On Sat, 27 Nov 1999, Matt Swift wrote: > Call it a feature if you like, but you haven't convinced me this is > reasonable behavior. Dselect should not permit the user to select a > state that the backend will not implement.
Well, dselect has issues like that. But there are a number of bug reports on dpkg that basically say it ignores dependencies when it shouldn't. > override non-recommended states. Dselect should not permit the user > to select a state that the backend will not implement. That is why I am surprised Wichert decided to reassign it, since it really has nothing to do with APT. > `impossible' is not true. using dpkg, i put my system into the state > you call `impossible'. (furthermore, this 'impossible' state doesn't > even break my system.) it's certainly `possible' for dselect+apt to > have put the system in the state I requested. I think you mean > `dependency-conflicted'. The fact that you can do this is regarded as a bug in dpkg by a number of people, not some kind of important feature. It is impossible to do through the APT interface and it is something that generates errors from dpkg - I think it is quite legitimate to call it an impossible situation in a properly working system. If it breaks your system or not is not really the point, there are many other ways you can communicate this to the packaging system , recompiling diald, manually installing it and editing the status file, or using a package like equivs. Jason
