On 07/24/2007 01:50 PM, Florian Kulzer wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:25:21 -0700, Glen Pfeiffer wrote: >> On 07/24/2007 08:40 AM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: >>> >>> aptitude likes to make you panic... >> >> LOL! And it works too. I have seen output several times that has >> made me think hard before continuing. But it's silly the way it >> handles this scenario. It says the packages *are* broken, which >> is not true. > > It is true, if you realize that aptitude always considers (and > talks about) the situation that would occur after all currently > scheduled actions are carried out. Aptitude has to play "what > if ..." in order to detect bad consequences and propose > solutions. You could argue that "are broken" should be replaced > with "will be broken" to make the message more understandable, > though.
I am much less knowledgeable of Debian than most of you, so I hate to disagree, but when *all* currently scheduled actions are carried out, nothing will be broken. That is assuming the upgrade/install succeeds. The packages are only broken during the upgrade/install process. Right? I think this is a very minor issue of how things are presented to the user. And as Mr. Sackville-West said, "Aptitude likes to make you panic", so I am not planning on submitting a change request for this. > On the other hand, you have just demonstrated that the present > wording is very efficient in making the user think twice about > what he/she is doing... ;) I don't disagree with that one bit. Thanks for your response and clarifications. -- Glen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
