Bug#603680: libnautilus-extension1: breaks nautilus-share upgrade from lenny
reassign 603680 nautilus-share 0.7.2-14
thanks
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 00:37, Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> wrote:
> On Montag, 22. November 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> If you conclude that this is something that needs to be documented in the
>> release notes, please reassign it to the release-notes pseudopackage.
>> However, there have been other reports that trying to upgrade apt first
>> before upgrading the rest of the system will result in a poor upgrade
>> experience (due to the partial upgrade itself rather than due to bugs in
>> the squeeze version of apt), so I think it's a bad idea to include this in
>> the recommended upgrade procedure when the only known benefit is that it
>> provides a smoother upgrade when recommends are disabled and one particular
>> artificial set of packages is installed. (I.e., this doesn't appear to
>> have ever been a true system upgrade, only a piuparts test.)
>
> if this only affects "strange setups" like piuparts tests, wouldn't it be
> appropriate to lower the severity? </seriously trying to understand what we
> should do with this bug>
Jepp, and to confuse people even more, i will reassign it again :)
As described above, apt-squeeze doesn't have the "bug" anymore,
so i would close it with 0.8.0~pre1 based on my:
* apt-pkg/algorithms.cc:
- let the problem resolver install packages to fix or-groups
as a needed remove nuked another or-member (helps for #591882)
Yet, this doesn't help with the upgrade problem as such, so i am
reassign this bug (back) to nautilus-share as they can remove the
samba-common (<< 2:3.4.0~pre2-1~0) from their dependency-or-group
samba-common-bin | samba-common (<< 2:3.4.0~pre2-1~0)
to help in this upgrade problem.
I am leaving it to them if they want to as it complicates backports for
lenny (= it requires a samba backport too) and partial upgrades
(= you need to upgrade samba too) and helps only in situations in
which recommends are disabled (and maybe a specific set of packages
which i don't know if its common or not).
So: If you don't want or can't just close it - all others have done it
implicit already by reassigning it down the tree…
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
Reply to: