(I don't want to reopen the bug at this stage because the issue is somehow covered by #38777, but I want to comment on this)
Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, Ulf Jaenicke-Roessler wrote: > > > I'm not sure if this really qualifies as bug ;-) However it is annoying. > > No, not really.. Well, it depends ;-) I think I had a similar problem with other consistency errors in the database (by forcing install of certain packages with versioned dependencies which are not fulfilled). > > I intentionally installed jadetex and tetex-nonfree, although the conflict > > at the moment because of a jadetex bug (it works if I install jadetex > > before > > tetex-nonfree). > > Now apt-get barfs on me and doesn't install or download anything: > > APT by design does not support this sort of thing, mainly because there > are no hard and fast rules about what to do in the case of broken or > deliberately misconfigured packages. There is really no hueristic that > could be applied to generate a course of action that is expected to > succeed. > > Now an odd thing has arised here.. apt-get will not attempt to solve your > problems with -f if you give it any packages to install (it assumes you > know what you are doing and have specified a way to correct the problems). > I've clarified these error messages too IMVHO there should be a way for a workaround, eg. a (real :) force option or by ignoring packages on hold. However I see that there might be a problem with the design and/or implementation. Maybe we could declare this as wishlist bug? Thank you for the great work on apt, it's a very valuable and (normally ;^) stable tool. Ulf
