer to rebuild the lilo package
> > from woody on a potato system so that it will actually have satisfied
> > dependencies?
> Yes. This was done to fix a problem with drives over 32gb on an older
> machine that accepted it in the bios, but lilo didn't work on.
Well, yes, but the newer version should still work if you rebuild it
against the libc6 in potato, shouldn't it?
> > apt-get considers unsatisfied dependencies on a system to be very bad.
> I consider not being able to install the ssh update to be very bad ;)
You're going to have to --force-depends anyway if you want to keep your
lilo package, so you could always just download the .deb and install it
manually with dpkg. Unlike apt-get, dpkg doesn't check unrelated parts
of the system when installing one package.
Colin Watson [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org