On 08/06/2015 at 04:45 PM, Floris wrote: > Op Thu, 06 Aug 2015 20:44:12 +0200 schreef The Wanderer > <wanderer@fastmail.fm>: > >> On 08/06/2015 at 02:29 PM, Chris Bannister wrote: >>> Yeah, you can put a package on hold. e.g. >>> http://www.debianadmin.com/how-to-prevent-a-package-from-being-updated-in-debian.html >>> (4th hit on Google) >> >> That does have the downside that it won't let the package be >> _upgraded_, either. >> >> As far as I've been able to determine, there is no effective way to >> say "when calculating dependency resolution, permit upgrading this >> package, but reject any candidate solution which would require >> uninstalling this package". There are various approaches which look >> like they should work, but in my testing none of them actually do. > > The closed solution is to create a meta package which depend on the > packages I want to keep. But I don't know how to make an "essential" > package. Equivs rejects to make such a package. I don't think that would work either. Whenever I try the upgrade step with a package like that, either it wants to remove the meta-package, or dependency resolution fails with an error similar to "you have held broken packages". This happens even when the meta-package is pinned. An "essential" package might work, yes, but it wouldn't surprise me if it just led to dependency resolution failure due to an attempt to remove an essential package. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature