Re: Uninstallable packages in woody
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > That's not the issue. The issue is why the hell don't we fix the damn
> > bad dependencies and conflicts once and forever.
> Because people don't stop uploading packages when you've fixed the
> bugs, nor do they stop changing the conflicts or adding new depends or
> rearranging priorities and so on.
So let's put some mechanism in place so that people are *forced* to
collaborate (i.e. much like "packages which are not recompiled for all
architectures will not pass from unstable to testing").
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I complained about it at the beginning of woody, and I was told "oh,
> > that's not a goal for woody". Let's make it a goal for the next
> > release?
> That's not the way these things work. If you want it fixed, first you
> need to make sure you understand the problem, then you need to make sure
> you've worked out exactly what changes need to be made in a way that's
> obviously correct at first glance, and completely justifiable at second
> glance, and then you need to keep this information up to date pretty
> much in perpetuity.
> The first part of this has been done for priorities & conflicts a few
> times, and the second and third parts generally haven't. If you really
> want to see it fixed, that's what *you* will have to do.
Ok, I think this problem may be split in two:
1) Make the current priorities consistent.
2) Put some mechanism in place that ensures that once we have achieved
consistency, it will never break.
Can we agree on this, or am I simplifying too much?
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org