On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 03:59:14PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > Since "Breaks field" here means "doesn't complain about the Breaks field", > > rather than "honors the Breaks field", these changes look ok.
> > As far as *implementing* Breaks, I don't think a new feature of that level > > should be introduced during a freeze. > Couldn't it be potentially dangerous to have a dpkg in a released > version of Debian that silently ignores Breaks? It seems it would both > allow for much foot-shooting by anyone who tries to install packages > from another source that use Breaks, as well as prevent us from using > Breaks in any packages in etch+1, since upgrades won't work. Hmm, good point. The logical consequence of supporting Breaks is that we will start to see packages that use Breaks instead of Conflicts, so silently ignoring the contents of the Breaks field will result in packages being co-installed that should not have been. So indeed, I think we want Breaks support to be all or nothing. Dpkg maintainers, do you agree? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
