On 2011-10-17 21:37, Francesco Poli wrote: > I hope I expressed myself clearly enough. > Maybe I should add the above explanation > to /usr/share/doc/apt-listbugs/README.Debian.gz > Do you think that it would help in understanding why apt-listbugs > ignores the "affects" field?
I think it could help. It's some timing issue with the affects and what gets upgraded when In the following example oldpackage=nvidia newpackage=xorg - old versions of oldpackage and newpackage are installed and work well - newpackage gets updated - newpackage works fine unless oldpackage is installed - newpackage breaks oldpackage, bugs are files to newpackage and reassigned to oldpackage with affects newpackage - no upgrade for oldpackage is available, eventually oldpackage is removed from testing - people continue to upgrade newpackage, apt-list-bugs does not see the problem due to affects In the this case its a "complex relationship" that causes the bug and can't be modeled currently: nvidia-graphics-drivers AND xserver-xorg-core (>= 2:1.10.99) AND PCIID(nvidia gpu AND NOT recent gtx 2xx or fermi based gpu) Also adding a Breaks: xserver-xorg-core (>= 2:1.10.99) to nvidia-graphics-drivers does not work because * the driver works well with recent cards * it will just prevent upgrades from buggy configuration without declared conflict to buggy configuration with declared conflict which does not help at all. Doing a "dummy upload" of nvidia-graphics-drivers won't help either as not upgrading to that dummy won't prevent the problem, it's already there. Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
