On 2009-06-17 15:23 +0200, Daniel Burrows wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 07:47:20AM +0200, Sven Joachim <svenj...@gmx.de> was > heard to say: >> On 2009-06-17 05:59 +0200, Daniel Burrows wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:59:03PM +0200, Sven Joachim <svenj...@gmx.de> >> > was heard to say: >> >> On 2009-06-16 21:44 +0200, Jason Filippou wrote: >> >> > Downgrade the following packages: >> >> > mktemp [1.6-4 (now) -> 1.5-9 (stable)] >> >> > >> >> > Score is 80 >> >> >> >> I wonder why aptitude is suggesting this, downgrading mktemp would not >> >> really help. >> > >> > According to packages.debian.org, mktemp version 1.6-4 doesn't have >> > the problematic dependency, probably because it's a real package and >> > not a transitional package. >> >> Surely, but why does aptitude want to downgrade it to 1.5-9 then? > > Sorry, I wrote that too late at night. :-) > > I meant that version 1.5-9 doesn't have the problematic dependency.
Oh yes, that makes more sense. > He has a scheduled upgrade to version 7.4-2 from 1.6-4. There are > four ways to resolve the resulting dependency mismatch: > > (1) Cancel the upgrade > (2) Remove mktemp > (3) Downgrade to 1.5-9 > (4) Upgrade coreutils > > Option (1) is knocked out because it would result in doing nothing at > all, and option (2) is knocked out because it removes an Essential > package. That leaves (3) and (4), and they both scored equally > according to the heuristic, so they showed up in arbitrary order. Thanks, I understand now. But I think my statement that this would not really help is true anyway, because if you accept option (3) the next full-upgrade will run into the same problem, this time the coreutils upgrade being the only acceptable solution. Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org