On 28/09/08 at 15:06 +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Sunday 28 September 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote: > > Isn't this a bug of our upgrading tools, that should prefer to install > > a new, non-obsolete package A that Provides: B, rather than keeping a > > no-longer-present-in-the-lists B installed? > > Possibly. But as long as those tools don't support that it will have to be > solved in the packages themselves.
I'm wondering how many cases like that are still in lenny. That is: - binary package in etch - that is not in lenny - that is Replaced/Provided by another package On the other hand, lots of libraries are probably in this case. Frans, did you just run into this bug by luck, or did you specifically looked for such cases? > Feel free to clone the bug to apt/aptitude/whatever if you feel that > should be implemented, but I'd think that would be squeeze material, not > lenny. Agreed. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
