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

Bug#476817: marked as done (apt: doesn't remove unused packages if they have priority required)

Your message dated Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:17:49 +0200
with message-id <20150813161749.GA21163@crossbow>
and subject line Re: Bug#476817: closed by "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <jackyf.devel@gmail.com> (closing #476817)
has caused the Debian Bug report #476817,
regarding apt: doesn't remove unused packages if they have priority required
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
476817: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=476817
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.4.11.2-1
Severity: normal

My unstable chroot still has an obsolete libdb2 installed, although it
is marked automatic and has no revdeps.  It even does not break
anything when I select it explicitely for purge.

Bundle available as dirson@people:aptitude-noauto.bundle

-- Package-specific info:
aptitude 0.4.11.2 compiled at Apr 12 2008 04:21:26
Compiler: g++ 4.2.3 (Debian 4.2.3-3)
Compiled against:
  apt version 4.6.0
  NCurses version 5.6
  libsigc++ version: 2.0.18
  Ept support enabled.

Current library versions:
 (stripping current information - occured in an uptodate unstable chroot)

-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (90, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.23.8-smp (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=french (charmap=ISO-8859-1)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Versions of packages aptitude depends on:
ii  apt [libapt-pkg-libc6. 0.7.11            Advanced front-end for dpkg
ii  libc6                  2.7-10            GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii  libcwidget3            0.5.11-1          high-level terminal interface libr
ii  libept0                0.5.17            High-level library for managing De
ii  libgcc1                1:4.3.0-3         GCC support library
ii  libncursesw5           5.6+20080308-1    Shared libraries for terminal hand
ii  libsigc++-2.0-0c2a     2.0.18-2          type-safe Signal Framework for C++
ii  libstdc++6             4.3.0-3           The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
ii  libxapian15            1.0.5-1           Search engine library
ii  zlib1g                 1:1.2.3.3.dfsg-11 compression library - runtime

Versions of packages aptitude recommends:
pn  aptitude-doc-en | aptitude-do <none>     (no description available)
ii  libparse-debianchangelog-perl 1.1.1-2    parse Debian changelogs and output

-- no debconf information

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi,

On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 11:58:58PM +0200, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> > Given the details in which Daniel went with his reply, it would seem
> > adequate to me to get more detailed information about *why* this
> > behavior is intended,
> Manual intervention needed when removing required packages. Sounds good for me.
> 
> > what to do about the apparently too large number
> > of required packages
> Very few library packages are 'required'.
> 
> > and especially about "required" library
> > packages.  If this behaviour is to be kept, it may be eg. that libary
> > packages should be forbidden as "required" (in which case this
> > bugreport should be reassigned to -policy) ?
> Yes, reassigning to debian-policy maybe a good choice now.

I agree with Eugene here that we really shouldn't remove packages which
are 'Prio: required'. If packages are downgraded they need to have
a transitional package which downgrades the priority, which nowadays
they usually do – and if not that isn't the bug of apt, but of the
package in question and should be reported there.

So, nothing we can do about: Hence closing.


Best regards

David Kalnischkies

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: