Many thanks, Andrew, for taking the trouble to provide such a lucid explanation. :) No further comment.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 12:34:59PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > [...] > > install a package called dep3, it is marked as manually installed and > will be left alone by aptitude. > > install meta1, that meta-package is marked as manually > installed so aptitude will not remove it without explicit > instructions. meta1 depends on dep1, dep2, dep3. dep1 and 2 get > installed and aptitude marks them all as automatically > installed. dep3 is already installed, fine. > > now install meta2 which depends on dep2 and dep4. Now dep2 is already > installed, but not dep4 which gets pulled in and also marked as > automatically installed. > > Now you have: > > meta 1 -manual > dep1 -auto > dep2 -auto > dep3 -manual > > meta 2 -manual > dep2 -auto > dep4 -auto > > So later when you remove meta1, aptitude goes > through all its dependencies and checks to see if anything *else* > depends on them too. It looks at dep1 and sees that nothing else is > depending on it and its marked as automatically installed so marks it > for removal. Next it looks at dep2 and sees that meta2 depends on it > and leaves it. Finally it looks at dep3 and sees nothing depending on > it, but it is marked as manually installed and leaves is alone. > > Likewise, another scenario using the same packages as above: I'm done > with dep3, not realising meta1 depends on it, I remove it. This breaks > meta1, so meta1 gets marked for removal as well cascading to dep1 and > dep2 (which stays because meta2 uses it). -- David Jardine "Running Debian GNU/Linux and loving every minute of it." -L. von Sacher-M.(1835-1895) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
