Notices
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Reply
Thread Tools
Fuzzillogic is offline Fuzzillogic
2012-04-01 , 18:59
Posts: 382 | Thanked: 822 times | Joined on Jan 2012 @ Enschede, The Netherlands
#11
Originally Posted by wolke View Post
to answer this question more directly, --ignore-depends will allow you the dpkg command to succeed whereas normally it would fail. it does not alter package state; it does not record that you would prefer a package not to be installed.
So, in effect it does absolutely nothing? I would be fine with mp-harmattan-00? having an unmet dependency - as long as it doesn't brake anything.

the only alternative to doing this is to create a dummy facebook package that fulfills the dependency without doing anything, and then mark the version as 'fixed' so it wont receive upgrades.
I've been thinking about that as well. But the facebook-package is undoubtedly signed, which makes "updating" it with a non-signed version impossible. That is, I once tried updating an app which I originally obtained from the store, but it failed because of this. I had to uninstall the "store-version" first.

really, my solution is a lot less involved than you might think.
Yeah, guess so. Either way, I'm learning a bit more about package management
 
wolke is offline wolke
2012-04-01 , 19:08
Posts: 844 | Thanked: 1,021 times | Joined on Jul 2010
#12
Originally Posted by Fuzzillogic View Post
So, in effect it does absolutely nothing? I would be fine with mp-harmattan-00? having an unmet dependency - as long as it doesn't brake anything.
nono, it would totally remove the facebook package. 'dpkg -r facebook' would do nothing 'dpkg --ignore-deps -r facebook' would remove facebook, thereby breaking your package dependency chain.

you would not be able to run any apt-get commands until you ran apt-get -f install.
__________________
~ teleshoes ~
 
Reply
Page 2 of 2 1 2

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:35.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top