2016-04-05 15:21 GMT+01:00 Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.net>: > On 2016-04-05 13:42:49 +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: >> So after studying this for a while, this is normal behaviour when using >> "removals", which only pays attention to minimise the number of >> removals, no matter any other considerations like upgrades, downgrades, >> or prefering packages with higher priorities. > > Well, there are two issues: > > 1. The documentation /usr/share/doc/aptitude/html/en/ch02s03s04.html > does not mention downgrades at all. So, since downgrades are not > supported by Debian, the user is right to assume that downgrades > will never be proposed. If aptitude proposes downgrades, then this > MUST be documented. > > 2. There should be a way to avoid downgrades completely.
Not going to happen, as explained in previous messages. > I think that this is not a good excuse. The system should offer a way > to exclude downgrades whatever the context. You think that and I don't think so, that's why is both a wishlist and a wontfix. Cheers. -- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com>
