Control: tags -1 + moreinfo

Hi,

2008-06-26 14:49 Daniel Burrows:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:24:58AM +0200, Yann Dirson <[email protected]> was 
heard to say:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.4.11.4-1, 0.4.11.6-1

With today's updates, sid's wengophone requires "libgnutls26 (>=
2.4.0-0)", not satisfied by lenny, but by unstable (2.4.0-2) and
experimental (2.4.0-1), which poses a problem to aptitude after selecting
everything for upgrade.  In that case, for some strange reason the
packages from experimental are considered better than the more recent ones
in unstable !  Note the identical aptitude scores, despite apt assigning
correct scores to the versions:

# LC_ALL=C apt-cache policy libgnutls26
libgnutls26:
  Installed: 2.2.5-1
  Candidate: 2.2.5-1
  Version table:
     2.4.0-2 0
        500 http://ftp.fr.debian.org unstable/main Packages
     2.4.0-1 0
          1 http://ftp.debian.org ../project/experimental/main Packages
 *** 2.2.5-1 0
        990 http://ftp.fr.debian.org testing/main Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

 aptitude considers all "extra" (i.e., non-default) versions to be equal
when scoring dependency solutions.  That's probably what's happening
here.

I think that the behaviour has been changed since the version of the
original report, and aptitude better respects priorities set in
apt_preferences (lots of changes for 0.6.* and some for 0.7.* series).

Did you observe similar problems lately?  I haven't observed them myself
even if occasionally mixing release suites (inc. experimental), nor saw
recent reports about similar problems (but hidden among the still
hundreds of open bug reports, who knows).


The rest of the discussion in the bug report is a bit out of scope with
respect to the the original report.  Even if the underlying issue wasn't
fixed while this bug report stayed behind not closed (which is what I
think that it happened), I don't think that there's much that we can do
by now to guess what the original maintainer had in mind.


Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <[email protected]>

_______________________________________________
Aptitude-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel

Reply via email to