Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 01:13:21PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> I'd like it. apt's heuristics are kind of goofy, and if I >> understand correctly then removing Breaks removes a small chance >> of apt getting confused and deciding to remove ghostscript as part >> of an upgrade. > > Whoah - if there is the slightest risk of that I agree it is worth > the effort. > > Any other complaints, before I start compiling? None from my end. I should mention that I'm not an apt/aptitude resolver expert; on the contrary, I'm terrified of those algorithms. So please take my worry with a grain of salt. > P.S. Beware that you posted only to me! I respond equally to > respect eventual privacy concerns of yours, but recommend you to > repost. I had only wanted to mention why that change would be a comfort; it didn't seem like something to spend the release team's time on (since anyway, they seem to prefer less change, all else being equal). Cc-ing debian-printing so others can correct me or provide pointers. Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-printing-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110126202029.GA18025@burratino
