Re: Bug#170385: marked as done (libc6 should conflict with wine (<< 0.0.20021007-1) and perhaps other packages)
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:54:00PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:33:19AM +0000, James Troup wrote:
> > Err, this is ridiculous; glibc broke partial upgrades so glibc needs
> > to fix that (as best it can).
> > There's a precedent for doing this -
> > even in glibc (see it's existing conflict lines) and I have no idea
> > what potential "grief" you're referring to that would be created by the
> > simple fix required for this bug.
> Glibc broke nothing in this case. Wine was written badly and couldn't
> cope with other things changing on the system. I would accept this if
> this were a package with a static binary that broke because of the NSS
> changes. Then it's something that we broke - it's our problem. Wine
> doesn't fall into that category.
> The grief I'm refering to is that we then have to decide - Do we add
> conflicts for deb's that aren't part of Debian like winex, and all that
> various vendor jdks? Where does it stop? Why should we conflict against
> every badly written package?
Simple, we conflict against the popular (i.e. reported) ones. There's
no real burden in doing this!
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer