Your message dated Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:24:01 +0000
with message-id
<capq4b8mzkstsoj+ga8qob_51mv7clvp4gv1db9qqo7mcsdu...@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line aptitude bug #200415: closing bug
has caused the Debian Bug report #200415,
regarding aptitude: dependencies are not handled well when upgrading
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.)
--
200415: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=200415
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.2.13-1
Severity: normal
I'm trying to upgrade mozilla. I've had it (mozilla-browser together with
mozilla-psm, mozilla-xft and libraries) on hold at 1.3.1-1 waiting for v1.4
to come out, and 1.4-1 is now available.
However, when I select mozilla-browser, mozilla-psm and mozilla-xft for
installation, aptitude tells me the packages are broken: mozilla-psm and
mozilla-xft get themselves marked for deletion instead of upgrade, while
mozilla-browser gets put back on hold.
If I run "apt-get install mozilla-browser" from the command line, apt-get
seems to recognise that the mozilla packages (including mozilla-psm and
mozilla-xft) need to be upgraded to 1.4-1, with no complaints about broken
packages. That's why I think the bug is in aptitude.
The problem seems to occur because of mozilla-xmlterm, which is apparently
now absent from the mozilla 1.4 packages. apt-get seems to choose
automatically to remove it, given that I explicitly said I wanted to install
mozilla-browser (the latest 1.4 version). aptitude, however, makes no
mention of it, so you're just left scratching your head wondering why on
earth the mozilla packages are now "broken" (eventually I pinpointed the
problem down to mozilla-xmlterm). Explicitly choosing to delete
mozilla-xmlterm allows the upgrade to proceed in aptitude.
So the question is, why is aptitude's dependency handling inferior to
apt-get's for this kind of situation?
Thanks for listening,
Drew
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux strider 2.4.21 #1 Fri Jun 27 11:54:35 EST 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=en_AU.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_AU.UTF-8
Versions of packages aptitude depends on:
ii apt [libapt-pkg-libc6.3-5 0.5.5.1 Advanced front-end for dpkg
ii libc6 2.3.1-17 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libgcc1 1:3.3.1-0pre0 GCC support library
ii libncurses5 5.3.20030510-2 Shared libraries for terminal hand
ii libsigc++-1.2-5c102 1.2.5-1 Type-safe Signal Framework for C++
ii libstdc++5 1:3.3.1-0pre0 The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello,
Sorry for having the bug unattended for so long, there's now an
ongoing effort to bring the list of bugs of aptitude up to date.
This is an open question about how the dependency resolver of 0.2.13
version of aptitude worked, hinting that it was working worse than
apt-get.
This question only could be addressed by the developer at that time or
a while later (but he didn't bothered in the last ~8.5 years), now the
history of the repository only dates back to 2007 and the changes made
to this core part of the program cannot easily be accounted for.
Aptitude was recommended over apt-get for its superior resolving
capabilities a few Debian versions after that, so much has changed
since this bug report was issued.
Thus I think that it doesn't make sense to keep it open now, so I am
closing it. Please reopen if there are further concerns regarding the
resolution in recent versions.
Regards.
--- End Message ---
