Re: When does a conflict become outdated?
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:01:00AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:16:02 +0200, Morten Brix Pedersen
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> >Many old packages in Debian, have conflicts for specific version of
> >packages that are pre-potato. Would it then be OK to submit a minor bug
> >and tell the maintainer that the conflict could be removed?
> >For example, the debconf package has Conflicts: menu (<= 2.1.3-1). But
> >even potato has menu 2.1.5-10.1, so the conflict is not of much use
> I tend to keep these conflicts in to cater for the stupidity of our
> users. To give a reason: exim4's maintainer scripts create a user
> account. This account creation fails if the version of passwd is in a
> certain range due to a bug in passwd. The buggy versions are newer
> than woody, but older than testing, so any Debian system running a
> current version of any distribution is fine.
> However, there have been gazillions of bug reports against exim
> because people keep running outdated versions of unstable. We hat to
> add a versioned conflicts just to keep the number of bug reports down,
> while that conflict is technically not necessary any more. And no,
> that conflicts is bound to stay for a while. Won't be removed any time
Conflicts for post-woody versions are definitely required for
Due to stable being completely outdated, many people are in a
backport-hell, or they followed the message from some Debian developers
who told that stable + testing with apt pinning would solve their
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed