On 06/23/2011 10:50 AM, Tim Gardner wrote:


<cjwatson> tgardner: grub-efi should definitely never be first
<cjwatson> and "forces removal due to missing recommends" is nonsense
an unsatisfied recommends should not force removing a package
also, the real packages involved are grub-efi-amd64 and grub-efi-ia32 -
grub-efi is a metapackage
good grief, that apt-get output is incredibly weird
<cjwatson> tgardner: in my book, that's an apt bug and you should give
mvo a task for it - adding non-first grub-efi-amd64 | grub-efi-ia32
Recommends won't hurt though
<tgardner> cjwatson, well, should I reference the meta package, or the
underlying package (since they are somewhat arch dependent, right?)
<cjwatson> underlying
it doesn't matter if you recommend something that's missing
especially when it's one of several alternatives
<tgardner> cjwatson, ok, can do
<cjwatson> referring to the metapackage: consider the case where
somebody has grub-efi-amd64 installed but not grub-efi
<tgardner> makes sense
<cjwatson> I still think it's not really your problem, but fixing apt's
resolver in a stable release probably isn't happenng

rtg



The changes were simple enough that I went ahead and applied this patch
assuming ACKs from Leann and Andy.


rtg
--
Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team