Re: Nexuiz 2.3
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Jiri Palecek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Jonas Meurer wrote:
>>> On 21/06/2007 email@example.com wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 01:39:41PM +0100, Reinhard@murphy.debian.org
>>>> > 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
> 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.
The question is, whether these "easier" upgrade paths are still correct. For
example, britney might decide to remove the older binary in favour of newer
data in your setting, which is legal, but, from the perspective of the