On 2021-02-17 at 10:25, David Wright wrote: > On Wed 17 Feb 2021 at 20:45:02 (+0800), Kevin Shell wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 07:19:52PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> > >> [...] >> > It'd be work in the DPKG/APT code, yes. But it would require no extra >> > work from the people doing the packaging. >> >> I know little technical details about the Debian package manager, >> from an end user's perspective, the package manager should give the user >> the choise not to uninstall a wanted package, > > Call that 1. > >> if the user don't give a choise, the package manager can perform the >> default action to remove the package. > > Call that 2. > >> I think this method is a better default behavior for the package manager >> for some similar packages. > > Is that not true now? > > $ apt-get -s install busybox-static > The following packages will be REMOVED: ← case 2 ---------- > busybox > The following NEW packages will be installed: > busybox-static > ~# aptitude hold busybox > ~# > > $ apt-get -s install busybox-static > The following packages have unmet dependencies: > busybox : Conflicts: busybox-static but 1:1.30.1-4 is to be installed > busybox-static : Conflicts: busybox ← case 1 ---------- I think what he's wanting is a case which would allow installing busybox-static, but not insist on removing busybox. (Or the equivalent in his actual use-case, where the files installed by the two packages might not actually overlap.) Where that runs into trouble is that even if the *files* don't overlap, other resources which the package needs to control exclusively quite possibly do - the most prominent example, from the discussion at hand regarding MTAs, being port 25. -- 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