On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 05:20:49AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 16:39:44 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > On 2017-07-06 12:02 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > But it is being used for that purpose in *many* packages.
> > >
> > > As an example, there are ~ 300 Python3 packages that have
> > > "python3 (<< 3.7), python3 (>= 3.5~)" dependencies autogenerated using:
> > >
> > > Depends: ${python3:Depends}
> > >
> > > If this is considered a bug, then what is required is that dh-python adds
> > > ${python3:Breaks}, and then each of these packages has to be changed to:
> > >
> > > Depends: ${python3:Depends}
> > > Breaks: ${python3:Breaks}
> >
> > This will only necessary when (or rather if) some contender for the
> > python3 package comes along that is co-installable with the real python3
> > package and has a legitimate reason to "Provides: python3".
>
> Exactly. We do not tend to use dependencies in a defensive way, and
> in general base many of them on the current state of the archive. And
> we tend to remove those whenever they apply only to oldstable or
> older. Otherwise for example Conflicts/Breaks could become unbounded.
That's a different issue.
We are not discussing whether or not to add a dependency,
we are only discussing whether to use a << Depends or a Breaks.
"Depends: p (>= 1), p (<< 2)" is a common pattern, and with the changed
semantics it is no longer correct in all cases.
As far as I can see we should deprecate using << or <= in Depends,
including a lintian error for any usage.
> Thanks,
> Guillem
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
