Hi Daniel > Just to confirm: you filed this on a lenny machine, but you're talking > about etch's aptitude, right?
The described behaviour is from both etchs and lennys aptitude. There's no general difference in the behaviour, although lennys aptitude seems to be a bit smarter. I always try to upgrade dpkg, apt and aptitude as soon as possible. The order of the commands ideally is: aptitude update aptitude safe-upgrade aptitude install dpkg apt aptitude aptitude safe-upgrade aptitude full-upgrade so that the major work can be done by the new package tools. But on one system were I had the most problems I could not install the new aptitude just after the first 'aptitude safe-upgrade'. I would have lost too many essential packages, like several apt tools (apt-listchanges, apt-listbugs, ...), vim and others. So I was forced to do some 'aptitude install package; aptitude safe-upgrade' cycles with the old aptitude before I could install the new one. Maybe this would have been easier with lennys aptitude as it seems to be smarter in resolving dependencies. But unfortunately it also is slower (the time values of 10 resp. 30 mins for an 'aptitude safe-upgrade' run in my previous mail are from lennys aptitude). The final 'aptitude full-upgrade' (with lennys aptitude) still forced me to unnecessary remove a few packages (the only one I remember now was tea) which were reinstallable without problems after the full-upgrade. So the dependency resolver still has some potential to get perfect :). The upgrade of my laptop where I could install the new aptitude early was smoother. But the job there was much easier as the laptop only has half the number of packages installed (no NFS, no servers, less development stuff). The wish for the new aptitude option of course is for lennys respectively squeezes aptitude (as I'm afraid it will not be allowed to be added in stable). Regards Uwe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
