On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 11:27:22PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Mon, Jan 8, 2007 at 13:21:54 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > So what should be done with this bug? Should it be merged with bug #405639? > > Do you think it needs to be treated as RC independently of bug #405639? > > (FWIW, I don't; smooth upgrades from unofficial backports are absolutely not > > RC in my book.) > > > I've not been able to reproduce a case where having > Depends: xserver-xorg-input-all | xserver-xorg-input, > xserver-xorg-video-all | xserver-xorg-video-1.0 > Recommends: xserver-xorg-input-all, xserver-xorg-video-all > makes things worse than they currently are, so I would tend towards > doing that. It fixes the issue with tasksel et al., and should ensure > that aptitude tries as hard as possible to install the -all packages on > upgrade and on initial install. > I'd like to have your and/or David's OK before uploading that, though. > > I agree that breaking upgrades from backports of from pre-release etch > is probably not RC, but I'm not sure other upgrade cases aren't broken > right now (like upgrading from xfree86 to xorg using etch's aptitude, > although I haven't tested that yet).
Looks good to me. Upload away. Hopefully we can get more testing with that configuration before the release is out. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
