On Wednesday 01,December,2010 08:01 PM, David Kalnischkies wrote: > 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… I think I would prefer to keep it like this for the time being, for the reasons mentioned by David. It seems to bring more harm than good. What did you mean by "all others have done it implicit already by reassigning it down the tree"? Can the same be done for nautilus-share? -- Kind regards, Loong Jin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature