the gs-common problem
- To: 503712@bugs.debian.org
- Cc: "Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <jackyf.devel@gmail.com>, Niko Tyni <ntyni@debian.org>, Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>, debian-release@lists.debian.org, Vincent Danjean <vdanjean@debian.org>, Sylvain Beucler <beuc@beuc.net>, David Cobac <david.cobac@free.fr>, pkg-zope-developers@lists.alioth.debian.org, kobold@debian.org, tille@debian.org
- Subject: the gs-common problem
- From: Thomas Viehmann <tv@beamnet.de>
- Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:52:15 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 4950DEFF.1080203@beamnet.de>
Hi everyone,
you have been involved in #503712
so it's been a while since the last activity here.
contrary to Niko's last mail I propose to live with a circular
dependency and
- make ghostscript depend on gs-common (>> -3.2 to be uploaded)
- make gs-common NOT depend on ghostscript-x
unless there is a compelling reason not to (i.e. massive breakage would
a reason, that gs-common then will have to stay installed for lenny is
not, the circular dependency in itself isn't, but if it causes
problems...). IMO a single excess package is not that bad compared to
requiring attention during an upgrade.
I will check whether this is a problem for the reverse
build-dependencies and dependencies. For the latter, it would be cool if
the maintainers of the affected packages,
Vincent for latex-make
Sylvain and David for page-crunch
the Zope guys and Andreas and Fabio for zope-textindexng3
could weigh in here. I'll look at your packages, but if you already know
whether it works without ghostscript-x or not, it'd be great if you
could give me a shout.
Happy holidays and kind regards
T.
P.S.: When you reply, you might want to drop part of the CC madness. :)
--
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/
Reply to: