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

Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed?

On 2017-10-23 at 19:24, Celejar wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 20:23:46 +0100 Roger Lynn <Roger@rilynn.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> On 23/10/17 11:00, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:
>>> Since I use a pure 64-bit system, I overlooked that only one of 
>>> imagemagick-6.q16 or imagemagick-6.q16:i386 can be installed. I
>>> think it's better to re-install imagemagick-6.q16. And then show
>>> the output when trying to purge imagemagick, please. I think
>>> there must be involved a i386 version of some cups package.
>> Celejar answered the question in the first post. It's very simple: 
>> imagemagick can not be removed because cups-filters depends on it.
> Okay, but why do packages depend on other packages that declare that 
> they are dummies and can be safely removed? Is this a bug in the 
> dummy package' description, or in the package that has the
> dependency, or just unclear / misleading terminology?

Generally (though perhaps not universally), the dummy package was not
originally a dummy, but was split out into two or more separate packages
and now exists only to aid the transition to those new packages.

In other words, it's usually for historical reasons.

Failures like the one you're looking at crop up when other packages
haven't yet been updated to depend on the new packages instead of the
old one.

   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

Reply to: