Re: Bug#41091: Apt fails to install some packages
On Sun, 11 Jul 1999, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Sat, Jul 10, 1999 at 06:18:42PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe écrivait:
> > Well, APT has been designed to do alot of things in a good manner, some
> > cases do not go quite as you would like so that other cases behave
> > more sensibly. Likely you hare running into some of that.
>
> Yes, it's probable but as I need to run apt automatically on all packages,
> when apt fails I need to know why so that I have a chance to try to
> correct it.
Why are you doing this? You know 'apt-cache unmet' will show you which
packages are not installable if this is what you are after. It even
considers recommends and suggests if you want.
> Or something more intelligent that could sort the virtual packages on
> which it does depend and choose the one that will install the less
> packages, or the one with the highest priority, or the one whose
> installed-size is the lowest and so on ...
>
> Maybe it doesn't make much sense but it could be enabled by an option.
>
> > This has to do with the wish packages if I remember properly.
>
> Yes :
> Starting
> Starting 2
> Package dotfile has broken dep on wish
> Considering tkstep8.0 0 as a solution to dotfile 1
> Holding Back dotfile rather than change wish
> Package dotfile-bash has broken dep on dotfile
> Considering dotfile 1 as a solution to dotfile-bash 9999
> Reinst Failed because of wish
> Done
>
> Can you explain me the numbers that we see here ? The 1 and 0 and 9999 ?
That is the assigned score given to a package, the higher the better.
> But dotfile-bash does not have any virtual dependency, it's only dotfile
> who has this virtual dependency. But the install of dotfile doesn't fail :
I forget why this is, but I spent a few hours looking at it and decided it
was the best thing to do. I'll look again..
I will take a look at dealing with the OR failures, they should be
solvable, right now it doesn't even try.
Jason
Reply to: