From: Sjors G. <mai...@da...> - 2011-06-06 12:31:30
|
Hi Alexander, Op 6 jun 2011, om 13:33 heeft Alexander Hansen het volgende geschreven: > I disagree. We're using "apt-get --download-only", so we're not > requesting that the packages be installed at this juncture. Yes, that's right. I agree that in download-only mode, this warning is quite unfortunate. However: > But my point here is that I was calling "fink update-all". > > The behavior of UseBinaryDist under apt-0.5, as it has been for years, is: > > apt-get downloads as many binaries as it can. > fink builds and installs the rest of the packages. > IMO the fact that not every possible package is downloaded via apt isn't > such a big deal, since fink can generate the desired outcome. > > Under apt-0.7, there's a fatal error. This is a huge change in the > established behavior in "fink update-all" with UseBinaryDist: true. The error is not because you have a binary distribution enabled (at least not /directly/). I've used a binary distribution for a while, and it overlapped with the period I ran apt-new: I added some changes to apt's infofile to change the "packages are unverified" question to a simple warning, as no binary distribution digitally signs its packages yet. As far as I can remember, I had none of these problems back then. I think that without a binary distribution, but with the same package state (gmp and gmp5 both installed), you would probably have got the same error, except then apt-get --download-only wouldn't be run so it would appear later. I'm somewhat hesitant to patch apt to not check auto-removal in download-only mode. Maybe the best solution is to set APT::Get::AutomaticRemove to false and APT::Get::HideAutoRemove to true, it will skip the error. I can't promise, however, that it won't reappear later when apt is actually going to install some packages. It's still a conflict in the package database. Apt and dpkg should normally try to prevent a package situation that conflicts like this, but for some reason this doesn't seem to have happened on your machine. I suggest we keep this one in mind, but don't do anything about it yet; the next time someone gets this error, we know what caused it and will need to check if there really is a conflict and how it arose. Then, we can take appropriate measures, but I don't think they will involve actually preventing this piece of code to run... Sjors |