Hello Josselin & Rick, First of all: Thanks for the report! :)
2009/11/24 Josselin Mouette <j...@debian.org>: > Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 15:58 -0500, Rick Thomas a écrit : >> On Nov 23, 2009, at 4:32 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote: >> > Le dimanche 22 novembre 2009 à 17:43 -0500, Rick Thomas a écrit : >> > The correct solution aptitude should choose is to remove swfdec- >> > mozilla, >> > remove libesd-alsa0 and install libesd0. Yeap, that would be correct, but apt/aptitude doesn't know it because they doesn't know that libesd-alsa0 and libesd0 are functional equivalent (in general, on a package-by-package base they could know). Note also, that if you haven't libesd-alsa0 installed the transition is not a problem, also if you explicitly say apt: apt-get install libesd0 k3b (which was the package i have debugged a week before for a friend) The problem simply is that the package libesd-alsa0 has a higher scoring than libesd0 and therefore apt thinks it is a bad idea to remove libesd-alsa0 (you can see this with the debug option for the resolver yourself) in your case -- this should fix itself after a few packages remove the or-group as this will lower the scoring (and depending on non-exisiting packages is ++ungood as you can see now). >> But it clearly believes that libesd-alsa0 and swfdec-mozilla are in- >> use, and should not be removed. They are in use, it is just that the use could be replaced with the use of another package, but apt doesn't test this for ALL packages which depend on libesd-alsa0 as this would be really difficult in the general case - to help apt understand it we need a maker which says: "heh apt, i am a transition package" - as we haven't such a hint system for apt (now) you should fallback to a transitional package in oldlib - as ugly as it sounds - this is the easiest option. > Some explanations for the APT maintainers: > * libesd-alsa0 doesn’t exist anymore. Now esound-common conflicts > with it, so upgrades should force libesd0 in. btw: The package doesn't have a source anymore, but it is installable (if dependencies wouldn't forbid it) as it is still available in the archive - but don't worry, it should disappear automatically which could improve the situation a bit (Not much as the scoring penalty for this is low). And as i try to describe above: As APT don't know that it is a transition it think these are two packages which conflicts - maybe because of a simple file and therefore doesn't provide the same functionality. (And no, Replace doesn't have this transition semantic either) It would therefore need to check if this Conflict stands for a transition by checking every dependency in which both packages are involved - and this for every Conflict which exists in the archive... > * epiphany-browser has a conflict against swfdec-mozilla. APT > should propose to remove it. Same goes for swfdec-mozilla and epiphany-browser. (Note that i haven't both packages installed. Installing swfdec-mozilla and trying to install epiphany-browser suggests me to remove swfdec-mozilla - so again, this is a "This package has a higher scores than its successor."-problem - the package holding it back could be an "old" gnome package btw) Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen, David "DonKult" Kalnischkies -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
