Hi Daniel, you did not mail the bug, I guess that was intentional?
On Montag, 29. April 2013, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
> Yes, thanks for bumping this across. I will leave it open for now as
> the bug is well specified and simple to investigate.
ok, very fine with me.
> I prefer a more
> conservative approach of keeping such reports open rather than closing
> just because e.g. lenny→squeeze upgrades are too old.
I understand. I deal a lot with "gatekeeper"-bugs, so my attitude to these
kinds of bugs has changed, though I do know+appreciate if people take over
this bugs when they touch "their" areas! :)
> The general issue has been reported a few times, where upgrading one
> package from a tight dependency set suggests to remove, rather than
> upgrade, the set. It will be nice to handle these sensibly, but it is
> perhaps something which aptitudes resolver model is not so great at.
> Anyway, this is a particularly nice test case for the behaviour, and
> it shall be merged or closed after more examination.
ok, cool.
cheers & thanks for maintaining aptitude,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Aptitude-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel
