On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 13:56 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:52:20PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 19:08 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:00:57AM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > > > During a woody->sarge upgrade, the new menu unpacked before the old > > > > ghostview was removed, resulting in the following breakage: > > > > > > Thanks to notifying me! > > > May I ask why ghostview was removed here ? > > > > I don't remember, I think out of a habit of removing obsolete packages. > > Hmm. How come ghostview was removed between the time menu was unpacked > and the time it was configured ?
I don't know. Apt just orders it that way sometimes. Usually the removals come first, but not this time. (Run from dselect...) Unfortunately, we can't assume that apt will order it properly for all users upgrading their machines. > Could you check if menu is 'configured' and that /usr/bin/update-menus > is executable ? Now it is, because I hit return to continue the upgrade. But it broke part-way, which is the issue; a non-smooth upgrade is a bug. > I have experimented with a user-mode-linux testbox and could not > reproduce your problem, so I could not check whether a conflict would > solve it. Hmm, I suppose it would be nice if apt had a deterministic order of operations, but it doesn't seem to. Did you upgrade menu and remove ghostview at the same time, from a package manager like aptitude or dselect? > > > I am afraid apt prefer to keep ghostview than removing it, making hard > > > to upgrade. What do you think ? > > > > Hmm, hard to say. Do we want to support people still using an obsolete > > package (by not conflicting with it), or force them to get rid of a > > broken one? Since alternatives are readily available, I'd lean toward > > the latter. > > > > Maybe I should wishlist bug gv to conflict/replace ghostview? > > Independently of this bug, it might be nice if gv provided an upgrade > path for ghostview, but that will not fix the problem with the other > packages. True. But then, a versioned Conflicts will fix the packages with sarge versions. An upgrade path is necessary for packages like ghostview without a sarge package, so its users are not just left in the cold when menu conflicts with it. Okay, just filed a wishlist bug against gv. Thanks again, -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! http://www.take6.com/albums/greatesthits.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
