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 <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
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.