On Thursday 01 April 2004 01.14, Sebastian Ley wrote:
> Am Mi, den 31.03.2004 schrieb Matt Zimmerman um 20:29:
[removing obsolete Conflicts]
> > It degrades the readability of the dependency relationships, and
> > distracts the maintainer from the important ones.
Agree. Even as a user, not a developer, I happen to look at the dependency
information occasionally - and each element in the dependency information
takes time to read.
> I do not remember offhand, but IIRC we _ensure_ upgrade paths only from
> one version to a subsequent one. So anything beyond this is a bonus for
> the maintainer to decide. I agree that removing cruft from the
> dependencies improves readability and should thus be considered by
> maintainers.
I think Debian should not consiously break upgrades over two major
versions if it is so trivial to leave the support in. Bu I think it's
okay to break upgrades from slink now - the diff from slink to sarge is
so big that it doesn't matter if some additional dependency information
is not present anymore.
cheers
-- vbi
--
Available for key signing in Zürich and Basel, Switzerland
(what's this? Look at http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/intro)
Attachment:
pgp0hb1f71stQ.pgp
Description: signature