On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 05:35:01PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Wow, that's much better than it sounded from your earlier messages. I was > > worried when you mentioned the x11-common conflict issue (a horrible upgrade > > path that I take full blame for), since I don't know what we could do to fix > > that...
> I am afraid the x11-common issue affect us. How is x11-common causing problems? There was no mention of specifics in your posts, and the packages discussed so far all seem to have other explanations? > > I see an RC bug has already been filed on amarok for its circular deps, and > > I know that an NMU is already being prepared to break this circular dep, > > great! Do we have an explanation yet for the other removals? The aspell > > ones in particular seem like a big deal. > It looks like a cross-distribution circular dependencies: > sarge: aspell: Depends: aspell-bin, aspell-en | aspell6-dictionary > sarge: aspell-en: Depends: libaspell15 (>> 0.60) > etch: aspell: Depends: libaspell15 (>= 0.60), libc6 (>= 2.3.6-6), libgcc1 (>= > 1:4.1.0), libncursesw5 (>= 5.4-5), libstdc++6 (>= 4.1.0), libaspell15 (= > 0.60.4-4), dictionaries-common (>> 0.40) > etch: aspell-en Depends: aspell (>= 0.60.3-2) > But I did not go farther than that. Looks like the new libaspell15 conflicts with aspell6-dictionary, which is the virtual package provided by the old aspell-$lang packages, and the new aspell doesn't depend on the new dictionaries, it only has a recommends on aspell-en | aspell-dictionary | aspell6a-dictionary. Do you think this warrants a bug on aspell? Cheers, -- 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]
