[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#71049: apt/dselect ignores hold on forced package with missing dependency



Package: apt
Version: 0.3.19

Apt (or possibly dselect) won't respect a hold on a package that 
depends on a non-existent package (and that was installed using 
--force-depends). 


Here's the case I'm encountering:

1.  I install hamm's splay_0.8.2-1.deb using --force-depends (because
    potato doesn't have package qt1g; it is named differently in potato):

        dpkg --install --force-depends ...splay_0.8.2-1.deb


2.  I go into dselect, using the apt method, and dselect lists package 
    splay as expected:

            ...
            Updated Optional packages in section sound 
        *** Opt sound    splay        0.8.2-1     0.8.2-10    Sound player for MPEG-1,2 layer 1,2,3
            ...


3.  I type "=" to hold splay.  Dselect warns that splay depends on qt1g,
    but that qt1g is not available.  That warning is fine.  (I knew that;
    that's why I installed the old splay using --force-depends.)


4.  I set everything else to hold.


5.  I proceed with the Install step, expecting dselect/apt to install
    nothing (since everything is on hold).

    However, the apt method tries to upgrade splay:

        Reading Package Lists... Done
        Building Dependency Tree... Done
        Correcting dependencies... Done
        The following held packages will be changed:
          splay
        1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
        Need to get 0B/55.2kB of archives. After unpacking 197kB will be freed.
        Do you want to continue? [Y/n]


The fact that apt and dselect don't abide by the hold status would seem to 
be a bug.  Is it?  

(Yes, I know I'm not using things the most smoothly, not doing whatever
I should to tell apt to pretend that qt1g is installed or whatever.  
However, it seems that apt should still respect a command to hold a
package.)



Daniel
-- 
Daniel Barclay
dsb@smart.net
(Hmm.  A little worrisome:  http://www.junkbusters.com/cgi-bin/privacy
                            http://www.anonymizer.com/snoop.cgi )



Reply to: