Control: tag -1 + wontfix
Hi David,
thanks for your insight!
David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > I'd like to have something akin to the "Yes, I am aware this is a very bad
> > idea" prompt and/or an option to proceed when I'm already in preview and I'm
> > pressing "g" again.
>
> I don't know about aptitude internals that much, but it is using libapt and
> this library is not really supporting broken environments
So aptitude likely won't be able to do so either.
> and I doubt we would accept patches to make it support those as it
> would probably complicate codepaths further which are already way to
> complex as it is.
Actually apt-get works by far better than aptitude with working on
non-broken packages while some non-related packages are broken,
probably because aptitude always takes the whole package list into
account (which also makes it slower on startup). But yes, I can't
remember that apt-get would not care about related broken packages...
apt-get seems only to care about all packages on commands like
"apt-get install -f" and friends.
And actually that's what I had in mind that aptitude doesn't support
broken packages by design. It tries to fix them _always_, not only
with a "-f".
> Upgrading systems is already very similar to juggling chainsaws,
I disagree here. I think it's less dangerous. ;-) I'd compare it with
rock-climbing, maybe bouldering.
> So from an APT point of view: Hell no, wontfix, close.
Tagged it wontfix for now. I'll leave the final decision (i.e. the
closing or tag removing) to Daniel.
Regards, Axel
--
,''`. | Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
`- | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
