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

Re: Nexuiz 2.3

Jonas Meurer wrote:

> On 21/06/2007 fourmond@debian.org wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 01:39:41PM +0100, Reinhard@murphy.debian.org
>> wrote:
>> > Both packages have been uploaded at the same time, and I could not
>> > forsee that it has still not been built and uploaded on sparc on time.
>> > I think to avoid this situation in the future the correct way was to
>> > use a versioned "Breaks" field on nexuiz-data:
>> > 
>> > Breaks: nexuiz (<< 2.3)

Does the testing script look at this? If not, (AFAIK it doesn't), you will
create an uninstallable package in testing, which is not really good.

>>   I might have completely missed your point, but if you have nexuiz-data
>>   Depends on nexuiz (2.3), then
>> it wouldn't get installed, would it ? Or is there a problem to have
>> nexuiz Depends nexuiz-data (2.3) and nexuiz-data Depends on nexuiz (2.3)
>> ?
> This sounds like it would introduce circular dependencies, which tend to
> break upgrades. Using a Breaks: header should be the right thing to do.

What are the real problems? There are many bugs like "Update had problems
due to circular dependency", but the real problem was not mentioned.
The only problem I see is when the configuration ordering is undefined, but
I think it is not a problem for nexuiz as -data doesn't have any post/pre
inst/rm scripts.

   Jiri Palecek

Reply to: