-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: >> In some cases, particularly when the Depends can be satisfied by >> different sets of alternatives, this change could have the effect of >> changing the packages actually pulled in by apt-get or aptitude. I will >> be happy to post a couple such examples -- one hypothetical, one real -- >> if requested. (They are a bit long so I'm not including them in this >> email.) > > I can understand it might change the list of packages pulled, but both set > are supposed to work since that what dependencies are expressing. If you > have additional restrictions, you'll have to express them more explicitely > instead of relying on the internal ordering that apt-get/aptitude uses to > parse the Depends field. Both sets might work, but they might not do what the maintainer *wants*. In the gFortran transition we have come across some cases where this happens, depending on the order specified for depends you either get a specialist (requested) package, or if you don't care which maths lib for example is used by the package then you get a default one. Also it may be that you get a software emulation of something rather than a faster hardware version because you already have a certain library installed. > That said this new behaviour is not particulary new. It's been in unstable > since the 19th november 2007. And we haven't seen major breakage in the > mean time. There *are* breakages and more of them will come to light as the gFortran transition proceeds. > Thus ... > > On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> Please, revert this change. > > No. I don't see any good reason for that: There *is* a good reason, and at least part of the gFortran transition is affected. Since this is a potential release goal for lenny your insistence on keeping this change which was not announced beforehand or debated by the DD community is adversely affecting the release of lenny. So, once again, please revert this change and then maybe we can all debate what is actually needed (assuming any change at all is actually warranted). regards, Colin - -- Colin Tuckley | +44(0)1903 236872 | PGP/GnuPG Key Id Debian Developer | +44(0)7799 143369 | 0x1B3045CE Try to learn from other people's mistakes, you haven't time to make them all yourself! - Anon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHv2jJj2OPlhswRc4RAsojAKDHhUuzy1Do6VtQ/lKlCFA3evxbYgCeMNMx GLdNxDYgBKaHlMGcVCtgCvY= =J7sN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
