Le mercredi 08 mai 2013 à 08:23 +0000, Thorsten Glaser a écrit : > Now imagine the following: > > • foo 1.0-1 uploaded > • bar 1.0-1 uploaded, depends on foo-dev (>= 1.0) > • foo 1.1-1 uploaded > • bar 1.1-1 uploaded, depends on foo-dev (>= 1.1) > • foo 1.1-1really1.0-1 uploaded > > That’s a massive “oops” in both cases.
Indeed, thanks for showing epochs don’t bring anything useful here. > Funnily enough, using the > epoch will, yes, force an update of all r-deps, BUT it’s the only > sane way for the r-deps because otherwise the saga continues: > > • bar 1.1-2 uploaded, depends on foo-dev (>= 1.1), > foo-dev (<< 1.1-1really1.0-1~) | foo-dev (>= 1.1-2~) WTF? Just bar 1.1-2 depends foo-dev (>= 1.1-2~) > • foo 1.1-2 uploaded > • foo 1.1-2really1.1-1 uploaded……… Yeah sure, because in this case the foo maintainer is too stupid to remember his lesson, and does the same mistake *again* 2 days later. How about talking about real cases instead of completely made-up stuff that doesn’t have any relevance? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- 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/1368002093.4717.8.camel@tomoyo
