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

Re: Nexuiz 2.3

Jiri Palecek <jpalecek@web.de> writes:

> 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.

Which is the current state, so no regression here. apt 0.7 now
understands breaks, other tools (britney, dpkg) still need to be fixed.

>> 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?

Confusing britney and apt, making upgrade paths hard.

Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4

Attachment: pgpN4xEDSh5ww.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: