On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 05:53:27PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > Anyway, I disagree with the way 0.73 fixes the bug: it replicates > the functionality provided by mdadm >=2.5-1 into a hack within the > package. Granted, the hack is only used when mdadm >=2.5-1 is not > installed, but still, it's a hack.
> The maintainer failed to give any reasons why his solution is > preferred over a simple conflict against mdadm <<2.5-1, which is > what I proposed even before we started the transition. I do not see > why we should have a hack ensuring that everything works when mdadm > <<2.5-1 is installed, instead of just ensuring that a newer mdadm > should be installed by means of a conflict. Then again, a conflict > could possibly remove the mdadm package altogether, which would be > equally bad. There seems to be no way to tell Debian to conflict > with versions prior to a specific package's specific version, but to > ensure an upgrade as a resolution conflict, not the package's > removal. Yes, that would be a dependency then, not a conflict. The reasons for not making this a dependency are clear. The reasons for wishing to avoid a versioned Conflicts: are also clear to me, being precisely those that you describe above. So making initramfs-tools compatible with older versions of mdadm seems like a good idea to me. Are there specific reasons why you think the proposed solution is technically inadequate? -- 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]
