On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:06:25AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > In other words: the problem here is the fact that apt's priorities in > > this regard are messed up. > > The same will happen with custom priorities set. > > > If there exists a dependency solution which will achieve the result > > requested on the command line (here, installing the lower version of the > > depended-on package), that solution should be chosen over any which do > > not achieve that result; if that solution involves removing or > > downgrading packages, it should be presented for confirmation before > > proceeding. > > I don't think that apt should step outside the configured priorities > without instruction from the user. Since apt doesn't currently > interact with the user (but aptitude does), it can only print an > error. That error could be improved with info about alternative > solutions to try that are outside the configured priorities, using the > -t suite and somepkg/suite syntax. > > That said, in this case the solution is within the configured > priorities so apt could do better. I still miss why a (= x.y) dep cannot by solved in these circumstances. -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature