Hi,
> On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 10:46:56AM -0500, C Sights <csig...@fastmail.fm> was
heard to say:
> > > > # LC_ALL=C apt-cache policy libgnutls26
> > > > libgnutls26:
> > > > Installed: 2.2.5-1
> > > > Candidate: 2.2.5-1
> > > > Version table:
> > > > 2.4.0-2 0
> > > > 500 http://ftp.fr.debian.org unstable/main Packages
> > > > 2.4.0-1 0
> > > > 1 http://ftp.debian.org ../project/experimental/main
> > > > Packages *** 2.2.5-1 0
> > > > 990 http://ftp.fr.debian.org testing/main Packages
> > > > 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> > >
> > > aptitude considers all "extra" (i.e., non-default) versions to be
> > > equal when scoring dependency solutions. That's probably what's
> > > happening here.
> >
> > Aptitude is also ignoring the priority of the repositories:
> > experimental=1 and unstable=500. This behavior is bug #473296 .
>
> That's actually just restating what I said above.
Didn't mean to tweak you if I did. I was trying to help you merge
bugs. (I
don't know how to do that myself, and if I did I wouldn't trust my judgement
enough to do it myself.)
> Regardless, thanks
> for the reminder: I'm working on the resolver right now and this is a
> problem that can be neatly solved with the changes I'm in the process
> of making...as soon as I can figure out how best to tweak them to
> shoehorn apt preference information into the design. But all the
> necessary machinery now exists, where it didn't when this bug was
> filed; now it's just a matter of transmitting this requests to the
> backend in a reasonably clean and configurable way. Hrm.
>
> (NB: this assumes that what you want is "always show solutions
> containing a lower-preference package after all solutions that don't
> contain lower-preference packages",
I kind of understand what you are saying here, but it seems like an
easier,
more straight-forward way to _say_ it (at least) is "From all packages which
satisfy a dependency, choose the highest priority package". A longer way to
say it is "get all packages names which satisfy a dependency, then order them
by priority (highest to lowest), then by version number (highest to lowest).
Chose the first package in the sorted list."
Maybe thinking in terms of entire solutions instead of individual
packages
makes more sense if you know the code. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding this
bug (and it is not the same as bug #473296).
> but that seems like the only sane
> alternative if we're going to pay attention to these priorities at all)
>
> Daniel
Best wishes,
C.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
