On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 05:21:34PM +0200, Sven Joachim <[email protected]> was heard to say: > 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: > >> 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.
We'll see how that goes. The new behavior allows for some degree of customization, although it's of necessity a lot less fine-grained (in return, you get a guarantee about how aptitude will behave, rather than a best-effort attempt to meet your criteria). For instance, you could easily tell aptitude that it shouldn't try to cancel *all* of your actions until it's tried removing packages. Daniel _______________________________________________ Aptitude-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel
