Re: What about perl-bug #279232?
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:25:06PM +1000, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
> >it could be "fixed" by introducing a versioned pre-dependency of
> >perl-modules on perl-base while letting perl-base conflict with too old
> >perl-modules, which forces apt to update both packages together; this
> >combination may be highly unstable (conflicts+pre-depends is a loop-like
> >construct), but results in the right behaviour.
> Given an alternate option I'd really rather not do this. It seems
> fragile at best, disasterous at worst.
thats what I also said in the comments...
> Given the recent freeze announcement, I'd suggest that regardless of
> what other fixes are made, a good first step would be to get a fixed
> doc-base (i.e. one that works with the current stable perl-base only)
> package into stable-proposed-updates *now*.
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 19:48:00 +0200
Subject: woody-to-sarge test upgrade
From: Bill Allombert <email@example.com>
seems like he's been bitten by this bug in connection with defoma
> If nothing else, this reduces the size of the problem if there's a point
> release prior to sarge.
maybe, maybe not: perl itself is in an unusable state during the update...