On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:20:38AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-10-19 07:35:58 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 02:38:54AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > (which can partially block upgrades due to the broken > > > Recommends). > > > > Don't buy that. How do unavailable Recommends: block upgrades? > > I don't remember exactly, but unsatisfied Recommends as an effect > on the resolver cost in aptitude: > > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/aptitude/ch02s05s05.en.html
Erm, wait. You file a bug claiming it breaks upgrades based on resolver costs (which do not matter for the actusl upgrade), so purely on a theoretical basis? > Moreover, even if the user has the choice, he may prefer not to > upgrade when a Recommends would be broken, because it could make Well, then he doesn't. (Then we would need to stay on oldstable, but..) > software not work properly (here, there was no immediate indication > that the recommended package was missing on purpose). True, the only source is the changelog. But then again people who do dist-upgrades shouldn't blindly do them but look what happens. (And maybe read the changes). (And popcon is sufficiently low in "vote": https://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=libreoffice-base%2Clibreoffice-sdbc-firebird&show_vote=on&want_legend=on&want_ticks=on&from_date=&to_date=&hlght_date=&date_fmt=%25Y-%25m&beenhere=1 so it does not affect very much people, especially because you explictely need to enable Experimental Features in LO to actually be able to use it) Regards. Rene
