-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Niko tyni wrote earlier: > I wrote earlier: >> In principle we could ignore that assumption from other packages and >> simply drop the gs-common dependencies on ghostscript and >> ghostscript-x, and then file bugreports against packages failing to >> work. But really that is unacceptable this late in the release >> process IMHO. > > There are only three packages in lenny/sid that Depend on gs-common: > latex-make, page-crunch, zope-textindexng3.
I also only see three packages depending. I did not check all architectures, however. And more importantly, I did not check build-depends! Any hint on looking up reverse build-dependencies somehow? >> Adding dependency while preserving conflict does not work: It still >> allows old gs-common to be removed before installing the newer one. > > I think apt/aptitude would not do that if they have the chance to just > upgrade gs-common instead, but basically yes, there are no guarantees > at the dpkg level. That's the issue here AFAICT: We are dealing with a corner case. >> 2) Provide a fixed package in an Etch point release, and (if that is >> not there already since long) add to the upgrade procedures that >> newest point release of stable needs to be installed first. > > While it would certainly be good to fix this is a point release, we > haven't required upgrading through point releases in the past AFAIK, > and I think anyone would have a hard time pushing for that now. I believe we did so for Linux kernels for Sarge (due to 2.4.x -> 2.6.x transition for many archs and problems switching from initrd-tools to either initramfs-tools or yaird). And again in Etch we bumped both initramfs-tool and yaird in etchnhalf - I haven't checked it out, but expect upgrade instructions to include upgrading to etchnhalf before upgrading to Lenny. >> 3) Have aptitude (and, if possible, APT generally) include a hint >> that gs-common should not be auto-removed by default, and add to >> upgrade procedures to install newest aptitude before dist-upgrading. > > Hm, that's a novel idea. No, not really. Already exercised for Linux kernels: Have a look on a Lenny/Sid at /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/01autoremove :-) > I doubt the apt/aptitude maintainers would welcome it, though, and > it's still in the 'less likely to occur' category... How about this approach, then: Consider this a corner case, lower to some non-RC level and leave it hanging...? - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkkQuLoACgkQn7DbMsAkQLjH2gCgm2kpHipw4HrBoePLeYRxe3fY kjwAn3cdkJ6FjhoZyWhtdgQMa2WULoc7 =ViiG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
