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

Bug#726259: apt-get upgrade --with-new-pkgs and renames / virtual packages



Package: apt
Version: 0.9.12
Severity: wishlist

The apt-get --with-new-pkgs option has recently been added, but
its status, as described in the apt-get(8) man page, is not clear
concerning package renames and virtual packages in general.

If a package foo is renamed bar with Provides/Replaces/Conflicts,
the physical package foo will be removed but will still exists on
the system as a virtual package provided by bar. Is this regarded
as a removal? If it is, is it on purpose or is this just a current
limitation?

I suppose that the idea of --with-new-pkgs is to allow package
renames too, as there should be no loss of functionality *due to
the rename itself* (there can be a loss of functionality for other
reasons, like potentially with any upgrade).

As a summary:

1. If renames/... are supported, improve the description of
   --with-new-pkgs.

2. If renames/... are not supported, this is a wishlist to ask to
   support them. The current limitation could be documented.

-- Package-specific info:

-- (no /etc/apt/preferences present) --


-- (/etc/apt/sources.list present, but not submitted) --


-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 3.10-3-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=POSIX, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages apt depends on:
ii  debian-archive-keyring  2012.4
ii  gnupg                   1.4.15-1
ii  libapt-pkg4.12          0.9.12
ii  libc6                   2.17-93
ii  libgcc1                 1:4.8.1-10
ii  libstdc++6              4.8.1-10

apt recommends no packages.

Versions of packages apt suggests:
ii  apt-doc     0.9.12
ii  aptitude    0.6.8.2-1.2
ii  dpkg-dev    1.17.1
ii  python-apt  0.8.9.1+b1
ii  xz-utils    5.1.1alpha+20120614-2

-- no debconf information


Reply to: