Re: xqf removed from potato because of 1 bug...
On 05-Feb-00, 13:01 (CST), Adam Klein <firstname.lastname@example.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 <email@example.com>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)