On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:09:56AM -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > severity 410695 important > thanks > > On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:31:33AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > As the recommended upgrade path from sarge->etch is aptitude rather than > > > apt, the main reason I've left this as 'serious' is concern that the cause > > > is common to both apt-get and aptitude and just triggers sooner with > > > apt-get > > > (which seems to be the case if the problem is the dependency loop bug), > > > and > > > that, in the absence of clear understanding of the origin of the bug, > > > there > > > could be a significant number of other upgrade scenarios where apt would > > > fail. > > > > But if this only affects circular dependencies, that seems unlikely. > > > In all cases it seems unlikely to affect aptitude. If it is capable to > > handle dependencies for prerm's in the circular loop case, it is most > > probably capable to do the same in simpler cases like this one. > > I don't know if it's true that aptitude does this, or if some other > difference between apt-get and aptitude means that aptitude tends to be > "luckier".
While I'm not opposed to people having warm happy fuzzy feelings about aptitude, I know of no fundamental reason that it should be immune to this problem. The issue (as far as I understand it) is the way in which dpkg is invoked, which aptitude completely punts to apt. Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
