Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2020-10-26 10:13:41) > Am 2020-10-26 09:56, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: > > You cannot mean to sugges that ghostscript should violate Debian > > Policy by ignoring the integrity of symlinks, so it must be > > something else. Please elaborate what you have in mind. > > *Sigh!* Your signalling that you think I am an idiot does not help here. Please keep such provocations to yourself! > Please reconsider letting unrelated packages migrate to testing by not > applying an upper bound to their version number in your package's > dependencies. Which "unrelated packages" are you referring to? If you mean to imply that fonts-urw-base35 is unrelated to ghostscript, then please elaborate, because I fail to understand both that detail and what it means to your sentence above. > Please expect other package maintainers to behave well and not change > file paths which would break your package but require not much more > than a trivial rebuild. Thanks! I have no ill expectations of package maintainers here. Instead, I am unaware that font packages are required to keep file paths as-is - generally the ABI for fonts is their registered names not their paths. That said, I see now that I am overly cautious (about promises font _packages_ need to keep - again I *do* expect package *maintainers* to behave well, and I dislike your asuming differently of me) and distrust not only file names but also file content. I will have ghostscript tell dh_linktree to relax its checks to only be concerned about paths (not content), which should lead to somewhat relaxed versioning of dependency for future migrations. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature