Am 30.01.2014 17:32, schrieb Martin Pitt: > Michael Biebl [2014-01-30 17:24 +0100]: >> c/ Add Breaks: hal to udev so it is automatically uninstalled on Linux. >> Since hal on Linux is no longer really functional and actually broken by >> that udev change, this might be the right thing to do. >> >> I'm usuallly a bit wary with adding Breaks since they have the tendency >> to confuse apt on dist-upgrades. > I concur. I've been pondering doing the same on Ubuntu as we still get > the odd bug report about it as well (and we entirely removed hal some > time ago). Would a Breaks:/Replaces: help out apt more than a single > Breaks:? Dunno, using Replaces seems a bit odd here. That said, since udev is a rather central package it's highly unlikely that this Breaks would cause udev to be uninstalled. So a rather pragmatic approach could be to simply add the Breaks and see if we have users which report failing dist-upgrades? I've CCed the apt maintainers for their input (the original bug report is [1]). IIRC the general recommendation is to *not* use Breaks to kick out obsolete packages but instead let "apt-get autoremove" cleanup such packages. But in this case not kicking out hal forcefully leads to those scary boot messages (and already quite a few duplicate bug reports). Once this udev version enters stable, we might get even more. So I'm also inclined to add the Breaks. apt gurus, what do you think? Is Breaks the proper thing to do here or is this a misuse of Breaks and you recommend some other approach? Michael [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=705489 -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature