Hi all, @jidanni either you goofed up or it is doing two different things. Where I use forbid-version is usually when you know of grave bugs or something which will result in uninstallable or corrupt system. So with apt-listbugs I come to know before installing that there is a grave bug and maybe I need to hold. Now while I'm not holding IRL the version of fonts-pangul, for instance the way I do go about is the following :-
$ apt-show-versions -a fonts-pagul fonts-pagul 1.0-4 install ok installed No stable version fonts-pagul 1.0-4 testing ftp.debian.org fonts-pagul 1.0-5 unstable ftp.debian.org fonts-pagul/unstable upgradeable from 1.0-4 to 1.0-5 Notice that the last line says its upgradable, let's say we know that 1.0-5 is the version which has issues. So here is what I would do :- $sudo aptitude forbid-version fonts-pangul=1.0-5 No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed. 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 8 not upgraded. Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 0 B will be used. Now in this case clearly we could use some feedback and its not there. The version you quoted of iceweasel is actually doing something, it is purging and removing stuff which it should not do. If it is doing that then you bug-report better by saying that aptitude forbid-version is actually removing stuff instead of letting it be. What forbid-version would do is it will not in the listing of update till the time a newer version than 1.0-5 comes along that could be something like 1.0-5+dfsg1 or 1.0-6 or whichever way the maintainer figures out the grave way. You could still install the update you want by doing $sudo aptitude install fonts-pangul=1.0-5 or just running $sudo apt-get upgrade and installing it via apt-get. Although I use only one tool, aptitude but this is going away from the bug-report. Lastly while its true it will get tagged duplicate or/and perhaps merged if you do modify the original bug-report it does become different as you are experiencing not just not having messages but wrong/incorrect behavior, although I'm wondering from where you are getting the xulrunner-13.0 as the debian archive just shows 10.0 and 11.0 $ aptitude search xulrunner p ia32-libs-xulrunner - xulrunner ia32 shared libraries v liferea-xulrunner - p xulrunner-1.9.1 - XUL + XPCOM application runner p xulrunner-1.9.1-dbg - Debugging symbols for the Gecko engine library i xulrunner-10.0 - XUL + XPCOM application runner p xulrunner-10.0-dbg - Debugging symbols for the Gecko engine library p xulrunner-11.0 - XUL + XPCOM application runner p xulrunner-11.0-dbg - Debugging symbols for the Gecko engine library p xulrunner-dev - Development files for the Gecko engine library v xulrunner-firebug - v xulrunner-firecookie - v xulrunner-flashgot - v xulrunner-noscript - Even iceweasel is just 10.0 on sid, maybe you are using a third-party repo. or something ? $ apt-show-versions -a iceweasel iceweasel 10.0.3esr-2 install ok installed iceweasel 3.5.16-11 stable ftp.debian.org iceweasel 10.0.2-1 testing ftp.debian.org iceweasel 10.0.3esr-2 unstable ftp.debian.org iceweasel 11.0-3 experimental ftp.debian.org iceweasel/unstable uptodate 10.0.3esr-2 Looking forward to hearing from you, just a user like you. -- Regards, Shirish Agarwal शिरीष अग्रवाल My quotes in this email licensed under CC 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com 065C 6D79 A68C E7EA 52B3 8D70 950D 53FB 729A 8B17 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
