On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 08:41:16AM +0200, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Could you send the output that's produced when you type "o" at the > > prompt asking whether you accept the solution? > > Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] o > dpkg-dev recommends bzip2 > -> Installing bzip2 1.0.3-6 (unstable) > > initscripts recommends psmisc > -> Installing initscripts 2.86.ds1-1 (now) > > tetex-extra recommends latex-beamer > -> Installing tetex-extra 2.0.2c-8 (now) > > tetex-bin conflicts with tetex-extra (< 2.96.1) > -> Installing tetex-bin 2.0.2-30sarge4 (now) > > tex-common conflicts with tetex-bin (<= 3.0-4) > -> Removing tex-common > > tetex-base depends upon tex-common (>= 0.12) > -> Installing tetex-base 2.0.2c-8 (now) > > texinfo conflicts with tetex-bin (< 3.0) > -> Installing texinfo 4.7-2.2 (now) > > libxft1 depends upon xfree86-common > -> Removing libxft1 > > xlibs depends upon libxft1 > -> Removing xlibs > > tetex-bin depends upon libwww0 (>= 5.4.0) | libwww-ssl0 (>= 5.4.0) > -> Installing libwww0 5.4.0-11 (unstable) > > Aha. So the problem seems to come from the Recommends for latex-beamer. > But why doesn't it simply install latex-beamer?
That's one interesting question. We can get some more of the answer by passing "-o aptitude::cmdline::resolver-debug=true" and capturing the output (warning, this generates a LOT of text). My guess is that it decided that was less penalized by cancelling part of the upgrade than by trying hard to install beamer. IIRC, Recommends are fairly heavily weighted (because otherwise the resolver will always ignore them in order to avoid touching other packages). Another interesting question is why it wants to remove tetex-extra. The text above seems to say that it's reverting tetex-extra (and the rest of TeTeX) to the current version, not removing it: > tetex-extra recommends latex-beamer > -> Installing tetex-extra 2.0.2c-8 (now) > > tetex-bin conflicts with tetex-extra (< 2.96.1) > -> Installing tetex-bin 2.0.2-30sarge4 (now) Has the dependency situation (and solutions) changed since this bug was filed? Daniel
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
