On 7 Oct 2023 13:47 +0200, from keller.st...@gmx.de (Steve Keller): > But how can this then be explained? > > # aptitude why lsb-base > i ntpsec Depends lsb-base > # aptitude show ntpsec | grep ^Depends > Depends: adduser, lsb-base, netbase, python3, python3-ntp (= > 1.2.2+dfsg1-1+deb12u1), tzdata, libbsd0 (>= 0.0), libc6 (>= 2.34), libcap2 > (>= 1:2.10), libssl3 (>= 3.0.0) > # aptitude purge lsb-base > The following packages will be REMOVED: > lsb-base{p} > 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not upgraded. > Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 12.3 kB will be freed. > Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?] > > Won't continuing here leave ntpsec with an unresolved package dependency?
I'm not sure if that's it, and I'm pretty sure I've never seen a `{p}` (is that aptitude's way of indicating that a package will be purged rather than just uninstalled; that which apt-get shows as `*`?), but might at least a partial explanation be that lsb-base in Bookworm is an empty transitional package? On a freshly installed and up-to-date Bookworm VM, installing ntpsec doesn't pull in lsb-base (the only additional package pulled in by `apt-get install ntpsec` is python3-ntp), nor is lsb-base installed after installation. -- Michael Kjörling 🔗 https://michael.kjorling.se “Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”