Hi, I have just stumbled over this as well.
On 2011-02-17 10:47 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote: > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 05:31, Aaron M. Ucko <[email protected]> wrote: >> I've found that with recent versions of apt installed, telling aptitude >> that I'd like to upgrade any packages results in losing extended state >> for all upgradable packages, which it proceeds to consider manually >> installed. AFAICT (with help from bzr's unofficial bisect plugin), >> revision 2073.1.3 is >> at fault: >> >> On revision 2073.1.3 >> ([email protected]): >> * apt-pkg/depcache.cc: >> - mark a package which was requested to be installed on commandline >> always as manual regardless if it is already marked or not as the >> marker could be lost later by the removal of rdepends (Closes: #612557) > > In that case it would be an aptitude bug as it would call MarkInstall > with FromUser == true for requests which are not directly from the user > and should therefore not be marked as manual. > > As the changelog entry tries to describe in a request like > apt-get install A > A is now always marked as manual installed. > > Previously, it was checked if A is already marked (= not garbage) and only > if not it was marked as manual. Thats faulty every time this request results > in the removal of B which was the package responsible for marking A. > The package A would be garbage then - this results normally in the funny > output that A is considered garbage and can be autoremoved and at the same > time its explicitly upgraded by the user, but if you activate automatic > autoremove the package A is removed in the request to install/upgrade it! > (Isn't the last one aptitudes default behavior?) > > The rationality is simple that if the user cared enough to request install > of a new version of this package (s)he would be depressed so see it marked > for removal in the next autoremove run. Especially as the same command > if no newer version is installable marks the package as manual installed, too. This may make sense for apt-get, but I would like to be able to upgrade some selected packages _without_ changing their manual/automatic state. Especially in interactive situations (like aptitude's TUI/GUI or in synaptic) this seems better. Especially since there are dedicated commands for changing the manual/auto status. > So could you please describe more detailed why do you consider it a bug > in APT rather than in aptitude? Exact commands you use for example? I did not run anything else than "aptitude safe-upgrade", IIRC. Regards, Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
