Re: Outrageous Maintainer
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:35:25PM +0100, Tim Cutts wrote:
> On 1 May 2005, at 8:53 am, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >True. However, it does no harm to add the conflicts, while it does make
> >it easier for your users. When presented with a bug in another package
> >that completely breaks mine (rather than the entire system), usually I
> >do add the conflicts: header.
>
> I think that's a dangerous thing to do. When the bug in the other
> package is fixed, the chances are that you won't know about it, and
> then you'll end up with two packages which conflict with each other for
> no reason.
That's why we have versioned conflicts. Also, when adding a conflicts to
another package that is buggy, it would be _extremely_ bad form to not
track that other package for when the bug is fixed -- or, at least, to
file or reassign a bug to that package.
> In this case, that's fair enough, because they're two variants of the
> same thing,
And, moreover, one of the two is now defunct.
> but I don't think this sort of thing should be done in the general
> case.
It causes no harm, as long as one is careful. And isn't being careful
something you should be doing anyway?
--
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond
Reply to: