Re: libjgrapht0.6-java_0.6.0-7_amd64.changes is NEW

[Michael Koch <konqueror@gmx.de>]

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 05:28:25PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Fri Aug 28 16:44, Steffen Moeller wrote:
> > I had felt that when the user apt-get installs libjgrapht-java, he should be asked about
> > the version he wants to install. Also, I did not want to disturb packages that depend on
> > libjgrapht-java today. If I had libjgrapht-java provided by the libjgrapht0.6-java package
> > and by libjgrapht0.7-java, then an apt-get dist-upgrade would render something previously
> > working suddenly unusable.
> 
> Well, I'm definitely of the opinion that the user should _not_ be asked
> about the version he wants to install and, in fact, the user should
> generally not being typing `apt-get install libjgrapht-java'.
> 
> The dependency system should be good enough to handle this without
> sudden transitions. If it's backwards incompatible surely you should
> change the package name and things should be depending on the old name.
> 
> (For those in the debconf/post-debconf discussions, this is precisely
> why I want to reformulate our version handling policies for Java)

+1


The question is about the most evil we could do.


Cheers
Michael