On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 05:18:13PM +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2015, David Kalnischkies wrote: > > > Essentials have to be installed, so you just can't have mutually- > > exclusive essentials in any supportable capacity. > > Of course Essentials have to be installed, but even in > Debian it’s possible to have transitions of Essential > packages e.g. from one release to the other, and for > as long as you have both in the sources.list… So, I have an unstable system and oldstable in my sources.list, when exactly does this upgrade happen now? > Can’t you just priorise the installed one higher? A package gets some negative points for not being available from any source anymore, but you can't do much more as my situation might be bogus, but it isn't too crazy to have two releases in the sources.list (and from a package manager pov: "what is a release anyway?" and "what is the current release?", "which release is installed?", …). Transitioning from one essential package to another involves some packages depending on them, which decide this matter – which is your problem here as obviously more stuff depends on dash than on dash-mksh (which is the main source of points) in a normal rename that wouldn't happen. > Otherwise: would it “fix” the issue if dash-mksh were > to ship a preferences.d/ file pinning dash down to -1? As said: 'the "workaround" is easy enough: pinning', so yeah, you could do that. Best regards David Kalnischkies
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature