Bug#255969: coreutils: critial files in /bin deleted during dist-upgrade from stable to testing
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 22:15, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brian Frank wrote:
>> -When running dist-upgrade from stable to testing, many of the important
>> files in /bin disappeared. I found that they were provided by the
>> "fileutils" package in stable, but by the "coreutils" package in testing.
>> Without some of these files (mv, ln, mkdir, etc), the dist-upgrade came to
>> a screeching halt.
I can't imagine a circumstance in which this could have happened.
The only very very very wild wild guess is something like the fixed #590438
in which the essential is removed too early, but that wouldn't give a single
hint at how to fix it if it really still exists…
> Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
>> forcemerge 261411 282278 255969
>
> To be clear: is the problem that while fileutils in stable is essential,
> fileutils in testing is not, and APT was using the "essential" flag from
> the latest version for some reason?
As discussed in many of the threads of the merged bugreports:
If any version in any repository is essential then the package is essential.
So for APT a package can only 'loose' its essential flag if you remove
the archive in which the package is marked as essential.
The reason is simple that as soon as you have a repository in your sources
you could have a package installed from it which means it could depend on
an essential package implicitly. Important if you have a testing system were
you install packages from unstable (possible new essential packages) and
maybe packages from stable (possible packages lost their essential status
since then). Thats especially important in a dist-upgrade as you have a
mixed system in it all the time…
This approach makes mistakes for granted and isn't optimal in all cases,
but given that the consequences can be a lot worser if a essential is
missing than they can be if a transition package is still installed
(which is more or less the only time people really see/complain about it)
i don't really see why it should be changed. And so far nobody else
could provide a good reason… so i don't change what isn't broken. ;)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
Reply to: