[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: is this sensible?

On Mon 30 Jun 2014 at 03:33:40 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:

> What matters is also the list of NEW packages. Your mail was saying:
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>   gcc-4.9-base gcc-4.9-base:i386 geoclue-2.0 libabw-0.0-0 libaudit-common
>   libaudit1 libboost-date-time1.55.0 libcmis-0.4-4 libe-book-0.0-0 libeot0
>   libetonyek-0.0-0 libfreehand-0.0-0 libharfbuzz-gobject0 libharfbuzz0b
>   libharfbuzz0b:i386 libllvm3.4 libmbim-glib0 libmm-glib0 libmwaw-0.2-2
>   libnvidia-ml1 libpam-systemd libqmi-glib0
>   libreoffice-avmedia-backend-gstreamer libreoffice-base-drivers
>   libsystemd-daemon0 libwebkit2gtk-3.0-25 libwebp5 libxatracker2
> libxshmfence1
>   nvidia-modprobe systemd systemd-sysv xserver-xorg-video-modesetting
> So, systemd is new, and so is libpam-systemd (recommended by systemd).
> Then libpam-systemd has a dependency on systemd-sysv | systemd-shim,
> meaning that since you don't have systemd-sysv or systemd-shim yet,
> systemd-sysv will be taken, and sysvinit will have to be upgraded
> (it is now just a metapackage in unstable, it is no longer the real
> sysvinit -- sysvinit-core is, which you don't have, otherwise it would
> have been in the REMOVED list due to the conflict with systemd-sysv).

If sysvinit-core had been on the system the NEW packages would not have
included systemd-sysv and policykit-1 would have been kept back.

Reply to: