Tanguy Ortolo <tanguy+deb...@ortolo.eu> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow, 2012-02-09 11:14+0100:
>> Why does it remove it? Or rather in which situations? A simple "upgrade"
>> or "dist-upgrade" should keep back the package rather than remove
>> iceape. Obviously if you force the issue it will remove iceape but that
>> then is your own fault. I don't see how the situation would be different
>> with depends instead of breaks. In both cases it is impossible to
>> install a mismatching set of versions.
>>
>> This might be a bug in the frontent rather than xul-ext-adblock-plus.
>
> No, you are correct by saying that a simple upgrade or safe-upgrade will
> not remove it, but holding back a package for that reason is still a
> problem, and anyway the incompatibility will be problematic for a stable
> Debian release.
Again I don't see how the situation would be different with depends
instead of breaks. In both cases it is impossible to install a
mismatching set of versions.
The problem here is that the packages only work with a certain
combination of versions. Same as every single other versioned
dependency. I don't see a problem for a stable Debian release there.
MfG
Goswin
--
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/87pqdop0kj.fsf@frosties.localnet
