Reinhard Tartler wrote: > Jiri Palecek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Jonas Meurer wrote: >> >>> On 21/06/2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 01:39:41PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> wrote: >>>> > Both packages have been uploaded at the same time, and I could not >>>> > forsee that it has still not been built and uploaded on sparc on >>>> > time. I think to avoid this situation in the future the correct way >>>> > was to use a versioned "Breaks" field on nexuiz-data: >>>> > >>>> > Breaks: nexuiz (<< 2.3) >> >> Does the testing script look at this? If not, (AFAIK it doesn't), you >> will create an uninstallable package in testing, which is not really >> good. > > Which is the current state, so no regression here. apt 0.7 now > understands breaks, other tools (britney, dpkg) still need to be fixed. > >>> This sounds like it would introduce circular dependencies, which tend to >>> break upgrades. Using a Breaks: header should be the right thing to do. >> >> What are the real problems? > > Confusing britney and apt, making upgrade paths hard.
The question is, whether these "easier" upgrade paths are still correct. For example, britney might decide to remove the older binary in favour of newer data in your setting, which is legal, but, from the perspective of the user, useless. Jiri Palecek -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
