On 2009-08-17 22:07 +0200, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > The xz-utils package in experimental Conflicts/Replaces/Provides the > pseudo-essential package lzma. I think this should be fine, since > installing it only involves overwriting the lzma package rather than > removing it. Indeed, with dpkg or aptitude it installs fine, and > /var/log/dpkg.log does not mention removing lzma. On the other hand, > apt-get decides it needs to remove lzma, resulting in the message > > | WARNING: The following essential packages will be removed. > | This should NOT be done unless you know exactly what you are doing! > | lzma (due to dpkg) > > See bug #542060 [1] for the full output. APT bug #169241 [2] also looks > related. > > Am I misunderstanding policy here? Is apt-get’s behavior useful?
I think it is correct. Since dpkg Pre-Depends on lzma, removing lzma in favor of xz-utils could theoretically hose your system (imagine that all Debian packages or even just lzma and xz-utils were lzma-compressed; you would not be able to unpack them). > If not, any pointers for one who wants to fix it? In either case, is > there a standard workaround? Remove the "Conflicts: lzma" and install a dummy transitional lzma package that Pre-Depends on xz-utils. This solution should probably only be implemented when xz-utils is uploaded to unstable, because downgrading lzma and uninstalling xz-utils will break. Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
