On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:05:03AM +0200, Frank Küster <fr...@kuesterei.ch> was heard to say: > Daniel Burrows <dburr...@debian.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 08:11:52PM +0200, Frank Küster <fr...@debian.org> > > was heard to say: > >> I'm not sure whether this is actually a bug in the dependency handling, > >> or rather just a strange way to tell me something. > > > > I think the latter. > > > >> Why does it think those packages are broken, when simply doing what I > >> requested (upgrade everything that can be upgraded) solves the problem? > > > > It means that "after I applied your changes, there were broken > > packages. This fixes them." > > I still don't understand. I didn't make any specific changes, I just > asked to do a full-upgrade. So these upgrade actions should have been > considered anyway, as part of my requested changes, not later as a > solution to something.
Sorry, I totally misread your initial message. First, aptitude shouldn't say "...but it is not installable" when talking about a Conflicts -- it should talk about the version that is installed. That's a bug. Second, I'm not sure why it thinks that those packages are broken. I notice that it tried to upgrade some stuff to "(<NULL>)", which probably means you have a local repository, but that shouldn't be relevant. What does the version of aptitude in experimental do here? Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
