Bug#38772: apt: problem installing packages when there are unmet dependencies
(I don't want to reopen the bug at this stage because the issue is somehow
covered by #38777, but I want to comment on this)
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, Ulf Jaenicke-Roessler wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure if this really qualifies as bug ;-) However it is annoying.
>
> No, not really..
Well, it depends ;-) I think I had a similar problem with other consistency
errors in the database (by forcing install of certain packages with
versioned dependencies which are not fulfilled).
> > I intentionally installed jadetex and tetex-nonfree, although the conflict
> > at the moment because of a jadetex bug (it works if I install jadetex before
> > tetex-nonfree).
> > Now apt-get barfs on me and doesn't install or download anything:
>
> APT by design does not support this sort of thing, mainly because there
> are no hard and fast rules about what to do in the case of broken or
> deliberately misconfigured packages. There is really no hueristic that
> could be applied to generate a course of action that is expected to
> succeed.
>
> Now an odd thing has arised here.. apt-get will not attempt to solve your
> problems with -f if you give it any packages to install (it assumes you
> know what you are doing and have specified a way to correct the problems).
> I've clarified these error messages too
IMVHO there should be a way for a workaround, eg. a (real :) force option
or by ignoring packages on hold. However I see that there might be a problem
with the design and/or implementation. Maybe we could declare this as
wishlist bug?
Thank you for the great work on apt, it's a very valuable and (normally ;^)
stable tool.
Ulf
Reply to: