Re: Installing OOo 2.2.1 from backports on Stable

[Glen Pfeiffer <glen@thepfeiffers.net>]

On 07/24/2007 01:50 PM, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:25:21 -0700, Glen Pfeiffer wrote:
>> On 07/24/2007 08:40 AM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>>> 
>>> aptitude likes to make you panic...
>>
>> LOL! And it works too. I have seen output several times that has 
>> made me think hard before continuing. But it's silly the way it 
>> handles this scenario. It says the packages *are* broken, which 
>> is not true.
> 
> It is true, if you realize that aptitude always considers (and 
> talks about) the situation that would occur after all currently 
> scheduled actions are carried out. Aptitude has to play "what 
> if ..." in order to detect bad consequences and propose 
> solutions. You could argue that "are broken" should be replaced 
> with "will be broken" to make the message more understandable, 
> though.  

I am much less knowledgeable of Debian than most of you, so I 
hate to disagree, but when *all* currently scheduled actions are 
carried out, nothing will be broken. That is assuming the 
upgrade/install succeeds. The packages are only broken during the 
upgrade/install process. Right?

I think this is a very minor issue of how things are presented to 
the user. And as Mr. Sackville-West said, "Aptitude likes to make 
you panic", so I am not planning on submitting a change request 
for this.


> On the other hand, you have just demonstrated that the present 
> wording is very efficient in making the user think twice about 
> what he/she is doing... ;) 

I don't disagree with that one bit.

Thanks for your response and clarifications.

-- 
Glen