Hello James, hello Theodore, James Vega wrote: > Package: cupt > Version: 0.6.0 > Severity: important
Thanks for your report. At first look I thought it's really a libcupt problem (particularly, new pre-depends check on the worker side (so this is not a resolver issue btw)), however in the second one I didn't find a way to upgrade these two packages properly. Without this check, cupt was able to upgrade this pair in earlier versions, but with low risk it turns. Then I checked the unstable archive, and I found only 6 occurrences at all of such Pre-Depends: -8<- $ cupt pkgnames | xargs -n5000 cupt depends --important | grep Pre-Depends | egrep '[^<>]=' Pre-Depends: bacula-common (= 3.0.2-2) Pre-Depends: libcherokee-config0 (= 0.99.22-1) Pre-Depends: kaffe-common (= 2:1.1.8-5.2) Pre-Depends: bacula-common (= 3.0.2-2) Pre-Depends: kaffe-common (= 2:1.1.8-5.2) Pre-Depends: e2fslibs (= 1.41.9-1) ->8- I'm now wondering whether [some of] these relations are justified. Added the maintainer of e2fsprogs to the thread. Maybe, I'm wrong and there is the action chain that allows policy-compliant upgrade in this case? Please describe it then to me. > $ cupt show e2fslibs e2fsprogs | egrep '^(Package|Depends|Pre-Depends)' > Package: e2fslibs > Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3) > Package: e2fsprogs > Pre-Depends: e2fslibs (= 1.41.9-1), libblkid1 (>= 1.34-1), libc6 (>= 2.7), > libcomerr2 (>= 1.34-1), libss2 (>= 1.34-1), libuuid1 (>= 1.34-1) BTW, you could do 'cupt depends 3fslibs e2fsprogs --important', though it's unrelated to bug report. -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Maintainer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
