Re: Question about obsolete Conflicts
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 01:43:57AM +0000, Regis Boudin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I might be completely wrong, but...
>
> Playing around with dependencies trees, I noticed there are quite a few
> obsolete Conflicts fields in the archive. Would it be worth starting a
> bit of cleanup after Etch is released ? I think having the archive
> cleaner from this point of view might not be a bad thing.
>
> I mean... There are things like the 98 packages which still conflict
> with a pre-woody suidmanager, or apache with apache-modules which was
> removed from the archive 9 years ago, and I only had a quick look, so
> there are probably many more of these. I found 4410 "Conflicts" fields
> in the Packages file for main (with 19835 packages, that makes 22%), and
> it can only grow and need more useless processing to check dependencies
> if it's never cleaned up.
great, are these results published somewhere? Trivial obsoleted conflicts might
be removed via a wishlist bug.
>
> Shouldn't there be some sort of best practice or recommandation
> somewhere about cleaning this field when it becomes useless ?
indeed, it might make sense to keep conflicts from oldstable, but not before or
in special cases as pointed out by Bart.
>
> Any comment to tell me whether I got it wrong or not is welcome :)
>
> Regis
>
> PS : I'm not (yet ?) subscribed to the list, please CC me.
don't worry, this is a low-traffic ML :)
filippo
--
Filippo Giunchedi - http://esaurito.net
PGP key: 0x6B79D401
random quote follows:
How do you feel about women's rights? I like either side of them.
-- Groucho Marx
Reply to: