Re: 'mktemp' testing package dependency

[Daniel Burrows <dburrows@debian.org>]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 07:47:20AM +0200, Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> was heard to say:
> On 2009-06-17 05:59 +0200, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:59:03PM +0200, Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> was heard to say:
> >> On 2009-06-16 21:44 +0200, Jason Filippou wrote:
> >> > Downgrade the following packages:
> >> > mktemp [1.6-4 (now) -> 1.5-9 (stable)]
> >> >
> >> > Score is 80
> >> 
> >> I wonder why aptitude is suggesting this, downgrading mktemp would not
> >> really help.
> >
> >   According to packages.debian.org, mktemp version 1.6-4 doesn't have
> > the problematic dependency, probably because it's a real package and
> > not a transitional package.
> 
> Surely, but why does aptitude want to downgrade it to 1.5-9 then?

  Sorry, I wrote that too late at night. :-)

  I meant that version 1.5-9 doesn't have the problematic dependency.

  He has a scheduled upgrade to version 7.4-2 from 1.6-4.  There are
four ways to resolve the resulting dependency mismatch:

  (1) Cancel the upgrade
  (2) Remove mktemp
  (3) Downgrade to 1.5-9
  (4) Upgrade coreutils

  Option (1) is knocked out because it would result in doing nothing at
all, and option (2) is knocked out because it removes an Essential
package.  That leaves (3) and (4), and they both scored equally
according to the heuristic, so they showed up in arbitrary order.

  Daniel