Zefram wrote: >>> There's no indication here that it might remove requested packages. >> Requested? 'dist-upgrade' command takes no additional arguments, see >> synopsis. > > I meant "requested" in the sense that I had earlier (months earlier) > explicitly requested to install the package, because I wanted to > (directly) use the facilities it provides. As opposed to the package > having been installed just to satisfy a dependency. Sounds good, but for improvement. dist-upgrade has not this requirement now.
> I also fail to see how the removal of xlockmore qualifies as an "expense" > of "upgrading the most important packages". It doesn't have any declared > conflicts. Its removal was gratuitous. Then run 'apt-get -o Debug::pkgProblemResolver=1 dist-upgrade' to confirm this. -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF Ukrainian C++ developer, Debian APT contributor
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
