On Thursday 29 October 2015 16:04:31 Gary Dale wrote: [snip] > > Non the less if you have good ideas to help the bright people to improve > > the system believe me we are eager to know them :) [snip] > If a new version of a dependency breaks something, then the dependency > version should be marked in the main package. In this case you seem to > be saying that the main package requires a version < whatever the new > library package is. Surely someone along the line should have recognized > the potential breakage when they "improved" the qt5x11extras5 package > and created a new version of the main package to stop the library from > being updated. Correct! That was what qtbase-abi-x-y-z was meant to do... until we found this corner case :) > Not knowing the details of the packages, I am accepting your explanation > that a single package created all this mayhem with KDE programs. Well, at least some part of it. There might be other bugs around. > This > makes it all the more obvious that the package should not have been let > out without the main packages. Doesn't anyone keep a Debian/testing > machine to look for these problems? I keep my machines in sid to see nothing breaks there, which is the first step. We are really two people (plus some more packagers that from time to time push some fix) behind Qt, so if you want to help us by testing testing (aka testing stretch), you are most welcomed :) Beware that in order to catch this one you would need to do your own britney to migrate packages and test. -- If you realize that you are in a hole... stop digging. Anonimous, thanks to ScottK. Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.