[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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: