On Mo, 2011-04-18 at 16:24 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > On lun., 2011-04-18 at 16:18 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > Agreed, EDS 2.32 already installs the new libs. But the old libs > > remain > > installed even though they no longer work. > > > > I suppose the user ended up with: > > * libecal1.2-7 (needed by syncevolution in Squeeze) > > * libecal1.2-8 (needed by EDS 2.32 in Testing) > > > > Then libecal1.2-7 fails to talk to EDS 2.32. > > Well, then syncevolution needs to depends on the correct version itself, > imho.
That's the Debian Squeeze SyncEvolution .deb. It correctly depends on libecal1.2-7 because that is what it was compiled against. Yes, there should be a syncevolution compiled in Testing against libecal1.2-8. It's currently only in unstable (different story). But that misses the point: a user who does "aptitude -t testing evolution" on Squeeze with pinning will end up with a broken system even if there was such a package. I think package dependencies (or conflicts, in this case) should prevent that. With a proper "conflict" added to EDS 2.32, aptitude would resolve the conflict by removing the old libs and apps depending on them, or install updated versions of all those apps. In both cases the rather obscure runtime error is avoided. -- Bye, Patrick Ohly -- patrick.o...@gmx.de http://www.estamos.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
