I disagree. Being strict about the policy is a good thing - it gives you a predictable result.
That said, you could install zsh/release and that does do some switching of candidates to make that work. I don't like that. It also does not work entirely reliably. I just closed two or three of these bugs as Won't Fix or Invalid or something. One exception I'd consider to be a valid thing is to switch candidates of packages from the same source package, but that only helps for a limited number of problems. We are in desperate need of a new solver, and I hope to get https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt-solver-kalel/ working eventually. But even there, by default, we're strict about policy. You'd get an option to relax policy and determine a best solution where there is no strict solution available. But that should require an explicit opt-in. I do not plan to backport that solver to older releases, except as an EDSP (external dependency solver protocol) solver. But solvers like that are remarkably slow. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1788486 Title: apt behaviour with strict dependencies To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/1788486/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
