On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:36:02PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:53:40 +0300 Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote: > > > On 2011-10-17 00:40, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > I still have to carefully read the rest of the your reply, but, first, > > > I have to ask a question about this workaround: I am considering using > > > a Pin-Priority of -30000 (which has the advantage of being > > > representable as a 16-bit signed integer, just in case some tool is > > > going to read it using such a small data type...). > > > > > > Do you think it can be sufficiently low? > > > > Yes, it's sufficiently low for most cases, which I think is enough for a > > workaround. > > I am testing this modification. > It does not seem to cause any problems to apt-get or to aptitude, but > please note that cupt still behaves differently. > > # cat /etc/apt/preferences > > Explanation: Pinned by apt-listbugs at Mon Oct 17 20:51:13 +0000 2011 > Explanation: #615671: derivations: ftbfs with gcc-4.5 > Package: derivations > Pin: version * > Pin-Priority: -30000 > [snip] > > However, cupt happily goes on and attempts to install derivations, > until apt-listbugs kicks in and warns the user (again!) that there's a > bug: > > # cupt install derivations > Building the package cache... > Initializing package resolver and worker... > Scheduling requested actions... > Resolving possible unmet dependencies... > > The following 1 packages will be INSTALLED: > > derivations > > The following 5 packages will be REMOVED: > > libcloog-ppl0(a) libgmpxx4ldbl(a) libppl-c4(a) libppl9(a) libpwl5(a) > > Need to get 0B/3953KiB of archives. After unpacking 1205KiB will be freed. > Do you want to continue? [y/N/q/a/?] y > Performing requested actions: > Retrieving bug reports... Done > Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done > serious bugs of derivations (-> 0.52.20100310-1) <unfixed> > #615671 - derivations: ftbfs with gcc-4.5 > Summary: > derivations(1 bug) > Are you sure you want to install/upgrade the above packages? [Y/n/?/...] > > If I recall correctly one conversation I had with you (Eugene) back on > January 2010, this behavior is intentional.
I would agree with this behavior as well, since it parallels the auto vs. manual install decision. It could be argued that it's better achieved by manually removing the pin, though. > Only automatic installations of the low Pin-Priority package (as > recommendations, or dependencies with alternatives, for instance) are > prevented by cupt. The explicit request to install the low Pin-Priority > package will be honored, no matter how low the Pin-Priority is. > > Assuming that this is true and confirmed, is the modification of > apt-listbugs (so that it uses -30000 instead of -40 as Pin-Priority to > prevent the installation of a package) still useful? Yes. The situation that caused me to open this bug is that every time I run “cupt safe-upgrade” I see the libclutter bug, abort the upgrade, and have to manually exclude libclutter-1.0-0 from being upgraded since the pin isn't being honored. Using such a low priority pin means I don't have to remember to add “libclutter-1.0-0-” on to the end of my command to prevent the upgrade. -- James GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <james...@debian.org>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
