Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One of the worst things about apt is that it makes it possible to > install and upgrade even when packages' dependencies are broken and > forbid the operations in question.
Right, I've noticed this happens from time to time. However, this way, most upgrades do work, altough the method used by APT to achieve this goal is questionable. The current alternative when APT doesn't know how to upgrade without temporarily breaking dependencies, would be, AFAICT, to let the users disentangle the situation by hand, as happened in the Old Times. APT is what we have now, and I don't know any other method that works as well in general. (Sorry for stating the obvious... I understand you may wish there were an alternative to APT that never breaks dependencies) OTOH, I'm a simple user as far as dpkg, apt and dselect are concerned. As a consequence, I cannot comment on these design issues with hard, technical facts to back my claims. I'm subscribed to this list because I'm interested in seeing what happens to dpkg and dselect, but that's about it. :) > I have had to argue with maintainers in bug reports, when the > maintainer says `obviously the dependencies must be fine because apt > doesn't mind'; some maintainers even seemed unaware that apt (a) calls > dpkg to do all the work and (b) sometimes instructs dpkg to override > dependencies (which I think is quite treacherous of it). I see... > I know this opinion isn't widely held and of course I don't expect to > convince anyone else with mere bluster :-). Thanks for your comments. Regards, -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
