[Aptitude-devel] Bug#266061: Reason inference for unused removals is confused by ORed/virtual dependencies

[Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]

Control: tags -1 + pending


2004-08-16 16:07 Daniel Burrows:
>Package: aptitude
>Version: 0.2.15.6-1
>Severity: normal
>
>  If I have both aptitude-doc-cs installed automatically and
>remove aptitude, no dependency information is shown for aptitude-doc-cs
>(which gets garbage-collected), presumably because it was being held
>on the system via a virtual dependency.

Upon removal of aptitude (which is forbidden now, but I disabled the
check for testing), this is the explanation given for aptitude-doc-en
(marked for removal, because of "pkg_unused_removed"):

===================
aptitude-doc-en (remove, 0.7.8-1) was installed automatically; it is
being removed because all of the packages which depend upon it are being
removed:

  * aptitude (remove, 0.7.8-1) recommends aptitude-doc-en | aptitude-doc
    (provided by aptitude-doc-cs 0.7.8-1, aptitude-doc-en 0.7.8-1,
    aptitude-doc-es 0.7.8-1, aptitude-doc-fi 0.7.8-1, aptitude-doc-fr
    0.7.8-1, aptitude-doc-it 0.7.8-1, aptitude-doc-ja 0.7.8-1,
    aptitude-doc-ru 0.7.8-1)
===================

However, for aptitude-doc-cs there is/was no information shown.

I changed the implementation so it also takes into account reverse
dependencies of the virtual packages provided by the package under
inspection (which is "aptitude-doc").

So now this also shows identical information, even when it's through a
virtual package:

===================
aptitude-doc-cs (remove, 0.7.8-1) was installed automatically; it is
being removed because all of the packages which depend upon it are being
removed:

  * aptitude (remove, 0.7.8-1) recommends aptitude-doc-en | aptitude-doc
    (provided by aptitude-doc-cs 0.7.8-1, aptitude-doc-en 0.7.8-1,
    aptitude-doc-es 0.7.8-1, aptitude-doc-fi 0.7.8-1, aptitude-doc-fr
    0.7.8-1, aptitude-doc-it 0.7.8-1, aptitude-doc-ja 0.7.8-1,
    aptitude-doc-ru 0.7.8-1)
===================


So marking as +pending.


Cheers.
-- 
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo at gmail.com>