On Saturday, September 11, 2010 22:51:23 Ryan Hill wrote: > On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 20:59:25 +1200 Alistair Bush wrote: > > There should be nothing stopping a user from running a mixed arch/~arch > > system. Those problems just point to our dependency information not > > being recorded correctly. It might be understandable that this info > > can be incredibly hard to get correct but that doesn't mean it isn't a > > valid bug. > > It's invalid as soon as you bring system-set packages into the mix, which > falls outside of dependency correctness. > > The trouble is knowing if this applies in the situation you're looking > into.
indeed. for people who disagree, feel free to go through every single stable package in the tree that breaks with glibc-2.12, or linux-headers-2.6.35, or make-3.82, or xxx and add a blocker against the newer versions of these packages. and then do it every time we get a new version. or, let's keep our sanity and continue doing what we've been doing over the years -- stabilize newer versions of packages that do work with the stable & unstable versions of the packages they build against. people who install unstable core system packages way before we're interested in stabilizing and then file bugs that only apply to stable get INVALID->their problem. especially when a simple bugzilla search would have told them that their issue is already fixed in the unstable version of whatever package is failing for them. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
