Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 16:30:19) > On 12/10/2012 10:08 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > There are multiple implementations of JACK, and one of those > > implementations happen to have a "2" in its name.
> In that case (and based on a few other things which I've snipped), the > question becomes why the dist-upgrade is trying to remove libjack0. Looking a bit closer, it might be because...: jackd2 replaces libjack0 (<= 1.9.5~dfsg-13) jackd1 replaces libjack0 (< 1:0.118+svn3796-4) Even if perhaps in the end both replace same packages of the whole pile of _updated_ packages, perhaps in the complex puzzle of finding a least aggressive path to get there the one that replaces most of the _old_ packages as well wins. Might also be a factor that jackd1 recommends jackd1-firewire which depends on libjack-jackd2-0 (>= 1.9.5~dfsg-14) | libjack-0.116 - i.e. vaguely claims to be compatible with jackd2. Ohhh: Most likely cause is that libjack-jackd2-dev provides libjack-dev! Why does it do that - it seems plain wrong to me! > I thought the purpose of dist-upgrade, as opposed to upgrade, was > simply to allow upgrades across scenarios where dependency changes > require installation of different packages rather than simply of new > versions of the same packages. Check the meanings with "aptitude --help". Oh, and if you used apt-get, then don't. Use aptitude! - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
