Re: libjgrapht0.6-java_0.6.0-7_amd64.changes is NEW
Michael Koch wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 05:28:25PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> On Fri Aug 28 16:44, Steffen Moeller wrote:
>>> I had felt that when the user apt-get installs libjgrapht-java, he should be asked about
>>> the version he wants to install. Also, I did not want to disturb packages that depend on
>>> libjgrapht-java today. If I had libjgrapht-java provided by the libjgrapht0.6-java package
>>> and by libjgrapht0.7-java, then an apt-get dist-upgrade would render something previously
>>> working suddenly unusable.
>> Well, I'm definitely of the opinion that the user should _not_ be asked
>> about the version he wants to install and, in fact, the user should
>> generally not being typing `apt-get install libjgrapht-java'.
>>
>> The dependency system should be good enough to handle this without
>> sudden transitions. If it's backwards incompatible surely you should
>> change the package name and things should be depending on the old name.
Yes, I agree.
>> (For those in the debconf/post-debconf discussions, this is precisely
>> why I want to reformulate our version handling policies for Java)
>
> +1
>
libjgrapht0.6 is already a separate package. And if it doesn't provide libjgrapht, some
currently installable package would become uninstallable. Matthew is right in that the
dependencies to libjgrapht-java, rather than to its (now) versioned counterpart, shall be
deprecated. But for now, they have to stay.
I definitely want /usr/share/java/jgrapht.jar to be on the system, since many programs do
depend on such. There can only be one such link at a time, but this is fine, I think.
> The question is about the most evil we could do.
You are certainly not commenting on the package that I had just uploaded.
Steffen
Reply to: