On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 20:09:59 -0400 The Wanderer <wande...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 2017-10-23 at 19:24, Celejar wrote: > > > On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 20:23:46 +0100 Roger Lynn <ro...@rilynn.me.uk> > > wrote: > > > >> On 23/10/17 11:00, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > >> > >>> Since I use a pure 64-bit system, I overlooked that only one of > >>> imagemagick-6.q16 or imagemagick-6.q16:i386 can be installed. I > >>> think it's better to re-install imagemagick-6.q16. And then show > >>> the output when trying to purge imagemagick, please. I think > >>> there must be involved a i386 version of some cups package. > >> > >> Celejar answered the question in the first post. It's very simple: > >> imagemagick can not be removed because cups-filters depends on it. > > > > Okay, but why do packages depend on other packages that declare that > > they are dummies and can be safely removed? Is this a bug in the > > dummy package' description, or in the package that has the > > dependency, or just unclear / misleading terminology? > > Generally (though perhaps not universally), the dummy package was not > originally a dummy, but was split out into two or more separate packages > and now exists only to aid the transition to those new packages. > > In other words, it's usually for historical reasons. > > Failures like the one you're looking at crop up when other packages > haven't yet been updated to depend on the new packages instead of the > old one. So should I file a bug against the other packages? Celejar
