On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:50:01PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 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 ยง7.5: "If a relationship field has a version number attached,
> only real packages will be considered to see whether the relationship is
> satisfied..."
And that makes "Provides: linux-image-2.6.39" impossible?
> [...]
> > > > 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.
You fail to explain where the Breaks would cause any problem for anyone.
>...
> Ben.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
