Josselin Mouette <j...@debian.org> writes:
> Le dimanche 04 juillet 2010 à 16:04 +0200, Magnus Holmgren a écrit :
>> > Yes. A possible solution would be to introduce a new type of dependency.
>> > Iâm not sure the number of impacted packages justifies the amount of
>> > work.
>>
>> Just introduce the new, looser type of dependency; all the packages that
>> could
>> use it instead of Depends don't have to be changed at once.
>
> No, but dpkg, APT, britney, dak and many others need to be updated, with
> a delay of one major release.
>
> It looks easier to fix the 47 remaining packages, especially given the
> fix is trivial for most of them.
>
> Cheers,
A looser depends would still be beneficial in that the dependency
resolving algorithm could be faster. It could also avoid temporary
deinstalling or deconfiguring of packages.
MfG
Goswin
PS: If you hurry maybe a looser depends field could be added to
dpkg/apt/adept/aptitude/cupt/... now as alias to the existing stronger
depends for squeeze. And squeeze+1 could then loosen the field. That
would save 2 years waiting.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/877hlbhwnf....@frosties.localdomain
