On 2016-11-22 00:37:14 +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote: > In the end, you shouldn't have let aptitude remove the packages. It can > happen from time to time on unstable to have temporary inconsistent > state in the apt tree (that's why it's called unstable), for example in > this case it was probably because the new amd64 version was up in the > repo but the i386 was still being built/published.
The problem here is that aptitude said that the packages were no longer used, i.e. there were no dependencies on them. This is very misleading. Still, there are missing Breaks. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
