Re: KMail and Debian Packages
On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 07:45:23PM +0100, Magnus von Koeller wrote:
> > we could add dependencies until the cows come home... ie...
> >
> > depends on >= version x but not version y and less then version z...
> >
> > but the question is...what good would it do us now? The next
> > version of KDE is 3 and the package names are different so putting
> > in hacks (which is all they are) won't do a bit of good.
>
> I know this must be getting annoying for you. But I've still been
> thinking about this. Especially the fact that the KDE bug tracking
> system still blocks ALL KMail bug reports for Debian testing/unstable
> despite the huge fuss I raised about it on the KMail mailing list
> really made me think that there must be some way to do this.
>
> I've been reading the Debian Policy Manual a bit and I think [please
> correct me if I'm wrong] that preventing this from happening would
> have been as easy as adding:
>
> Depends on kdebase >= 2.2.0
> Depends on kdelibs >= 2.2.0
>
> Or even:
>
> Conflicts with kdebase < 2.2.0
> Conflicts with kdelibs < 2.2.0
>
> This is sure getting tedious for you but I think in order to have
> correct dependencies, you should really add these. As soon as we get
> to KDE 3.1 this could become a problem again.
>
> This thing made KMail developers say stuff like this:
>
> "I wonder, if Debian also tries to use for example kernel
> modules from 2.2.17 on 2.2.20..."
>
> And obviously, since the KMail developers refuse bug reports from
> Debian installations, this issue isn't resolved for them.
tell me how I magically get these into testing? I can't..nothing I can
do about it. sorry.
Ivan
--
----------------
Ivan E. Moore II
rkrusty@tdyc.com
http://snowcrash.tdyc.com
GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD
GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Reply to: