Hi, On 17.10.2014 16:54, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> If the fix is not easy then we have three options: the release team >> mark it `jessie-ignore', the GNOME maintainers fix it, or GNOME is >> removed from jessie. > The implication here appears to be troubling for any upstream who wants > to rely on specific features of a given initsystem. The implication of not making sure packages get along with each other may be that system administrators need to decide which of the mutually exclusive desktop systems they can offer their users. > I don't think this makes sense -- we should not be rejecting upstream > packages from debian just because they are designed to take advantage of > features of a given init system. No, but I think we should reject packages that are mutually exclusive with unrelated packages because they require incompatible choices of packages they depend on. Policy is rather strict on "Conflicts" as an absolute last-resort for packages that really cannot be co-installed, and it is reserved mostly for file conflicts between packages with similar functionality. Even the Provides/Conflicts for "mail-transport-agent" was controversial. Allowing packages to depend on mutually conflicting packages introduces conflicts between otherwise unrelated and co-installable packages. This is what we want to avoid. Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature