Hi Vincent, 2011-12-08 11:53 Vincent Lefevre:
Package: aptitude Version: 0.6.4-1.2 Severity: normalThe dependency resolution is suboptimal, even buggy. For instance: # aptitude install evolution The following NEW packages will be installed: libgnome-desktop-3-2{a} The following packages will be upgraded: evolution gnome-desktop3-data The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed: bogofilter spamassassin 2 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 34 not upgraded. Need to get 1955 kB of archives. After unpacking 20.5 kB will be used. The following packages have unmet dependencies: libgnome-desktop-3-0: Depends: gnome-desktop3-data (= 3.0.2-2) but 3.2.1-3 is to be installed. evolution-plugins: Depends: evolution (= 3.0.3-3) but 3.0.3-3+b1 is to be installed. The following actions will resolve these dependencies: Remove the following packages: 1) cheese 2) eog 3) evolution 4) evolution-plugins 5) gnome-accessibility 6) gnome-applets 7) gnome-control-center 8) gnome-core 9) gnome-panel 10) gnome-power-manager 11) gnome-screensaver 12) gnome-session 13) gnome-session-fallback 14) gnome-settings-daemon 15) gnome-shell 16) gnome-sushi 17) libevolution 18) libgnome-desktop-3-0 19) nautilus 20) nautilus-sendto Leave the following dependencies unresolved: 21) alacarte recommends gnome-panel 22) evolution-common recommends evolution 23) gdm3 recommends gnome-power-manager (>= 2.28) 24) gdm3 recommends gnome-settings-daemon 25) gnome-control-center recommends gnome-session 26) gnome-control-center-data recommends gnome-control-center (>= 1:3.0.2-3) 27) gnome-session recommends gnome-power-manager 28) gnome-session-fallback recommends gnome-power-manager 29) gnome-system-tools recommends gnome-control-center (>= 1:2.10.1-1) 30) metacity recommends gnome-session | x-session-manager 31) mousetweaks recommends gnome-control-center 32) evolution recommends evolution-plugins 33) gnome-panel-data recommends gnome-panel 34) nautilus-data recommends nautilus 35) totem-plugins recommends gnome-settings-daemon 36) gnome-panel recommends gnome-session (>= 2.26) 37) gnome-panel recommends gnome-control-center Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] n The following actions will resolve these dependencies: Remove the following packages: 1) libgnome-desktop-3-0 Upgrade the following packages: 2) cheese [3.2.2-1 (now, testing) -> 3.2.2-1+b1 (unstable)] 3) eog [3.2.2-2 (now, testing) -> 3.2.2-2+b1 (unstable)] 4) evolution-plugins [3.0.3-3 (now, testing) -> 3.0.3-3+b1 (unstable)] 5) gnome-control-center [1:3.0.2-3 (now, testing) -> 1:3.0.2-3+b1 (unstable 6) gnome-panel [3.2.1-1 (now) -> 3.2.1-1+b1 (unstable)] 7) gnome-screensaver [3.0.1-3 (now, testing) -> 3.2.0-2+b1 (unstable)] 8) gnome-settings-daemon [3.0.3-3 (now, testing) -> 3.0.3-3+b1 (unstable)] 9) gnome-shell [3.0.2-8 (now, testing) -> 3.0.2-8+b1 (unstable)] 10) libevolution [3.0.3-3 (now, testing) -> 3.0.3-3+b1 (unstable)] 11) nautilus [3.2.1-2 (now) -> 3.2.1-2+b1 (unstable)] Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] The first solution is really bad as it removes various useful packages, including evolution, that was asked to be installed on the command line (I regard this one as a bug).
Agree. Since there are many duplicates about other conflict resolution preferences including not honouring user's requests, for the rest of the reply I don't consider this question.
The second solution is OK, as only a library package is removed, and such a package with no dependencies on it is useless.
Not necessarily. The library might have been installed by hand for extra sound plugins or other codecs, mesa libraries not strictly needed according to the dependency system but worthy to have in that machine, dvd decoding, or to support something installed in the system outside of the package managers (e.g. a special version of a webserver or other software, compiled in /usr/local, mounted through NFS, etc). If it's not really installed for a special purpose, should have been marked as automatically installed to get rid of it sooner. I don't think that libraries should be treated that specially for reasons of removals as in the example of the original report. "useless" doc packages or conflicts between icon sets might also come to mind as being favoured to remove in conflict resolutions -- after all not having doc installed usually doesn't break binaries ;-) But more seriously, I think that the real problem is prefering many removals and some keeps rather than a few upgrades and a single removal, but not because it's specifically a library involved in that. Cheers. -- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Aptitude-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel
