Re: Bug#34672: Installing xlib6g removed xlib6.
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 07:14:54AM -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> I hereby request adjudication of this dispute. Santiago refuses
> to acknowledge my perfectly valid way of handling a package
> reorganization...a change that was made 2 years ago.
> Santiago, send me no further mail on this issue. It is in the technical
> committee's hands now.
Here's the way I see it (well, one way I see it): there's no technical
dispute between developers here, because both packages are Branden's.
Santiago, while a developer, isn't acting as a developer here, but as
a user. So, ordinarily, this wouldn't be an issue for the Technical
However, since Branden has asked us to take this on, we can.
But, should we?
The underlying technical issue has to do with dpkg's handling of
versioning, and upgrades across multiple releases. And, if we
tackle that issue then we really do have something that most
developers have an interest in (including Santiago).
Personally, I'm going to think about this for a few days, and look
a few things up. If anyone else has any solid opinions on what
we should be doing here, please speak up.
Branden: which point of view would you rather we tackle: Bug 34672
or the underlying smooth upgrade issue?
Santiago: same question.