On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:00:30AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2016-09-28 19:30:07 +0100, Brad Rogers wrote:On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 19:55:49 +0200 Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote: Hello Vincent, >I'm not asking it to read my mind. I just want it not to >remove any package I have manually installed. I don't use aptitude, but if I understand things correctly, you don't have to accept the first thing offered.Aptitude is so broken that sometimes *all* the solutions it offers include removal of packages: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=823928#10
Looking at the documentation for SolutionCost, it only makes removals more costly. There is no way to say "never remove any packages".
And nor should there be. If PackageA (to be installed) conflicts with PackageB (which is installed), what are the options? To remove PackageB or to countermand the user's instructions and NOT install PackageA. OK, so you've told it that removals are more costly than cancels, so it cancels the request.
But what if PackageA is something like libc? A hundred packages are to be upgraded but PackageB is old and incompatible. Clearly, even though you've boosted the cost of removals, it's STILL cheaper to remove PackageB than it is to cancel those hundred installs.
-- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 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)
-- For more information, please reread.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature