On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 03:38:53PM +0100, Uwe Storbeck <u...@ibr.ch> was heard to say: > 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.
Hm. The thing that's odd is that "safe-upgrade" in lenny does install new packages, unless you tell it not to. In fact, I've never seen it fail to install new packages when that was possible (without removing packages or installing versions from non-default sources). On the other hand, I've never run a full system upgrade with safe-upgrade. > 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). I have some notions on how to improve the resolver that should speed up safe-upgrade. > 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 :). I wonder if the removals included some packages that you didn't reinstall, which conflicted with the others? Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
