Re: Final test build of XFree86 for slink -- PLEASE TEST
On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
[ trimming the Cc: list ]
>  Jason Gunthorpe, apt author, has assured me in no uncertain terms that
> Santiago Vila's proposal to create bogus packages with the names of
> the old font and static library packages is the wrong solution because
> apt cannot be guaranteed to do the right thing.
> Indeed the scenario of:
> package A depends on package B
> package B conflicts with package A
> is pathological.
You are right. This would be indeed somewhat pathological if we do not
modify any of the other X packages at all.
However, we can still do it the "right way" if we do this:
Package A depends on package B.
Package B conflicts with old package A but not with the new one.
[ This would not be the first time we do something like this.
Example: xlib6g conflicts with old(bo) xlib6 but not with the new one ].
I believe apt would do the right thing here, and this would be better than
nothing. Would be possible for you and Jason to consider this (improved)
solution for the final release?
"5872e871d4d25b038e580aef118998ea" (a truly random sig)