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

Re: xqf removed from potato because of 1 bug...

On 05-Feb-00, 13:01 (CST), Adam Klein <aklein@debian.org> wrote: 
> I reported the bug, and I'll tell you why it was release critical.
> xqf depends on qstat to do its work.  Now, the version of qstat in
> potato when I reported the bug was 2.3e, and it had a conflicts line:
> Conflicts: xqf (<< 0.9.2-1)
> Where the current version of xqf was 0.8.99-1.  So, apt-get install xqf
> resulted in an "Uninstallable" message.  I think not being able to
> install the package counts as a release critical bug.

Aaah. Agree. But I'd argue that your bug could have had a better

There really ought to be a way to group uploads into transactions:
either install all these packages, or none of them. Too often we've had
an inconsistent archive because only a subset of two or more strongly
interrelated packages made it past dinstall.

One could also argue that qstat shouldn't have the conflict line -- did
having an old version of xqf installed break qstat? (Not saying it was
right or wrong, just something to consider.)


Steve Greenland <vmole@swbell.net>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)

Reply to: