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. thank you! iustin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature