Bug#233818: Bug#233867: "Provides: xlib6g" needed in 4.3.0
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Branden Robinson wrote:
[...]
> > The question is: Since the last xlib6g packages are empty packages
> > anyways... do you really need to Conflict: it?
>
> I'd really like to force them off the system.
Could conflicting with xlib6g less-than say 4.3.0 help in getting us to a
workable compromise?
If that's allowable, then hopefully it would force the old versions off
the system but allow those of us who need it to have a fake xlib6g
versioned >=4.3.0 (Hmmm... hopefully none of these legacy apps have a
problematic versioned dependency on xlib6g).
> Would it be so awful to
> rebuild some of these packages that haven't been updated since potato?
In an ideal world, that'd be the solution. But for obscure needs it's
sometimes more trouble than it's worth (not to mention that just
rebuilding the app would be half-doing the job - it it's something big
like a browser then we probably want to fix application-level bugs too).
The real solution is to remove the need for the legacy app (in my case a
javascript-driven webpage that "just works" with an elderly Netscape but
doesn't work with anything else I've tried so far :-( ).
HTH,
Neale.
Reply to: