Re: is this sensible?
On 2014-06-30 13:15:36 +0100, Brian wrote:
> 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.
Only if this can satisfy the dependencies. If for some reason, the
versioned dependencies are such that policykit-1 needs to be upgraded,
then apt-get would propose to install systemd-shim, which doesn't
conflict with sysvinit-core. This is what happened on my machines.
Vincent Lefèvre <email@example.com> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)