On 2015-02-05 19:21, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > For the case in #774889 I don't think the changes you suggest > are useful at all. The gdm package has been removed from Debian and is > not part of *stable*. If you intentionally keep it around anyway then in > my point of view you are the maintainer of it and you need to make sure > that it does not conflict with an official debian package. Requiring
I do not care about gdm. I do not care about gdm3. I do care about QA. I'm looking for upgrade paths that could get our users into trouble. gdm3/jessie takes over a filename from gdm/squeeze, so it needs to add Conflicts+Replaces. gdm3/wheezy and gdm/squeeze were co-installable (I have no clue whether gdm was still functional), since there was no declared direct or indirect conflict. > that debians official gdm3 package to *for all eternity* carry conflict > avoidance is in my point of view not a realistic and useful requirement. There is no need to carry this conflict for more than one stable release. > The upgrade path from oldstable->stable did work. The solution is to > uninstall packages you no longer want to have installed since they are > not supported after removal from the archive. No, keeping around the old packages is intentional in my tests to see whether they cause trouble later on. > I'd argue that the severity of this bug report should be adjusted to > wishlist, if not simply closed because no real users where harmed by > this. (Can I reassign bugs to removed packages and then close them > based on the package being removed? ;P) > > I'd like to hear your point of view on why this should be considered > a release critical bug. It is an upgrade issue on a straightforward upgrade path. And the fix is trivial. Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
