Norbert Preining <email@example.com> (20/12/2009): > So what do you suggest? Adding Breaks instead of Conflicts? The > facts are that we cannot have tex-common >= 2 with old TeX Live, and > at the same time new TeX Live with old tex-common, both are > combinations ripe for breakage. I didn't suggest anything, I barely proposed a way for everyone needing to take a look to reproduce the issue I was having. You know, like a bug reporter is supposed to do: “here's exactly how I encountered the bug, and how you can reproduce it”. > cupt *should* be able to deal with these situations, they for sure > happened already several other times (I didn't verify, but I guess > that one of the big X, Gnome, KDE transitions had similar problems). If I formulated my previous mail properly, I think that this was my conclusion. > > Being the default package manager has little to do here. What > > matters is correctness. (Look at the various situations where > > apt-get — or > > Yes, and the Conflicts we have *are* correct. What is not correct is > cupt as it does not find the solution to upgrade both removing one > temporarily. Again, if I properly wrote what I had in mind, I didn't say you weren't correct with those Conflicts. I challenged your justification. Anyway, we share the same conclusions AFAICT. Mraw, KiBi.
Description: Digital signature