On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 10:00:36PM -0700, Steve Bowman wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:08:57PM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote: > > I was trying to upgrade some packages in base, and had conflicting > > dependencies, in my wisdom(?) i removed a couple of base packages. > > > > shellutils conflicts with hurd, > > Im not going to try and remove hurd > > login depends on libc6, libc6 isnt available > > libc0.2 is in base though > > > > Do these conflicting dependencies serve some purpose or are they bugs? > > Both. They're bugs, but not easy to fix ones. The conflict is that hurd > provides login and shellutils has a conflict with login <= someversion. > Unfortunately, the debian packaging system doesn't (yet?) support > versioned provides, so making shellutils happy isn't easy.
It's actually easier. The cvs version of dpkg I packaged wa simply broken with regards to this. dpkg should ignore versioned conflicts for which version-less provides exists. I will check if the latest CVS is fixed. > This is > really a packaging system bug and not a hurd bug. True. > We really need > arch-dependent dependencies. Are those supported? I don't know. Mmmh. Interesting thought, but I think we can do for some time with Provides. In those cases were the dependencies really get problematic, there is still the possibility to hack the source to use a different control file for different arch's. > They also serve a useful purpose. They keep you from installing things > that don't belong on a hurd system, like login, unless you force the > wrong things. I find dselect useful for sorting out dependency conflicts. login should really be removed from the ftp server. The real problem is makedev, because it is arch-all (which could be considered a bug, too). I hope with a fixed dpkg, those problems will vanish as they appeared with the broken dpkg :) Thanks, Marcus
