Steve Langasek wrote: > Since "Breaks field" here means "doesn't complain about the Breaks field", > rather than "honors the Breaks field", these changes look ok. > > As far as *implementing* Breaks, I don't think a new feature of that level > should be introduced during a freeze. Couldn't it be potentially dangerous to have a dpkg in a released version of Debian that silently ignores Breaks? It seems it would both allow for much foot-shooting by anyone who tries to install packages from another source that use Breaks, as well as prevent us from using Breaks in any packages in etch+1, since upgrades won't work. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature