On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:25:21 -0700, Glen Pfeiffer wrote: > On 07/24/2007 08:40 AM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
[...] > > aptitude likes to make you panic... > > LOL! And it works too. I have seen output several times that has > made me think hard before continuing. But it's silly the way it > handles this scenario. It says the packages *are* broken, which > is not true. It is true, if you realize that aptitude always considers (and talks about) the situation that would occur after all currently scheduled actions are carried out. Aptitude has to play "what if ..." in order to detect bad consequences and propose solutions. You could argue that "are broken" should be replaced with "will be broken" to make the message more understandable, though. On the other hand, you have just demonstrated that the present wording is very efficient in making the user think twice about what he/she is doing... ;) You requested an action: upgrading one of the OOorg packages. Aptitude schedules this upgrade (and the upgrade of direct dependencies). If aptitude would blindly carry out this operation then most of the remaining OOorg packages will be broken afterwards, because generally all these packages have to be at the same version. Aptitude informs you about the impeding breakage and proceeds to propose solutions for the dilemma. Everything is fine after you accept one of the solutions. -- Regards, | http://users.icfo.es/Florian.Kulzer Florian | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
