Re: Failed upgrade bo->hamm with apt
On 22 May 1998, Sven Rudolph wrote:
> > > The libreadline2 in oldlibs is >= 2.1-2.1, so it doesn't conflict with
> > > libreadlineg2.
> >
> > Yes, but the user has said they want it removed - I'm not about to
> > download and install a new package just to remove it in a few seconds,
> > that adds far too much complication at this point - I also think it's not
> > usefull for anything but this single case.
>
> It's a bit weird to download a package in order to remove it soon -
> agreed. But I won't call this a complication. While it wastes some
> network bandwidth it is the only correct solution according to the
> dependency tree.
Well - no.. We place no constraints on the state of installed packages,
this was deemed as undesireable. Placing protection on the dependencies of
installed packages is something dpkg was specificly designed to NOT do -
for instance it does delayed configuration. To accomidate this the
algorithm does not gaurentee that installed, configured packages will have
their dependencies met in all cases. (There are some cases where this is
provided, but it can't be gaurenteed)
I'm not going to say anything more on this until I have investigated
exactly what is happening, which should be in a few hours. My peliminary
feeling is that libreadlineg2 should NOT implicitly or explicitly depend
on bash and that this is a release critical bug.
Jason
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deity-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: