[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#76219: apt: apt-get dist-upgrade is too agressive in removing packages



On 00-11-04 Kurt D. Starsinic wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 04:24:19PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > On 00-11-03 kstar@sri.net wrote:
> > > Package: apt
> > > Version: 0.3.19
> > > Severity: normal
> > 
> > >     This just seems wrong to me:
> > 
> > > % apt-get -s dist-upgrade
> > > Reading Package Lists...
> > > Building Dependency Tree...
> > > The following packages will be REMOVED:
> > >   xcontrib xcopilot xmanpages xpm4g 
> > > The following NEW packages will be installed:
> > >   libxaw-dev libxaw6 libxaw7 xlibs xlibs-dev xutils 
> > > The following packages have been kept back
> > >   task-x-window-system-core 
> > 
> > Would you please explain what's wrong about this and why especially you
> > report this as bug against apt? 

>     If I took this upgrade, I would lose xcopilot (because of a dependency
> on xpm4g).  Shouldn't apt keep all of these back until there's a version
> of xcopilot available that doesn't depend on xpm4g?  That's what I've grown
> to expect, and what I would want.

How should apt be able to do this. I tries to resolve all dependencies
and does only stop when there a certain dependency problems. I think it
would be the wrong way to patch apt to handle such a problem. Those
problems occur because you use unstable, where currently a big upgrade
to Xfree4 is going on. So to force apt to handle such problems is the
wrong way. If you use unstable you should always be aware, that such a
problem mayb occur especially if there's just a big X-Update going on.
Look at the dependencies of the packages that should be removed and you
should be able to see why it would have been. I think apt is handling
the situation exactly as it should be.

Ciao
     Christian
-- 
          Debian Developer and Quality Assurance Team Member
    1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16  63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853

Attachment: pgpZnqLICjz1M.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: