Re: More conflicts data

[Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>]

On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 15:18:07 +0100, Regis Boudin wrote:
> On Sat, March 24, 2007 04:34, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > All the data is still available at http://www.imalip.info/debian/
> >
> > Could you group them by maintainer/uploader?
> 
> I will do that.

Thanks.

> > > 30% of the conflicts declared in Sid are against packages which are
> > > not referenced in any release since bo. It includes conflicts against
> > >  non-i386 packages, but I don't believe there are many of these.
> >
> > Yeah, those should be few, but to be on the safe side, this would have
> > to be run against all arches.
> 
> To be honest, the "no package" category contains so many different cases,
> it can hardly be sorted in a non-manual way. I will probably do it anyway.

You might want to check those as well against:

  <http://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.txt>

> The main annoying problem I see is if package a was in bo and removed in
> hamm, and package b conflicts with a. Someone could actually have a
> installed and not b, upgrade step by step to lenny, and install b. That
> would break :(.

I'd say this is a general problem in Debian, which includes packages
w/o security support, etc. I think Ubuntu has some package to
help in the upgrade with obsolete/dummy packages.

> The other complicated bit is transitions happening between releases, such
> as the python one. After how many months (years ?) do we consider people
> running testing or unstable who haven't made upgrades should sort the
> problems by manually removing packages ?

Hmm do you mean things that broke in unstable/testing and got fixed
in-between and never got the chance to move to a stable release?

Or for transitions that went into stable (and consequendly to
oldstable) but we don't know if the user upgraded unstable/testing
meanwhile?

For the first I'd say one release, for the second the normal criteria
for oldstable-1 or similar, if people has not updated their
unstable/testing system for so long, I don't think we are expected to
support that. (Or did you mean something else?)

regards,
guillem