Guillem Jover wrote: > As you have reported similar reports in the past, I went and checked > cupt sources and it seems to be passing those flags to dpkg (which is > wrong No, it "just" necessary for plenty of upgrade actions. And I see no reason why passing these options is wrong, nor in the manual, nor in your words.
> Here it says it will try this to get out of the situation... I requested installing new version of the package 'perl-modules'. Dpkg should install it before unpacking 'perl', or remove it meanwhile, but install the new version later. As correctly pointed by Sven: >>>> Unpacking perl-modules (from perl-modules_5.10.1-8_all.deb) ... Wtf is that if the package status after the actions is 'not-installed'? >>>> The result: the package 'perl-modules' is not installed (e.g. removed), >>>> despite >>>> the direct query to install new version, ignoring any dependency conflicts. >>> Well, you asked for it, don't do that. As indicated by --force-help, >>> usage of those specific options you used there “can seriously damage >>> your installation” which is what happened. > >> Dpkg ignored the request to install new perl-modules. > > As said before, only because you asked it to. Err, wait, do you mean it ignored install request because I've asked to ignore dependencies? >> Silently. > > It does not seem silent to me. Although it could repeat the message > when actually doing the removal It said nothing about why the 'install perl-modules 5.10.1-8' action was not performed (except for weird 'unpack perl-modules 5.10.1-8' message without a further appropriate configure which (unpack I mean) was not actually performed). > Well, then apart from the possible request for an additional removal > printing I don't see any problem here. The upgrade works w/o the need > for the force options (except for the unhandled /etc/perl/Net/libnet.cfg > conffile, which does not get properly moved), and it causes major > problems when using the force options (as expected), which should really > *not* be used on normal operations, as said before. And I say again that using some --force-* is necessary to perform some actions, some dependencies are to be broken unavoidably temporarily. Maybe, not in my case, but this is not important (to me) anymore as it revealed the grave problem in general and I would want it to be fixed in the future. I read your reasoning as, basically, "--force-* options are marked as 'can damage your installation', so dpkg is free to do anything wrong if you specified them". Am I right? -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
