On Sb, 08 feb 14, 19:45:11, Chris Tillman wrote:
OK, so my proposal is to set the default SolutionCost to safety, removals
or else safety, priority, removals, figure out what the performance
problems are with these and resolve them before releasing. You suggested
adjusting the default
So, regarding Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost ; in your development
missive of 2010-04-10 07:17 you say
safety, priority should give you the behavior of 0.6.1.5-3 (and is
thus the default).
So, I tried a couple things on a package that would require either two
upgrades or 3 removals
On 2014-02-05 00:56:26 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 4 February 2014 19:53, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
On 2014-02-04 10:49:53 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Again, I am only addressing the proposed patch. There are better
options, such as adjusting the default value of
On 6 February 2014 06:37, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
On 2014-02-05 00:56:26 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 4 February 2014 19:53, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
On 2014-02-04 10:49:53 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Again, I am only addressing the proposed patch.
On 2014-02-04 10:49:53 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 4 February 2014 10:24, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
Because I would say: A remove can be caused by some obsolete package
due to a conflict with the newly installed package (or one of its
dependencies). But in such a case,
On 4 February 2014 19:53, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
On 2014-02-04 10:49:53 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Again, I am only addressing the proposed patch. There are better
options, such as adjusting the default value of
Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost to account for the
On 2 February 2014 14:56, Chris Tillman toff.till...@gmail.com wrote:
Tags: patch
I think the root of the problem (removing being preferential to upgrading
in Aptitude's worldview) is that the safe-level and remove-level default
scores are the same.
Hi
Thanks for your interest and patch.
On 2014-01-30 10:01:58 +0100, Axel Beckert wrote:
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
aptitude sometimes prefers to remove packages instead of upgrading.
Which is IMHO fine in general.
I don't see why it would be fine. Upgrading (to satisfy the
dependencies) should always be favored. There could be
On 2014-02-04 01:29:30 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
There is nothing fundamentally better or worse about either removals
or installs, in some situations you might find this:
solution 1: upgrade 20 packages
solution 2: remove 1
Whichever is more preferable in these situations is up to
The safety cost levels are not intended to fine tune the results.
They are a broad base to start from. There are other parameters for
Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost to provide tweaking (e.g. 3 *
removals + installs). Details are in the manual, where I think it is
quite clear.
More
On 4 February 2014 10:24, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
On 2014-02-04 01:29:30 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
There is nothing fundamentally better or worse about either removals
or installs, in some situations you might find this:
solution 1: upgrade 20 packages
solution 2:
To begin chasing down a real, workable solution:
The default SolutionCost is safety, priority. I suspect the main
problem here may be due to the unintended interactions of priority
when there are/aren't removals involved, but do not have time to
investigate further just yet *hint*.
--
To
Thanks very much for your reply and explanation, Daniel. I can appreciate
that fiddling with defaults is a serious consideration. However, the
scoring system replaced the tiered system where removals were considered
less desirable than upgrades. So longtime users perceived a drastic change
in
Tags: patch
Ah, now I got a proper patch from debdiff. I hadn't gotten aptitude built
yet the first time.
In actual usage on my system, it suggests upgrades first rather than
removals (without any prefs in apt.conf or on the cmdline).
.
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Chris Tillman
Tags: patch
I think the root of the problem (removing being preferential to upgrading
in Aptitude's worldview) is that the safe-level and remove-level default
scores are the same.
*Table 2.2. Default safety cost levels*
Cost levelDescriptionConfiguration option10,000 Solutions that include only
Hi,
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
aptitude sometimes prefers to remove packages instead of upgrading.
Which is IMHO fine in general. I though must admit that it seems to do
that quite often in Debian Unstable.
Chris King wrote:
This is a very annoying behavior
In Debian Unstable, yes. But it is
severity 570377 important
thanks
This bug really does make aptitude a lot harder to use for most people,
so I hope this doesn't come across as rude.
--
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.1.5-2
Severity: normal
aptitude sometimes prefers to remove packages instead of upgrading.
For instance:
# aptitude install gstreamer0.10-alsa
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Reading extended state
18 matches
Mail list logo
