On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 10:22:56PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 01:47:15AM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote: > >Package: general > >Version: unavailable; reported 2002-09-22 > >Severity: important > >Tags: sid > > > >I am filing a general bug instead of filing mass bug reports on the 21 > >broken packages on my system. Packages should now depend on coreutils > >instead of fileutils, shellutils, or textutils, > > Actually, packages should *not* normally depend on coreutils, as it is > in base. The only time a depends is required is if you need a particular > version. It's extremely unlikely that anyone would need a versioned > depend on coreutils at this time. :) How silly of me to forget that one need not depend on essential packages, unless such a dependency is versioned. > Most of the versioned dependencies are pretty old--I urge maintainers to > consider whether they really need to try to ease upgrades by depending > on packages from the rex era. (Hint, such upgrades will run into > problems *long* before a fileutils dependency is an issue.) If you're > really worried about that you'll probably want something like "Depends: > fileutils (>> really_old_version) | coreutils" I think this is an excellent solution for those people worried about users skipping more than 4(?) versions. I think the more pressing issue would probably be libc. -- Brian M. Carlson <karlsson@hal-pc.org> <http://decoy.wox.org/~bmc> 0x560553E7 You can write a small letter to Grandma in the filename. -- Forbes Burkowski, CS, University of Washington
Attachment:
pgp8_7xWl1yIo.pgp
Description: PGP signature