Control: tags -1 + pending
Hi,
2015-11-27 07:21 Harald Dunkel:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
The examine window helps a lot to examine the conflict, of course,
but it can be improved. In your sample session
systemd will be upgraded from version 227-2 to version 228-2.
The following packages depend on version 227-2 of systemd, and will be broken
if it is upgraded.
* libpam-systemd depends on systemd (= 227-2)
aptitude doesn't provide any version information about libpam-systemd,
and whether it is going to be upgraded as well. It would be helpful if
the last line could say either
libpam-systemd ($currentversion) depends on systemd (= 227-2)
or
libpam-systemd ($oldversion,$newversion) depend on systemd (= 227-2)
Changed, it will print from now on:
The following packages depend on cpp-5 and will be broken by its removal:
* cpp (upgraded, 4:5.2.1-6 -> 4:5.2.1-8) depends on cpp-5 (>= 5.2.1-13~)
* gcc-5 (held/unchanged, 5.2.1-26) depends on cpp-5 (= 5.2.1-26)
The version with conflicts are either the one remaining unchanged; or if
the package is changed (upgraded/downgraded, installed...), it's the
target, "new" version.
So marking as +pending.
BTW, I suppose that you tried to do the right thing by removing
+moreinfo, but for aptitude I sometimes use/misuse/abuse tags to mean
something slightly different, and set the packages apart from the big
bunches.
For example, the ones with +moreinfo I use either to genuinely ask for
more info (as it's mostly used by everyone else in Debian), but also to
set them as "needs more info/investigation/thinking" or "should be
considered along with other related bugs that I haven't studied in
depth", and in general as a kind of "the set of bugs that are currently
under consideration" (so they are easier to find, and if browser
sessions go to waste, as sometimes happened, I still can know in which
ones I was looking at among the several hundreds of other bugs).
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
