>>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Garrett <mj...@srcf.ucam.org> writes:
Matthew> I agree with the conclusions drawn here, but feel that it's
Matthew> possibly worth making a stronger general statement that
Matthew> policy should never prevent the implementation of a
Matthew> well-considered simple solution. I would like some further
Matthew> analysis of Sam's proposal, though - I don't think there's
Matthew> any advantage in undoing the existing solution, but if it
Matthew> would work then it's maybe a more straightforward solution
Matthew> for any similar issues in future?
Unfortunately, I think Simon's response to me is definitive.
Ultimately if the old package exists, it will continue to satisfy
dependencies.
That's exactly what we don't want in the time_t transition.
I think we might revisit this when we come to a discussion of how our
tools could provide us more flexibility to make issues like usrmerge and
time_t transition easier in the future.
