Your message dated Sun, 3 Jan 2016 02:46:33 +0000
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: preferences does not work in this case
has caused the Debian Bug report #149049,
regarding warning for annoying dependencies
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
149049: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=149049
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.2.11.1-2
Probably should be wishlist; but I'm not sure whether to file it against
aptitude, or against apt itself so the control files can support this, or...
* The problem:
I have some preferences about apps I'd like to *not* see loaded on my system.
At present time if something wants it as a dependency, I am not warned by
aptitude. Well, I am sort of. I can see the offending dependency in the
confirm-before-go phase.
I am warned by apt-get, to the same degree.
There's no mechanism to ask to be warned, though. So dist-upgrades would
cheerfully just do it.
It's difficult to figure out what to knock off to get it not to install the
offender. The best you can do is install it, wart and all, then uninstall
the irritating program and see what leaves with it.
* My proposed solution:
What I'd like is an opportunity to mark certain packages with an equivalent
to Hold, only for not-installed packages. Maybe call it Blocked.
When a dependency call reaches for a package which is Blocked, it should:
1. seek other apps to fulfill the virtual, if it's a virtual request
2. advise the user...
You have Blocked the application Foo, but you have requested to
install a package Bar which depends on it.
Shall I install them anyway?
[yes, unBlock] [no] [no, and Block the new app]
3. if "don't install" check if other things need to be unmarked by
way of depending directly on Bar.
* UI
= for Hold, on packages which are not installed, should Block them.
I realize this is a bit late for Woody and may not make it into this release.
But I thought of it, so I'm filing it... :)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 0.7.5-1
2005-08-16 12:41 Artur R. Czechowski:
[ Followup to http://bugs.debian.org/149049 ]
Hello,
I just added following section into my prefences file:
Package: libmysqlclient14
Pin: release unstable
Pin-Priority: -1000
and tried to install pvpgn package, which depends on libmysqlclient14.
Unfortunately pvpgn and all of its dependencies has been successfuly
installed.
BTW, I think it is a good way to solve the problem. Decision about
never ever installing the package is a serious one and it should not be
configured by accident. So, maybe another level of Pin-Priority value
meaning: "never ever install the package, even if some of installed packages
depends on it; assume this package does not exist anymore" should be
implemented.
I agree that it's a good way to solve the problem. I don't know if it
was available at the time when Heather reported it, but it's certainly
been the canonical way to do this in the last decade or so.
I'm closing it with a version number because I've been fixing problems
with apt_preferences in that version, so even if this didn't work by
0.7.5-1 (maybe it had been fixed in previous years), I tried now and it
works -- doesn't install packages pinned negatively.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <[email protected]>
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Aptitude-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel
