On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 06:43:54AM -0400, James McCoy wrote: > On Sep 5, 2015 5:17 AM, "David Kalnischkies" <david@kalnischkies.de> wrote: > > The gcc-5 transition causes many libraries libfoov5 to conflict with > > installed libfoo packages and the resolver dislikes removing packages as > > while this might be a proper SAT solution, removing packages is usually > > not the solution a human approves of. So, apt needs to see a net-benefit > > before removing a package and if it doesn't, it keeps the package. > > Would it have helped if the packages had declared Breaks instead of > Conflicts? From my understanding, that's a more appropriate relationship > for this situation anyway. Most of them do Breaks – all I see in the log files are Breaks. In fact I was refering to the word "conflict", not the dependency type, but I should have been more careful in my wording choice: Breaks or Conflicts doesn't make a difference for the resolver here in these either-or decisions. They make a big difference while installing (and removing) the involved packages through. And they do make a (small) difference in the early stages of the resolver… So, yes, in this (and most other) situations Breaks is the correct dependency type to use – just not for resolver reasons. Best regards David Kalnischkies
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature