On 29 April 2013 17:50, Holger Levsen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > you did not mail the bug, I guess that was intentional? >
Actually, no. To fast to push send. > 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 _______________________________________________ Aptitude-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel
