On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 11:57:11AM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
> This is a feature rather than a bug. Apt/synaptic are too clever for
> their own good.
>
That is quite true, but they have also extricated me from lots of broken
packages situations when I used to use other apps for ex yum.
Or even when one needs to know visually what extra packs are available
with some pack info, so that one may install it. For yum there's yumex
but I haven't found it to be at par with its predecessor.
> Apt/synaptic is insistent on maintaining the integrity of the rpm
> database and will not allow it to get in a state with broken
> dependencies. This is a good thing. However, one of the strategies for
> fixing things is to remove things that would have broken dependencies
> when something else gets updated. This is of debatable value.
>
Yes, I agree...
> In this case, synaptic has a very specific dependency on release
> 1:0.5.15lorg3.1 of apt. This will no longer be satisfied after updating
> apt to 0.5.15lorg3.2-65.rhfc, so apt removes synaptic so as not to break
> the dependency.
>
> To prevent this from happening, what you need is not another new version
> of apt, it's a new version of synaptic to go with your new version of
> apt. You should almost certainly make sure that you get apt and synaptic
> from the same repository since they appear to be so tightly linked.
>
Actually, I had mailed the maintainers of both the packs but did not
receive any reply, maybe they are working over it or whatever. I did not
want to compile and install synaptic by changing its spec file. I have
stopped this practise now since It's a headache, except for mutt I have
nothing compiled locally.
Since, I didn't receive any reply I first thought of mailing this issue
on fedora-devel and get some feed back, incase someone else is also
facing this problem and would point me the right direction but Ralf
Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> said it was not meant for that list, so
I posted it to this list.
> Paul.
>
The problem's not solved but even then thanks for the reply.
--
vikram...
||||||||
||||||||
^^'''''^^||root||^^^'''''''^^
// \\ ))
//(( \\// \\
// /\\ || \\
|| / )) (( \\
--
oh okay. my mistake.
Yafcot:atj(*),
mark
* Yet another fool coming over this: according to joey
-- mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
~|~
=
Registered Linux User #285795
