Hi, Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> writes: >> > Please confirm you really meant to use Conflicts (and why). Otherwise >> > please use Replaces+Breaks instead. >> >> After discussing on #767554 with other maintainers, there is really no >> other solution, at least for Jessie. Here is the relevant discussion >> about this on #767554: >> >> From upstream point of view, ZODB3 (aka python-zodb in Debian) used to >> include persistent, BTrees, ZODB and ZEO modules. However, since >> ZODB3 3.11.0a1, upstream has split it up into 4 distinct packages (one >> for each module), bump the version to 4.0 and made ZODB3 a >> "metapackage" depending on all of them. >> >> As of fixing this RC bug for Jessie: Among the four, only persistent >> package is currently available in Debian, so there is no way to get >> rid of ZODB3 (at least for Jessie). Barry: If persistent >= 4.0 Debian >> package is useful on its own to anyone (and thus should not be removed >> From testing), then can I add a Conflict on both packages and upload >> them to fix this bug? >> >> And here is the reply from Barry Warsaw (maintainer of >> python-persistent): >> >> I think a Conflicts is the right way to handle this for now, given >> where we are in the Jessie release cycle. >> >> After releasing Jessie, we plan to update python-zodb and upload split >> up modules (namely python-zeo and python-btrees which are not in the >> archive yet). >> > I don't think that's ok. Can't you remove the conflicting files from > python-zodb, and make it depend on python-persistent? I didn't think about that and that would be the best indeed, especially considering that nothing Build-Depends on python-zodb. Gediminas: what do you think? Cheers, -- Arnaud Fontaine
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature