control: severity -1 wishlist
control: tags -1 wontfix
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 08:22:40AM +0800, 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Package: getmail
> Version: 5.5-2
> Severity: minor
>
> One notes if a user has Aptitude::Purge-Unused true; set,
I understand this is not the system default setting of aptitude.
> purging getmail4 will purge getmail.
>
> He needs to unmarkauto getmail first.
Yes. That is how you set up your system and you should take care
consequences of non-default settings with your common sense before
sending bug report to kill our time. (Excuse me for my negative tone.
But your frequent and unproductive bug reports ware me out.)
> # aptitude search ~i~ngetmail
> i A getmail - mail retriever with support for POP3, IMAP4 and SDPS
> i getmail4 - transitional dummy package
> # aptitude purge getmail4
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
> getmail{pu} (D: getmail4) getmail4{p}
It's already marked for removal and you removed getmail with the above
command. That's your choice. Dont't blame others when you shoot
yourself by your carelessness.
> # aptitude unmarkauto getmail
> Marking package getmail (unmarkauto)
Too late if this is run as indicated! (Strange... Are you copying lines
from your shell command results) I am sure you reinstalled getmail4
before this line is executed.
> # aptitude purge getmail4
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
> getmail4{p}
Anyway, this is another bug report by you which practically
requests user support. With your skill, I am sure you can do better.
If there is a problem, its how we manage these transitional dummy
package. Sure, it's nice to be able to remove them safely even by a
careless person like you. But there are no such flag in Debian's
package dependency data which can set another package as its dependence
while not setting "markauto". If you want such feature, please discuss
with dpkg/apt/aptitude people (in constructive tone, please).
As far as getmail/getmail4 is concerned, I am following the best
practice as I understand. If I am wrong, please tell me your problem
with appropriate patches. If dummy package text is a bad choice, please
get consensus by other developer. If lintian starts generating warning
with better alternative text, I will change text. (Adding extra text to
warn markauto case is overkill to me as I see the norm of other
packaging practices.)
Osamu
