On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 10:05:10PM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 09:27:18AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > > Iustin, > > > > sorry for not coming back to you earlier. > > Not a problem, I was on vacation :) > > > On 08/07/2010 12:36 PM, Iustin Pop wrote: > > >Oh, these are old conflicts from etch (IIRC) from when the python policy > > >was to generate separate packages for each Python version, and I just > > >changed them to Breaks according to the policy 3.9.0. > > > > > >I guess they can be dropped completely, but I wanted to do that only > > >after squeeze. > > > > > >Did I misread the policy regarding when to use conflicts/breaks? > > > > I don't think you should change those old Conflicts to Breaks, > > though. The issue is not transient and there is nothing to upgrade > > to. I have to admit that this new policy requirement was new to me, > > but considering that we had some trouble ensuring proper upgrade > > paths when Breaks were used, Conflicts seem more appropriate to > > leave. > > I see. > > > But FWIW we do not support skipping stable releases. So if you are > > certain that they were not in Lenny (and already conflicted > > against), then you can just drop it. > > Yes, Lenny has the 0.4.0 version of pyxattr, and the conflict is against > << 0.2.1-1.1. Similar for pylibacl. > > In this case, I will prepare a new upload to unstable, which removes the > Replaces and Breaks entirely. I'll ping this thread again once the usual > 10-day have passed and the packages would otherwise be ready for > migration. OK, these should be fine to go in now. Could you please unblock them? thanks, iustin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature