Hi, On 2016-03-17 00:10:55 +0000, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > With the SolutionCost of "removals", aptitude doesn't take into account > installing by priorities or non-default releases, it just tries to > minimise the removals, so seing that it could solve the problem by > upgrading to 2.7-1~exp1, it just did that.
IMHO, that's bad. FYI, I chose the "removals" SolutionCost to avoid breaking the system due to removed packages. But installing experimental packages is not a good solution as such packages may break the system. There should be a way to block upgrades as long as they are not safe (no removals of manually installed packages[*], no experimental packages). [*] except when the feature is provided by another package (such as with renamed packages). -- Vincent Lefèvre <[email protected]> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) _______________________________________________ Aptitude-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel
