Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:28:43PM -0600, Adam Majer wrote: >> But this screws up usability of Debian as a whole if half of the >> packages cannot be installed because another half is compiled with a >> library that conflicts with former. > > In this case we're talking about a total set of 5 packages. The packages > depending on one flavor or the other would need to be downgraded to > Priority: extra; and it's reasonable for the maintainers of those packages > to object and push for an alternate solution that allows their packages to > remain at Prio: option instead. But none of that is RC.
I'm sure openoffice doesn't want to be declared Extra... >> I really think that policy should be fixed (or must be fixed, to use the >> correct wording :) such that libraries cannot conflict with each other >> unless, >> * same ABI (one provides the other though shlibs files) >> * any application can link with one or the other (licensing issues >> only in this point) > > I disagree that there's anything here that needs fixed, but regardless, you > don't declare a bug "serious" with references to a policy that hasn't been > written yet. I'd have to disagree with your disagreement here. But I guess we can leave it that though. I do agree with the second part. My disagreement is because I believe that one should be able to install any combination of libraries to run a given piece of software. Afterall, we have sonames and even versioned library symbols to allow as much software to run as possible without having a transition with each soname change. But all of this is Etch+1 (forgot the name...) >> Needless to say, libneon should be fixed to not conflict with each >> other. There is no reason to do this. I'm sure you'd agree with me on >> this. > > Yes, I'm only disagreeing with the severity of the bug; I'm not disagreeing > that this is a bug. > No problem. - Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
