Re: Failed upgrade bo->hamm with apt
On 23 May 1998, Guy Maor wrote:
> > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> writes:
> > > I would almost suggest that unless there is a critical reason why
> > > libreadlineg conflicts with libreadline that conflicts line be removed so
> > > it can order properly in the case of bash being removed.
> >
> > Has this been discussed with the bash maintainer? We should do an NMU
> > if this is definately the right solution and Guy is busy (I hereby
> > volunteer, though I'm pretty busy too ;).
>
> libreadlineg2 conflicts with early versions of libreadline2 because
> they include the same files. Newer libreadline2 versions install to
> /lib/libc5-compat.
Guy,
Can you make it so that libreadlineg2 does not depend on bash for it's
configuration - the script is simple enough, I would be happy to write you
a C program that is equivilant [just ask]. This implicit dependency on
bash creates a configuration dependency loop that is not particularly
healty :< If you do this I will be able to make APT configure bash
directly after libreadline in this complex case.
I think this bug is important enough to have the new package included in
hamm ASAP. (Brian?)
FYI, the sequence I am thinking of employing is this,
Remove libreadline2
unpack libreadline2g
configure libreadline2g
unpack bash
configure bash
It is only done if the user requests the removal of libreadline2 from a bo
system. Unfortunately right now the removal of libreadline effects several
other packages and a bug/flaw in APT's sequencing routine places bash at
some random place in this list which is unacceptable and needs to be
fixed.
Thanks,
Jason
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deity-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: