On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:06:25AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > In other words: the problem here is the fact that apt's priorities in
> > this regard are messed up.
> 
> The same will happen with custom priorities set.
> 
> > If there exists a dependency solution which will achieve the result
> > requested on the command line (here, installing the lower version of the
> > depended-on package), that solution should be chosen over any which do
> > not achieve that result; if that solution involves removing or
> > downgrading packages, it should be presented for confirmation before
> > proceeding.
> 
> I don't think that apt should step outside the configured priorities
> without instruction from the user. Since apt doesn't currently
> interact with the user (but aptitude does), it can only print an
> error. That error could be improved with info about alternative
> solutions to try that are outside the configured priorities, using the
> -t suite and somepkg/suite syntax.
> 
> That said, in this case the solution is within the configured
> priorities so apt could do better.
I still miss why a (= x.y) dep cannot by solved in these circumstances.

-- 
WBR, wRAR

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to