On 09/04/2013 01:40 PM, David Kalnischkies wrote: > On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Yuri D'Elia <yuri.de...@eurac.edu> wrote: >> When using unstable/experimental I sometimes *need* to break dependencies. > > No. Even in unstable/experimental there is no reason to have a broken system. > If there is it is a glaring bug in the packages which require it and its a > feature that these packages are not installable and/or removed. > > I am an unstable users myself for years and never had the need to break the > system. Either the package manager can work out a valid solution or I wait > 6 hours for the next dinstall run to bring in a valid solution. Everything > else > is not worth the pain.
It depends (see my previous answer to Axel). Waiting for a package to get rebuilt against a new library (think about -dev packages) sometimes takes time. Sometimes days. If I need the new package, I'd rather force the installation and deal with the broken dependencies (that I don't care about) later. > Upgrading systems is already very similar to juggling chainsaws, > I don't see what we would gain by switch them on. Very funny analogy btw :P > So from an APT point of view: Hell no, wontfix, close. > But this bugreport is against aptitude, so feel free to disagree of course. I absolutely agree it's not important. I needed that very few times. The last time was maybe last year, on a system with had broken dependencies after a dist-upgrade and aptitude failed to find any solution and/or refused to accept any change I made. With a lot of packages, using apt manually was a major pain. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
