Re: apt-get foolishness
On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 05:47, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
> On 01/08/02 Ron Johnson did speaketh:
[snip]
> > Have you checked "apt-cache show" to follow dependencies?
> > apt-get isn't doing this at random...
> > What is your ultimate goal? Remove Gnome 1.4 from the system?
> > My guess is that since _many_ packages are dependent on libgnome*
> > in one way or another, you many have to start out by pruning off
> > the "top level" packages before reaching down to the foundational
> > libraries.
>
> This doesn't answer the question of why it is upgrading. I suspect that
> the problem is that new versions of these packages exist. I'd be willing to
> bet that if I upgrade, and then remove, I will get the behaviour that I
> expected. I have done this in the past, and using "apt-get remove" on a base
> library is a wonderful way to extract entire applications by removing
> everything that depends on a given library. I think apt is just trying to be
> smart here, but additionally upgrading the packages affected because a new
> version is available, but this is not appropriate here since I'm doing a
> remove. I consider this a bug, unless someone can explain why you would want
> to remove, and then upgrade the very packages that you ordered removed.
Yes, it should work in theory, and has worked for me in the past on
some things. However, libgnome* is very fundamental to a lot of
packages. Therefore, I really would try the "many small bites"
approach (starting with high level stuff like abiword, mozilla, etc,
and then going progressively lower) instead of "one fell swoop"...
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: ron.l.johnson@cox.net |
| Jefferson, LA USA |
| |
| "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment |
| by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding." |
| Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v US (1928) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to: