On 2009-09-14 16:18 +0200, Daniel Burrows wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 08:57:16AM +0200, Sven Joachim <[email protected]> was > heard to say: >> On 2009-09-12 18:38 +0200, Daniel Burrows wrote: >> >> > One thing I've noticed so far is that there seems to be some >> > flakiness in the dependency solver, particularly that it seems to miss >> > solutions that require removing packages (but only sometimes). I >> > haven't had a chance to track this down yet. >> >> Maybe the libreadline-dev package gives a hint, aptitude needs some >> suasion to install it: > > That's correct: in response to a lot of complaints (e.g., #359171), > the resolver has been redesigned to be more conservative about trying > to remove packages.
I see. But the current behavior seems a bit too conservative, and that may also upset people, e.g. when they want to install a different MTA. > But the situation I ran into was one where it wasn't considering > removals at all, even after I skipped past the first few solutions. I'll report whenever I spot such a situation. Sven _______________________________________________ Aptitude-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel
