On 5 October 2012 10:44, Daniel Hartwig <[email protected]> wrote: >> I browsed through the merged bugs, but the only hint I found so far >> about the issue described in http://bugs.debian.org/137771 is in >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=220794#20: >> >> "the databases do not contain exactly equivalent information, and >> there is no one-to-one translation between them" (But it's not >> mentioned what the differences actually are.) > > I have seen this comment (quite old) but not investigated its claim > yet. I *suspect* that it no longer applies and was originally to do > with MarkInstall, etc. not respecting dselect holds, or something > similar. > > Burrows submitted functionality to APT [2] to support this which has > been applied for some time and now APT does now respect the dselect > holds. This cleaned up a lot of the issues users were expecting, but > the greater problem of aptitude holds not being respected by other > tools remains. > > [2] http://bugs.debian.org/470035
Something that anyone could do is to investigate this comment by Burrows and/or determine if there is any conceptual difference between the intentions of the current “aptitude hold” and “apt-mark hold”. Both seem to be about preventing a package from being upgraded or removed (etc.) by actions such as dist-upgrade, or installing/removing another package, but is there anything extra intended by “aptitude hold” which is not covered by “apt-mark hold”? Take a look at the documentation for each, maybe have a poke around the code, and see what the implications are. The results of such an investigation will make it much easier for developers to move forward on this. Regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
