Re: Outrageous Maintainer
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 12:38:41AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 06:45:26PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > But you remove the package from testing doesn't mean we won't have
> > users with it installed since it was present there so, IMHO, the
> > Conflict is need.
> The bug is in the other package, packages are not required to work
> around other bugs in other packages, that'd be a gigantic mess of
> workarounds. If dash breaks using my package for whatever reason, I'm
> not going to add a conflict: dash (with non-fixed version or whatever),
> dash needs to fix it.
> Ditto here, and the fix is removing the package.
That's a pretty maintainer-centric view.
For your _users_, it doesn't matter which of the packages was "guilty" -
and a Conflicts is cheap.
See e.g. #218717 and #220983 for examples where the other packages was
technically wrong, but a Conflicts in libc6 was the only possible
I hope you agree that a Conflicts in a non-"guilty" package is better
than email loss for your users?
"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