On 2004-08-30 Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm wondering how to interpret, especially the last part.
> http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=tetex-bin > First it says: > * Updating tetex-bin makes 3 depending packages uninstallable on alpha: > jbibtex-bin, jmpost, ptex-bin > This seems to be bogus, because ptex-bin (source package of the three) > has a versioned depends on tetex-bin that cannot be fullfilled with the > version in sarge. Britney tries one package at a time, unless told otherwise (with a "hint"). It does not try to update *both* ptex-bin and tetex-bin together, and the version of ptex-bin in sarge does not "depends on tetex-bin that cannot be fullfilled with the version in sarge". > But then: > * Updating tetex-bin makes 35 non-depending packages uninstallable on > alpha: acl2-infix, advi, cdcover, cjk-latex, dvidvi, dvifb, dvilib2, [...] > What does that mean? For the first, acl2-infix, I cannot find any > connection to tetex-bin; for cdcover, e.g., there is one: > Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3.2.ds1-4), libgcc1 (>= 1:3.3.3-1), libstdc++5 (>= > 1:3.3.3-1), tetex-bin, tetex-base, tetex-extra [...] tetex-bin in sid "Conflicts: tetex-base (<= 2.0.2b-2)", therefore upgrading tetex-bin on its own makes tetex-bin itself uninstallable, therefore everything related would be, too. We had already talked about this on IRC today, because Steve Langasek had already hinted tetex-base and tetex-bin together but it had not worked out, Steve traced it to: | The following arch: all packages are broken by trying to update | tetex: alcovebook-sgml docbook-utils jadetex sgml2x | translate-docformat cu andreas -- "See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf, fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha. Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash"
