[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: KMail and Debian Packages



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> we could add dependencies until the cows come home... ie...
>
> depends on >= version x but not version y and less then version z...
>
> but the question is...what good would it do us now?  The next 
> version of KDE is 3 and the package names are different so putting 
> in hacks (which is all they are) won't do a bit of good.

I know this must be getting annoying for you. But I've still been 
thinking about this. Especially the fact that the KDE bug tracking 
system still blocks ALL KMail bug reports for Debian testing/unstable 
despite the huge fuss I raised about it on the KMail mailing list 
really made me think that there must be some way to do this.

I've been reading the Debian Policy Manual a bit and I think [please 
correct me if I'm wrong] that preventing this from happening would 
have been as easy as adding:

Depends on kdebase >= 2.2.0
Depends on kdelibs >= 2.2.0

Or even:

Conflicts with kdebase < 2.2.0
Conflicts with kdelibs < 2.2.0

This is sure getting tedious for you but I think in order to have 
correct dependencies, you should really add these. As soon as we get 
to KDE 3.1 this could become a problem again.

This thing made KMail developers say stuff like this:

	"I wonder, if Debian also tries to use for example kernel 
	 modules from 2.2.17 on 2.2.20..."

And obviously, since the KMail developers refuse bug reports from 
Debian installations, this issue isn't resolved for them.

- -- 
- -M

- -------  Magnus von Koeller  <magnus@vonkoeller.de> ------
 Georg-Westermann-Allee 76 / 38104 Braunschweig / Germany
      Phone: +49-531-2094886 Mobile: +49-179-4562940

 lp1 on fire (One of the more obfuscated kernel messages)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8GPdKUIvM6e6BgFARAplPAJ0YySOdEYQiCplD4HmwwlZS0CmckACgzqcN
ASBpvteYk03+TtTrWQiNy+E=
=OefL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: