Hi Daniel On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 07:47:34AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote: > severity 697980 wishlist > thanks > > On 01/12/2013 01:27 PM, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > >Please reintroduce the fuse-utils transitional package in unstable > >until the wheezy release happened. > > i disagree. > > this is sid only, there is no need to do anything about it for wheezy.
Yes it's unstable only. > >Else 13 packages with Depends, 5 > >with Recommends on fuse-utils are uninstallable in sid, and 1 has > >Suggests on fuse-utils. > > the only packages with problems in sid are those that declare a > depends on fuse-utils (recommends or suggests are a 'cosmetical' > problem in sid only), limiting this to the following 14 binary > packages on current sid/i386: > > acetoneiso, djmount, fuseext2, fusefat, fuseiso9660, fusesmb, > glusterfs-client, ifuse, ltspfs, mhddfs, mtpfs, obexfs, unionfs-fuse, > wikipediafs, > > these packages had time since may 2011 to adapt. > > should one of these packages need an update in sid *and* need to go > to wheezy too, the simple additional change (s/fuse-utils/fuse/) > that would be in the diff doesn't matter either. > > these are normal sid bugs regardless if we're before or after the > wheezy release, people should consider finaly updating their > packages in sid, even if it's only a s/fuse/fuse-utils/ change, > after 1.5 years. Yes, and in meantime fusesmb (delayed queue) and wikipediafs where already updated. But as far as I can see there where no notifications or bugreports to the depending packages about this. At least a heads up before removing finally the package would surely have been appreciated. E.g. It could have been added to lintian's check for obsoleted packages. Regards, Salvatore -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
