Hello Gaudenz Steinlin. On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 11:25:55AM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: > Of course a fix in util-linux can't solve problems resulting from other > packages. All packages that call update-initramfs and don't depend on > initramfs-tools need the same Breaks relation to live-tools. I don't > know how many other such packages exist beside util-linux.
Easy to find out thanks to the awesome codesearch: http://codesearch.debian.net/perpackage-results/update-initramfs/2/page_0 (Adding regexps to the query for filtering out only relevant matches is left as an exercise to the reader.) In other words, many.... That is why adding breaks IMHO is not a viable solution at all anywhere. > > I agree that fixing the problem with Breaks is a bit ugly and in theory > adds the fix to the "wrong" package. But I currently don't see any > viable other solution to this problem beside adding all these Breaks > relations. An update to the stable version of live-tools does not seem > practical to me. Do you see another way to fix this? Yes. Please read my previous mail to the bug report. > > > > > This is just one example out of several problems I see with your NMU. > > Which other problem do you see? Well, for one: Your NMU is RC buggy, given that you incorporated the previous NMU with bugs and all. Thanks for taking responsibility for that. ;) Please, again, also read my previous mail to the bug report you're trying to fix and you'll find a similar but IMHO much more valid reason to add a Breaks for another package (which is also that packages bug and not a bug in util-linux). As you probably understand, I'm trying to urge you into looking at the whole picture instead of just a tiny part. That way I'm sure you'll likely come up with much better solutions. Regards, Andreas Henriksson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
