On Sun, 30 May 2021 10:51:14 -0700 Ross Boylan wrote: > I checked all proposed solutions in aptitude. I think the reason > exim4-daemon-heavy wasn't proposed was that I didn't have the exim4 > binary (meta) package, which lists both daemons as dependents.
Well, this changes things considerably... [...] > If that analysis is correct, then things get messy with the exim4 > binary package installed. exim4-daemon-light is pinned, but not > exim4-daemon-heavy, though I presume both had the same problem. That's not necessarily the case, at least not in general. A bug report filed against a binary package does not necessarily apply to any other binary package generated from the same source package. If the same bug applies to another binary package, maybe the BTS should be made aware of that (probably by filing a second bug report against the other binary package?). [...] > Applying the pin to the source package seems safer, though I don't > know if that's possible. Pinning by source package is indeed possible (see section _Pinning by source package_ in the apt_preferences(5) man page), however I don't think apt-listbugs should do that. At least, not when the pin was decided by the user on the basis of a bug report filed against a *binary* package. And please take into account that apt-listbugs (currently) only looks at bug reports filed against binary packages: I am not convinced that looking at bugs in source packages would be useful for apt-listbugs (after all, you are about to install binary packages, not source packages!). I hope all this line of reasoning makes sense to you. Bye! :-) -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpchuWjFfcrj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
