On Wed 12 Oct 2022 at 16:42:10 (-0700), Stefan Seefeld wrote: > On Wednesday, 12 October 2022 at 01:10:06 UTC-4, tomas wrote: > > > Try doing "apt-cache policy Y", that might shed light on this. > > This reports > ``` > Y: > Installed: (none) > Candidate: 1.0.3 > Version table: > 1.0.3 500 > 500 <repo> focal/main amd64 Packages > 1.0.1 500 > 500 <repo> focal/main amd64 Packages > ``` > > > > (I'm running on Ubuntu 20.04, using apt-get=2.0.6) > > (Isn't there a Ubuntu mailing list, btw? They might be doing funny stuff > > with their packaging which perhaps change the problem space) > > The repo is actually our own in-house repo (managed via artifactory). > Are there any clear semantic rules spelled out in some document that govern > what should happen ? I'm surprised that if my package "X" has specific and > unambiguous dependencies on an existing package "Y", and that version exists > in the repo, it should be installed. Am I missing something ? > > Is this an `apt-get` bug ? Is there any way to debug this further ? > (For a specific case I can work around the issue by injecting an explicit > `apt-get install` command, but this is of course not a scalable solution for > the general case.)
Can we check your package's control file, by your typing: $ ar --output=/tmp/ -x your-X-package.deb control.tar.xz ; zcat /tmp/control.tar.xz to see what X instructs apt to do. Cheers, David.