Agrees. On Wed, 29 Mar, 2023, 2:51 am Piotr H. Dabrowski, <p...@phd.re> wrote:
> Package: aptitude > Version: 0.8.13 > > "aptitude full-upgrade" failed to resolve conflicts properly, proposing > many removals of vital packages. > Meanwhile "aptitude safe-upgrade" proposed an ideal solution immediately. > > This happened while using aptitude in Kubuntu, but I think Debian may have > similar issues when upgrading related KDE packages. > I upgraded Kubuntu 22.04 to 22.10 (which went smoothly), cleaned up any > leftover obsolete packages afterwards (nothing important and related to > this problem). > Then I added (back) kubuntu-backports repository to get the latest version > of KDE for Kubuntu 22.10 (upgrade from KDE 5.25.5 to 5.27.3) and tried to > apply the updates with "aptitude full-upgrade". > > I attach solutions proposed by both "full-upgrade" and "safe-upgrade", and > also aptitude's log on what "safe-upgrade" eventually did. > > It seems that the right solution (immediately proposed by "safe-upgrade") > was to remove obsolete packages, mainly: > - libkf5screen7 > - libkwineffects13 > - libkwinglutils13 > and replace them with their newer releases (as required by other vital KDE > packages): > - libkf5screen8 > - libkwineffects14 > - libkwinglutils14 > > Instead "full-upgrade" tried to keep old versions of the above libraries > while removing vital KDE packages that depended on them (kscreen, > kwin-common, kwin-wayland, kwin-x11, libkscreenlocker5, > libnotificationmanager1, powerdevil, ...). > > To my understanding, "full-upgrade" ought to be a stronger version of > upgrade, that resolves conflicts at least as good as "safe-upgrade" while > allowing to also remove packages in the process. > But it should not *needlessly* propose removal of important packages, when > there is a better solution (not requiring removal of vital packages), which > "safe-upgrade" finds in no time. > > Is there a bug in "full-upgrade" conflict resolution in that case? > Or is such thing supposed to occur for "full-upgrade" ? > > Maybe "full-upgrade" should simply begin with suggesting a solution that > "safe-upgrade" would propose, if it is a sane one? > > > _______________________________________________ > Aptitude-devel mailing list > aptitude-de...@alioth-lists.debian.net > https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel >
