Re: Bug#610948: unblock: ghostscript/8.71~dfsg2-8
- To: Jonas Smedegaard <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Bug#610948: unblock: ghostscript/8.71~dfsg2-8
- From: Jonathan Nieder <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:20:29 -0600
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20110126202029.GA18025@burratino>
- In-reply-to: <20110126192600.GB18772@jones.dk>
- References: <20110122002237.GC24674@burratino> <20110122100950.GM30701@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr> <20110123161427.GE18772@jones.dk> <20110124102602.GA10780@burratino> <20110124103548.GA11139@burratino> <20110124111635.GI18772@jones.dk> <20110126180826.GH10244@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr> <20110126190607.GA18772@jones.dk> <20110126191321.GA17659@burratino> <20110126192600.GB18772@jones.dk>
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 01:13:21PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> I'd like it. apt's heuristics are kind of goofy, and if I
>> understand correctly then removing Breaks removes a small chance
>> of apt getting confused and deciding to remove ghostscript as part
>> of an upgrade.
> Whoah - if there is the slightest risk of that I agree it is worth
> the effort.
> Any other complaints, before I start compiling?
None from my end. I should mention that I'm not an apt/aptitude
resolver expert; on the contrary, I'm terrified of those algorithms.
So please take my worry with a grain of salt.
> P.S. Beware that you posted only to me! I respond equally to
> respect eventual privacy concerns of yours, but recommend you to
I had only wanted to mention why that change would be a comfort; it
didn't seem like something to spend the release team's time on (since
anyway, they seem to prefer less change, all else being equal).
Cc-ing debian-printing so others can correct me or provide pointers.