Re: A hack to alleviate transitions in Britney; now what?
* Adeodato Simó [Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:25:10 +0100]:
> * Raphael Geissert [Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:32:51 -0600]:
> > > Removing GNOME from testing because something depends on libfrufru1 isn't
> > > a win for testing's usability.
> > It would only last until it is able to migrate without breaking anything. I
> > think this is just a matter of deciding which way is "less broken", i.e.
> > broken because some packages are removed, or broken because you have
> > multiple versions of the same libraries. IMHO the latter approach breaks
> > testing more than the former, because it is a matter of availability vs
> > duplicates (and if something goes wrong: installability).
> If you can’t see how keeping another library around is more useful for
> user than breaking half of their systems, I’d appreciate if you could
> think if over again.
I’m very sorry, Raphael, I didn’t want to be harsh: please accept my
apologies. Removing packages is certainly an option when they are not
fixed, or unmaintained, or candidates for removal from unstable.
But removing maintained and fixed and useful packages to make a
transition does not particularly help our users: new users of testing
won’t be able to install the package, and old users will end up (in the
best case) with the two SONAMEs of the library installed [in the worst
case, they won’t be able to upgrade].
So, in keeping the old library around is what apt & co. is going to
suggest to these users, I would say it’s appropriate to use it as a
temporary solution to alleviate precisely that problem.
Cheers,
--
- Are you sure we're good?
- Always.
-- Rory and Lorelai
Reply to: