Re: Apt-get and aptitude man pages
On Sunday 03 July 2005 17:09, R. Clayton <rvclayton@acm.org>
(<[🔎] 87vf3r4hc8.fsf_-_@localhost.localdomain>) wrote:
> That may be true for apt-get (the apt-get man page entries for upgrade
> and dist-upgrade mention nothing about installation state), but it
> doesn't seem to be true for aptitude [...]
It is true.
> [...] where the man page suggests that
> upgrade may change an unused package state from installed to
> not-installed:
>
> Installed packages will not be removed unless they are unused
Today's update (July 3) has two new packages, libjack0.100.0-{0,dev}. These
conflict with libjack0.80.0-dev. If I execute 'aptitude upgrade', the new
libjack packages are not installed and the existing packages are not
removed. If I execute 'aptitude dist-upgrade', the opposite is true.
These existing packages are described by aptitude as "unused" but actually
the "dev" packages are in conflict. Does "unused" mean the same thing as
"conflict"? I think there's an overgeneralization of the word "unused".
Reply to: