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

Re: how to identify reverse dependencies?



Ahoj,

Dňa Thu, 16 Oct 2014 12:02:45 +0300 Andrei POPESCU
<andreimpopescu@gmail.com> napísal:

> On Mi, 15 oct 14, 22:58:49, The Wanderer wrote:
> > 
> > IOW, I think he wasn't talking about systemd per se, but about
> > apparent false-positive results from the aptitude
> > reverse-dependency search.
> 
> In other posts to this Slavko alluded to recompiling packages to get
> rid of systemd dependencies.
> 

This is true i have some package rebuilded by myself to remove some
unwanted dependencies, but this doesn't matter, because aptitude shows
(once again):

aptitude search -w 60 -F "%c%a %p %v" '~i?depends(libsystemd0)'
ih cups-daemon                                1.7.5-1                
ih dbus                                       1.8.8-1sla1   
i  erlang-base                                1:17.1-dfsg-7 
ih fcgiwrap                                   1.1.0-2       
ih gvfs-daemons                               1.20.3-1      
ih libpolkit-backend-1-0                      0.105-6.1     
ih libpolkit-gobject-1-0                      0.105-6.1     
ih libpulse0                                  5.0-6sla1     
ih php5-fpm                                   5.6.0+dfsg-1  
ih systemd                                    204-14        
ih udisks2                                    2.1.3-3       

I add the versions now - only packages with "sla1" are my own versions.
But:

LANG=C dpkg -l libsystemd0
dpkg-query: no packages found matching libsystemd0

To be sure:

aptitude search -w 60 -F "%c%a %p %v" 'libsystemd0'
p  libsystemd0                                <žiadne>      
p  libsystemd0:i386                           <žiadne>      

Now, please, tell to us, how can any package depend on package, which
is not installed? And i am curious too, how any package can take
advantages from not installed package.

You tell us that this is not the same thing. AFAIK here is only one
"Depends" (not dependency) for all packages and then it is the same
thing. Or has the systemd some special meaning of the APT dependencies?

If Depends tell, that it must be installed, then i must have broken APT,
but it is not. APT is happy, dependencies are satisfied, only aptitude
ignores exact version of the installed package for this type of search.
And this is, what i want point to.

Ad systemd: thanks to systemd i found this behavior, because i never
need to research reverse dependencies into dept before. Then i use it
as example, but you get the red flag in front of eyes, when you see the
systemd word. ;-)

BTW, the usage (and liking) of the systemd is bad measurement of
the wisdom/stupidity, in both direction.

regards

-- 
Slavko
http://slavino.sk

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: