On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 14:03, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> The human solution to just unpack perl sounds very easy - but only because
>> we know that it is not a big deal, for APT breaking a bunch of dependencies
>> is a big deal. Would you be equally willing to unpack lets say bash without a
>> clea
Hi David,
Thanks for the explanations!
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 02:50:58PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> In essence: The dependency-tree
> libc6 breaks perl depends libdb5.1 pre-depends multiarch-support depends libc6
> can't be ordered in an immediate configuration setup as long as libdb5.1
David Kalnischkies wrote:
> APT for example (that it keeps working is because it treats itself special),
> a texteditor or even something as simple as an internet connection…
Does upgrading these without immediately configuring break any of them?
If so, that's a (pretty severe) bug. (However, I
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 17:14, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> David Kalnischkies wrote:
>
>> Would you be equally willing to unpack lets say bash without a
>> clear idea then you are able to configure it again [0]? (or X? APT? libc6?)
>
> Yes, I would. Â Core packages continue to function when they have b
David Kalnischkies wrote:
> Would you be equally willing to unpack lets say bash without a
> clear idea then you are able to configure it again [0]? (or X? APT? libc6?)
Yes, I would. Core packages continue to function when they have been
configured before and are unpacked without deconfiguring.
tl;dr-version: From an APT point of view: Yes, please move this breakage of
non-essential tools away from a pseudo-essential package for the sake of
partial upgrades (and in the long run maybe also non-partial, who knows).
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 03:55, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Once I tried with a
On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 08:55:56PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 06:08:26PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> > There is libapt-pkg-perl and when you have packages depending on that
> > upgrading apt separately from perl is not possible.
>
> That means telling users to just
Hi Niko,
On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 02:51:51PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 02:07:36AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > But before we start waffling on the implementation, I would like to have a
> > reproducible test case - for one thing, I'd like to see if wheezy's apt does
> >
On 3 September 2011 13:51, Niko Tyni wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 02:07:36AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> retitle 639290 upgrade from squeeze to wheezy fails on i386 (pre-depends
>> loop)
>> thanks
>
>
>> But before we start waffling on the implementation, I would like to have a
>> reprodu
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 02:07:36AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> retitle 639290 upgrade from squeeze to wheezy fails on i386 (pre-depends loop)
> thanks
> Yes, this is a bug in apt, *not* a bug in the dependencies; perl is not
> Essential and never has been, and apt should be able to handle Break
10 matches
Mail list logo
