On Mo, 2011-04-18 at 17:28 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > On lun., 2011-04-18 at 16:45 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > That's the Debian Squeeze SyncEvolution .deb. It correctly depends on > > libecal1.2-7 because that is what it was compiled against. > > Yes, that's unfortunate. See what is done in evolution itself, where it > depends on libs >= 2.30, libs << 2.32. > > > > 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. > > Yes, we had the same kind of issue and we fixed it with the above > depends.
I don't follow. You are suggesting that SyncEvolution in Testing/Unstable should have a depends >= 2.30, <= 2.32, right? How is that going to help a user who has Evolution and SyncEvolution installed on Squeeze and then does a partial update of just Evolution with "aptitude install -t testing evolution"? If I'm not completely mistaken, aptitude will complete leave SyncEvolution alone and installed in the Squeeze version together with the old libecal/ebook, thus leading to a broken system. -- 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
