Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1189267 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-03-06 17:00 +0100 |
| Last post | 2024-03-06 23:40 +0100 |
| Articles | 4 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Bug#1065554: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#1065554: aptitude: the TUI silently breaks a "Recommends" Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org> - 2024-03-06 17:00 +0100
Bug#1065554: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#1065554: aptitude: the TUI silently breaks a "Recommends" Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2024-03-06 17:20 +0100
Bug#1065554: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#1065554: aptitude: the TUI silently breaks a "Recommends" Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org> - 2024-03-06 21:40 +0100
Bug#1065554: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#1065554: aptitude: the TUI silently breaks a "Recommends" Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2024-03-06 23:40 +0100
| From | Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-06 17:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Bug#1065554: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#1065554: aptitude: the TUI silently breaks a "Recommends" |
| Message-ID | <If1Qt-ePCa-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi Vincent, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > The aptitude TUI silently breaks a "Recommends": I've seen also already seen this, but so far it always was for a reason here: * On multiarch hosts, amd64 and i386 weren't in sync and there were Breaks against any version not being the same version. * An initial solution pulls in a package which Breaks the package in question and that pulled in package later (manually or due to other conflicts by manual changes) gets set to "keep uninstalled", but the effect of its Breaks is not reverted. But in your case neither of that seems to be case. So it indeed might be a bug in this case. Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, https://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 `- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-06 17:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <If29Q-ePY7-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1189267 |
On 2024-03-06 16:47:47 +0100, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > The aptitude TUI silently breaks a "Recommends":
>
> I've seen also already seen this, but so far it always was for a
> reason here:
>
> * On multiarch hosts, amd64 and i386 weren't in sync and there were
> Breaks against any version not being the same version.
This is not a multiarch host yet.
> * An initial solution pulls in a package which Breaks the package in
> question and that pulled in package later (manually or due to other
> conflicts by manual changes) gets set to "keep uninstalled", but the
> effect of its Breaks is not reverted.
I cannot see any Breaks of at-spi2-core.
Note that with the command line, I get
The following packages will be upgraded:
gtk-update-icon-cache libgtk-3-bin{b} libgtk-3-common
The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
libgtk-3-0t64
3 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 48 not upgraded.
Need to get 4763 kB of archives. After unpacking 3072 B will be used.
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
libgtk-3-bin : Depends: libgtk-3-0t64 (>= 3.24.41-1.1) but it is not going to be installed
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
Keep the following packages at their current version:
1) libgtk-3-bin [3.24.41-1 (now, testing)]
Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] n
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
Remove the following packages:
1) libatk-bridge2.0-0 [2.50.0-1+b1 (now, testing, unstable)]
2) libatk1.0-0 [2.50.0-1+b1 (now, testing, unstable)]
3) libatspi2.0-0 [2.50.0-1+b1 (now, testing, unstable)]
4) libgtk-3-0 [3.24.41-1 (now, testing, unstable)]
Install the following packages:
5) libatk-bridge2.0-0t64 [2.51.90-2 (unstable)]
6) libatk1.0-0t64 [2.51.90-2 (unstable)]
7) libatspi2.0-0t64 [2.51.90-2 (unstable)]
8) libgtk-3-0t64 [3.24.41-1.1 (unstable)]
Upgrade the following packages:
9) at-spi2-core [2.50.0-1+b1 (now, testing) -> 2.51.90-2 (unstable)]
Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] y
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
libgtk-3-0t64 : Depends: libgtk-3-common (>= 3.24.41-1.1) but it is not going to be installed
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
Upgrade the following packages:
1) libgtk-3-common [3.24.41-1 (now, testing, unstable) -> 3.24.41-1.1 (unstable)]
Leave the following dependencies unresolved:
2) libgtk-3-0t64 recommends libgtk-3-bin
Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] n
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
Keep the following packages at their current version:
1) libgtk-3-0 [3.24.41-1 (now, testing, unstable)]
2) libgtk-3-0t64 [Not Installed]
Upgrade the following packages:
3) libgtk-3-common [3.24.41-1 (now, testing, unstable) -> 3.24.41-1.1~exp1 (experimental)]
Leave the following dependencies unresolved:
4) libgtk-3-0 recommends libgtk-3-bin
5) libgtk-3-0t64 recommends libgtk-3-bin
(Note: an upgrade to experimental is bad. BTW, no experimental
packages are currently installed.)
Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] n
The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
Keep the following packages at their current version:
1) libgtk-3-0 [3.24.41-1 (now, testing, unstable)]
2) libgtk-3-0t64 [Not Installed]
3) libgtk-3-common [3.24.41-1 (now, testing, unstable)]
Leave the following dependencies unresolved:
4) libgtk-3-0 recommends libgtk-3-bin
5) libgtk-3-0t64 recommends libgtk-3-bin
and then this is worse and worse. If I type 'y' for this solution,
I get:
The following NEW packages will be installed:
libatk-bridge2.0-0t64{a} libatk1.0-0t64{a} libatspi2.0-0t64{a}
The following packages will be REMOVED:
at-spi2-core{u} libatk-bridge2.0-0{a} libatk1.0-0{a} libatspi2.0-0{a} libgtk-3-bin{u}
The following packages will be upgraded:
gtk-update-icon-cache
Similarly, at-spi2-core gets removed without any warning on
the Recommends.
> But in your case neither of that seems to be case. So it indeed might
> be a bug in this case.
Do you need the bundle?
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-06 21:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <If6dr-eSkb-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1189269 |
Hi Vincent, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > I've seen also already seen this, but so far it always was for a > > reason here: > > > > * On multiarch hosts, amd64 and i386 weren't in sync and there were > > Breaks against any version not being the same version. > > This is not a multiarch host yet. That was already mentioned in the original bug report's footer, yes. Otherwise I would have asked. :-) > > * An initial solution pulls in a package which Breaks the package in > > question and that pulled in package later (manually or due to other > > conflicts by manual changes) gets set to "keep uninstalled", but the > > effect of its Breaks is not reverted. > > I cannot see any Breaks of at-spi2-core. Yes, I've checked that, too. That's also why I mentioned them: These cases don't apply and hence it's NOT one of the two common cases, where it's more obvious (albeit not necessarily good) that this happens. [I removed the additional details, but they might come in handy later, so thanks!] > > But in your case neither of that seems to be case. So it indeed might > > be a bug in this case. > > Do you need the bundle? Actually that would be interesting, as I have a vague idea how it might have been triggered and would like to experiment a bit if I can find a simpler reproducer. BTW, do I remember right that you have APT::Install-Recommends set "false"? Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, https://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 `- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-06 23:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <If85z-eTrz-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1189297 |
On 2024-03-06 21:36:09 +0100, Axel Beckert wrote: > Hi Vincent, > > Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > Do you need the bundle? > > Actually that would be interesting, as I have a vague idea how it > might have been triggered and would like to experiment a bit if I can > find a simpler reproducer. [link sent in a private reply] > BTW, do I remember right that you have APT::Install-Recommends set > "false"? AFAIK, perhaps except on a very old laptop (due to the lack of disk space), I've always chosen to install recommends, which is the default. I usually have Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost "safety, removals"; but this is not the case on this machine yet. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist
csiph-web