Bug#645579: apt-get upgrade keeps upgradable package

[Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com>]

David Kalnischkies wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> >> > Recommends: libm17n-0 (>= [-1.5.0)-] {+1.6.3)+}
> >> The Recommends here is the bad thing:
> >
> > I have libm17n-0 1.6.2-3 installed.  It should satisfy both the old
> > and the new Recommends since both are ">=" relationships.  Right?

No.  I was wrong.  I did *not* have 1.6.3 installed.  I had 1.6.2-3
installed.  My reading played tricks with me and I read that wrong
repeatedly.

> You have to look very close. :)

Oh!  I see it now.  And the answer to my question should have been NO
because 1.6.2 isn't 1.6.3.  I kept looking at 1.6.2 and seeing 1.6.3.
That is why I thought the Recommends was satisfied.  But it wasn't
because .2 isn't .3.  My bad!  I don't know why I did that repeatedly
but I did.  Thinking that I had 1.6.3 installed was the root cause of
my confusion on this problem and it continued until just now.

> As 1.50 < 1.6.2 < 1.6.3 is true, the recommends is NOT satisfied
> any more in the new version as long as apt can't upgrade libm17n-0
> to a version >= 1.6.3 together with the upgrade of m17n-contrib.

  Typo: s/1.50/1.5.0/

It's clear now.  My confusion reading .2 as .3 existed entirely
between my chair and monitor.  If you imagine that I had libm17n-0
1.6.3 installed then you can see the source of my questions.
Sorry for the noise.

I see that today the m17n-lib package 1.6.2-3 migrated into Testing
and that 1.6.3-1 was uploaded to unstable.  With that upload the
Recommends problem is resolved because 1.6.3 (emphasis on the .3) is
now available.  And it does:

  # apt-get upgrade
  ...
  The following packages will be upgraded:
    libm17n-0 m17n-contrib
  2 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.

> .... lets use a simple self-made example instead:

Thanks for the example, which I understood and agreed with completely
but had nothing to do with the problem I was having.  However you
couldn't have known my actual problem given our exchanges here and
gave it a great attempt! :-)

Thanks for all of the explanation.

Bob