Re: xqf removed from potato because of 1 bug...
On Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 01:53:10PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> 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
> title....
Well, 0.8.99 was ancient. 0.9.2 had been out and "stable" since October
12th. So I figured "New upstream version" was a suitable title. Note
that the bug body mentioned that it made the package uninstallable. I
put it there as rational for the Priority: important I gave it.
> 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.)
Well, xqf would break with that qstat. And since qstat was updated and
xqf wasn't, that seems the logical place to put it.
Adam
Reply to: