Re: KDE 3.3.1 for Sarge

[Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>]

Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Steve Langasek [Sun, 21 Nov 2004 02:47:35 -0800]:
> > KDE 3.3 in sarge is contingent on the KDE maintainers being able to provide
> > the same sort of assurances that were asked of the GNOME maintainers
> > regarding the safety of allowing these packages to trickle in (i.e., the
> > correctness of the package relationships), which calls for comprehensive
> > partial upgrade testing.
>   I have mixed feelinks when wrt 'partial upgrade testing' in KDE. we
>   know from experience that KDE upstream really ensures that their
>   monolithic x.y.z works together nicely, but that mixing even minor
>   point releases can break things very badly.

In that case, you should be using the control files to prevent mixed 
installs. If users can install packages in some combination that won't 
work; the Depends/Recommends/Provides/Conflicts fields should be used to 
 tell them of that in advance. That's what they're for.

There's no point having mixed feelings about this: it's something that 
can be fixed technically.

>   so, testing can you give the impression that the mixture works,

It's not testing that gives the impression that it works; it's the 
package dependencies. Testing merely relies on the impression they give. 
If that impression is wrong, then the dependencies are broken, and they 
should be fixed.

You might need to say something like:

	Package: kfoo
	Depends: kdebase (>= 3.3), kde-api-13

	Package: kdebase
	Version: 3.3.1
	Provides: kde-api-13

	Package: kdebase
	Version: 3.3.2
	Provides: kde-api-13

	Package: kdebase
	Version: 3.3.3
	Provides: kde-api-14

if KDE 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 are compatible, but 3.3.3 isn't, for example. 
I've no idea what's actually the case. Probably you'll want to say 
something more complicated, if kdebase and kdelibs and kdepim become 
"incompatible" at different times. That's fine, and it's quite possibly 
not something you can think through in time for sarge. But it's 
something you (KDE) guys need to think through, not just blame on the 
testing scripts and ignore.

Cheers,
aj

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature