Re: Is the dependency rule distribution-wise?
Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> > Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > Regarding slink, it is not released yet. Is there a reason why we should
> > > not try to have correct priorities for slink? (You seem to imply that
> > > priorities in slink should not be fixed, I would call *that* a "new
> > > theory", because a lot of priorities have been already fixed since slink
> > > was frozen).
> >
> > Unfortunately there is a reason for not doing this: Don't change too
> > much in frozen. [...]
>
> A priority change is not changing "too much", it does not require to
> compile any package, and it does not make the package to be in another
> section (i.e. another directory), so not even automatic upgrade scripts
> would be confused about it.
I agree with you. (Wow, you should mark this red in your calender). I'm
interested in what Brian thinks about this. If he says go ahead it'll be
fixed soon, if not, it'll be fixed in potato only. I can understand this
although I would like to have slink be fixed as well.
> In either case: do we agree that once we have decided not to recompile the
> packages, this is a bug in the override file for slink, because priorities
> are release-wise?
It is a bug in slink if so, yes. At least I agree, but I also acknowledge
that slink is in deep freeze and that this could be a reason against changing
priorities. For me, it's up to Brian to decide.
Regards,
Joey
--
A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems.
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Reply to: