Hi, ext Marius Vollmer wrote: > "ext Tommy Persson" <tpe@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> I suspected I did not have enough space to install but I suppose the >> reason for the failure could have been something else. > > There is one stupid bug in the Application manager that I suspect might > be to blame for some of the failures. > > If you have broken packages on your device, that might trick the AM into > believing that an OS update will succeed while in reality it will fail > with missing dependencies, conflicts or similar. > > Here are the details, in case you are interested: > > Unlike apt-get, the AM tries to ignore broken packages so that, for > example, a broken maemomapper installation does not prevent a OS > upgrade. Um, wouldn't a "broken" package database be a good reason to refuse to do on OS upgrade? If things are already broken, wouldn't OS upgrade just break it more...? When preparing the OS update (or any other package operation), > the AM 'simulates' what would happen to the dependencies, and if any > package is broken by the simulation, the OS update is not done. > > The stupid thing is this: in order to ignore packages that are already > broken before the simulation, the AM remembers the number of broken > packages before the simulation, and if there are _more_ packages broken > after the simulation, the operation is rejected. > > Now, it can happen that the simulated operation fixes some of the > previously broken packages, and breaks some others. Thus, the number of > broken packages can be the same or even lower eventho the operation > should be rejected. > > I'll fix that. - Eero _______________________________________________ maemo-users mailing list maemo-users@xxxxxxxxx https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-users
