Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #188110 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-10-20 06:00 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-10-24 19:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 on this page of 23 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2017-10-20 06:00 +0200
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2017-10-20 10:30 +0200
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2017-10-20 19:10 +0200
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2017-10-20 23:30 +0200
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2017-10-23 02:50 +0200
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2017-10-23 12:00 +0200
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Roger Lynn <Roger@rilynn.me.uk> - 2017-10-23 22:30 +0200
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2017-10-24 01:30 +0200
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-10-24 02:20 +0200
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2017-10-24 04:20 +0200
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2017-10-24 03:10 +0200
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2017-10-24 01:20 +0200
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2017-10-24 09:00 +0200
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2017-10-24 19:10 +0200
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2017-10-29 13:00 +0100
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-10-29 13:30 +0100
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2017-10-30 03:50 +0100
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2017-10-30 11:20 +0100
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2017-10-30 16:00 +0100
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2017-10-30 16:10 +0100
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2017-10-30 18:40 +0100
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Roger Lynn <Roger@rilynn.me.uk> - 2017-10-21 18:30 +0200
Re: Can imagemagick really be safely purged or removed? Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2017-10-24 19:10 +0200
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-10-30 18:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uGmcy-8p5-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #188458 |
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 23:13:33 +1300 Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> wrote: > On 30/10/17 15:46, Celejar wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 08:28:46 -0400 > > The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote: > > > >> On 2017-10-29 at 07:49, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > >> > >>> Celejar wrote on 10/24/17 15:09: > >>> > >>>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:52:46 +0200 > >>>> Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I forgot that you showed the dependency on cups-filters in your original mail. > >>>>> On testing cups-filters 1.17.9-1 does not depend on imagemagick, it only > >>>>> recommends it. And I use APT::Install-Recommends "false"; in /etc/apt/apt.conf. > >>>>> Therefore, on this system imagemagick could be removed. > >>>> > >>>> Interesting, thanks. So they changed the dependency from 'depends' to > >>>> 'recommends', but they're still 'recommending' a dummy package. > >>> > >>> Taking another look at package imagemagick-6.q16 (version 8:6.9.7.4+dfsg-16) it > >>> states that it provides imagemagick. Therefore, I don't understand what's going > >>> on on your system and there's nothing wrong with package cups-filters, I think. > >> > >> My guess involves vague memories of there being an issue with versioned > >> Provides: - although I thought that was more "you can't Provides: a > >> specific version", not "a versioned Depends: won't be satisfied by a > >> Provides: from a package with a suitable version number". > > > > I don't understand this stuff well enough to add anything to the > > conversation. All I know is that I still can't remove imagemagick > > despite the fact that imagemagick-6.q16 "Provides:" imagemagick. > > > > Celejar > > > > imagemagick-6.q16 Provides: imagemagick, but not a specific version > > cups-filters Depends: imagemagick (>= 6.4~) > > The real imagemagick package is at 8:6.9.7.4+dfsg-11+deb9u1 (on my > machine anyway), which satisifies the cups-filters dependency. > > The system doesn't know whether the version of imagemagick Provided by > imagemagick-6.q16 is new enough, so you still need the real package. Ah, thank you. I couldn't find the whole Depends: / Provides: rules clearly documented anywhere, but that certainly explains it. So either imagemagick-6.q16 should be more specific about which version of imagemagick it "Provides:", or, if that's not possible (as per Wanderer's suggestion), then cups-filter needs the 'imagemagick' package, and it's not quite a dummy that can be removed. > Richard Celejar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Lynn <Roger@rilynn.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-10-21 18:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uD4OS-39M-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #188110 |
On 20/10/17 05:00, Celejar wrote: > The description of the imagemagick package (8:6.9.7.4+dfsg-11+deb9u1) > on my Stable system includes the statements: > > "This is a dummy package. You can safely purge or remove it." > > But trying to remove it rips out cups, because: > > ~$ aptitude why imagemagick > i cups Depends cups-filters (>= 1.0.24-3~) > i A cups-filters Depends imagemagick (>= 6.4~) > > What gives? imagemagick can only be removed when nothing depends on it. imagemagick-6.q16 has been marked as replacing imagemagick, so most packages which depend on imagemagick will automatically use imagemagick-6.q16. However some packages, including cups-filters, depend on particular versions of imagemagick and the automatic replacement doesn't appear to work in this case. You will only be able to remove imagemagick when cups-filters' dependencies are updated or imagemagick-6.q16 finds a better way of declaring that it provides imagemagick. The :386 packages are irrelevant and only need installing in very specific circumstances. Roger
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-10-24 19:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uEaSe-5Aa-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #188170 |
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 16:34:23 +0100 Roger Lynn <Roger@rilynn.me.uk> wrote: > On 20/10/17 05:00, Celejar wrote: > > The description of the imagemagick package (8:6.9.7.4+dfsg-11+deb9u1) > > on my Stable system includes the statements: > > > > "This is a dummy package. You can safely purge or remove it." > > > > But trying to remove it rips out cups, because: > > > > ~$ aptitude why imagemagick > > i cups Depends cups-filters (>= 1.0.24-3~) > > i A cups-filters Depends imagemagick (>= 6.4~) > > > > What gives? > > imagemagick can only be removed when nothing depends on it. > imagemagick-6.q16 has been marked as replacing imagemagick, so most packages > which depend on imagemagick will automatically use imagemagick-6.q16. > However some packages, including cups-filters, depend on particular versions > of imagemagick and the automatic replacement doesn't appear to work in this > case. > > You will only be able to remove imagemagick when cups-filters' dependencies > are updated or imagemagick-6.q16 finds a better way of declaring that it > provides imagemagick. > > The :386 packages are irrelevant and only need installing in very specific > circumstances. Thanks for the explanation. So this is basically a bug in cups-filter, which is insisting that it depends on a dummy package when it really doesn't? Celejar
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web