On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 02:53:53PM -0700, Glen Pfeiffer wrote: > 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? just to be pedantic, you haven't yet accepted the solution presented by aptitude, so no, they are still broken. Once you accept the solution, then the packages are no longer broken... but we could do this all day... ;) and nobody calls me Mr... :) A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature