On 2016-05-18 01:26:45 +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > 2016-05-17 3:15 GMT+01:00 Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.net>: > > But note that I use SolutionCost "safety, removals", so that it should > > avoid packages from experimental or remove packages. > > aptitude never did that... and never will.
I don't see why. > It merely suggests those kind of suggestions later than other less > dangerous ones, if it finds those before within a reasonable amount of > time, while exploring the graph of solutions. The solution where nothing is done is always a valid solution, and should be less dangerous than solutions that install packages from experimental or remove packages, as instructed by the SolutionCost. > >> I hope that one of the solutions offered is to "Keep all at the > >> current version"? > > > > No, the next solutions were worse, i.e. more packages would have been > > removed. > > You can surely guide the resolver to a solution that amounts to not > upgrade any package. How? > > Note also that before I reported the bug, there were more packages > > proposed for upgrade, but because any solution wanted to remove > > packages, I had to select the upgradable packages (those with no > > conflicts) one by one to upgrade them. Very annoying! > > aptitude cannot magically resolve problems when the packages/versions > involved are incompatible, so I am not sure why you think that it's a > problem caused by aptitude, but it isn't. There were no incompatibilities in the packages I could upgrade manually. Nothing magic here. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)