On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 09:52:13AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > Reintroducing the libaspell15 could cause problems with /usr/bin/aspell, > > since it actually goes outside the C API of libaspell and uses C++ > > linkage to some symbols. I "fixed" this bug (#307481) by making > > aspell-bin (or now just aspell) depend on the Source-Version of > > libaspell. > > However, that fix is not in the stable package of aspell. In stable, > > aspell-bin just depends on libaspell15 (>= 0.60), so a partial upgrade > > of just libaspell15 would break aspell-bin. I suppose I could make the > > new libaspell15 conflict with the old aspell-bin, but that's rather > > clumsy and could make upgrades even more awkward. > Why? This is exactly what a versioned conflict is for. That doesn't mean the packaging tools handle the case gracefully (by user standards). Most of the upgrade problems people saw with woody->sarge had to do precisely with these << conflicts that policy counter-recommends. > The packages have to be upgraded as pair and apt/dpkg will hapily do > that. Or, apt will happily *remove* the conflicted-with package instead... But anyway, see my previous message for why the conflict with aspell may be less problematic on upgrades. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature