On 09/21/2010 01:36 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:58:36 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > >> How about letting cron depend on the new passwd package instead of >> breaking the old? ISTM this would have been the better action for >> #541415 as well. >> > Sounds like that would work.
TBH, I'd much rather follow your previous proposal and let both do the backups in squeeze than add a Depends: on a required package (albeit a specific version). Taking a step back, the only reason this issue is being discussed is because package cron has historically provided a service that today no one could reasonably expect from it. If I were to remove this feature from cron today, without warning or collaboration with shadow, I'd be very interested in the justification of a possible bug report (apart from rudeness :-) Given that nobody wants a Breaks:, that I don't want to depend on package passwd to ensure backups of files not related to cron, and that the situation of a no-one-backups-up, namely cron (>= -115) and (passwd << -2), is something that I can only see possible in theory, I think shipping cron -114 and tolerating the dual-backup-confusion for the time being is acceptable. I'd then create -115 sometime much later, with neither Depends nor Breaks. I'd actually even like to remove the present Breaks: for dpkg then, for the same reasons as stated above. Regards, Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
