On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 07:05 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 01:09:34AM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 14:29 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 06:30:41PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > >... > > > > This is wrong on so many levels. > > > > 1. There is no way to declare relations to 'all kernel packages'. > > > > > > Why not? > > > > 1. There are many different binary packages for different hardware > > configurations, and we add and remove them quite regularly. > > 2. Although the binary packages provide virtual packages, virtual > > packages aren't versioned. > > That doesn't answer the question "Why" there are no versioned virtual > packages.
Policy §7.5: "If a relationship field has a version number attached, only real packages will be considered to see whether the relationship is satisfied..." [...] > > > After that, a Breaks in all kernel images on the unfixed input-utils > > > would be required. > > [...] > > > > Not going to happen. You need to fix this through a stable update. > > Why isn't that going to happen? As you said before, input-utils is a niche package. > That's the one proper solution in this case. > > Especially considering that Backports are now more or less an official > part of Debian, there are many scenarios where a stable update does not > solve the problem. > > And keep in mind that if the fix for input-utils wasn't that trivial, > a stable update would not even be an option. But apparently it was, so it is. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Absolutum obsoletum. (If it works, it's out of date.) - Stafford Beer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
