On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 10:21:36PM +0300, era eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > I perceive #143532 and #237830 to be fundamentally about the same > problem, although I'm not sure you agree. Do you think they could be > merged? Do you think one or both is identical to Ubuntu > <https://launchpad.net/products/aptitude/+bug/56742>? For the time > being, I marked it as upstream #143532, but I'm really not at all sure.
Well, those two bugs don't have anything in common except that they both involve users getting packages removed when they didn't expect it. #237830 looks like it turned out to be an unreproducible non-issue and doesn't involve the unused-package code at all (as far as I was ever able to determine). #143532 is a consequence of the fact that aptitude implements --without-recommends and --with-recommends by just setting the corresponding option to true or false. This has the effect that --with-recommends will lead to the recommended packages being removed in the next run, while --without-recommends will discard packages currently installed by recommendations. On reflection, these are probably not useful things to do. I don't see a sensible way to implement --with-recommends without getting into serious DWIM territory...however, it shouldn't be hard to make --without-recommends only affect new installations, which I think is the only sensible behavior for that option. Daniel
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
