Control: tags -1 + jessie-ignore On Sat, 2014-11-08 at 16:24 +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: > Le 2014-11-08 10:53, Adam D. Barratt a écrit : > > Control: reopen -1 > > > > On 2014-11-06 10:21, Gennaro Oliva wrote: > >> Source: slurm-llnl > >> Source-Version: 14.03.9-4 > >> We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version > >> of > >> slurm-llnl, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. > > [...] > >> slurm-llnl (14.03.9-4) unstable; urgency=medium > >> . > >> * Declaring slurm-client conflict with sinfo (Closes: #768112) > > > > No. Please re-read policy (specifically 10.1) - you don't get to > > conflict with other packages just because you both want to use the > > same file path. > > > > I think that Gennaro "fixed" it that way because we were aware of this > issue (which is here since before Lenny, fwiw) and we agreed with > Gaudenz (sinfo's co-maintainer) to find a real solution to implement in > Jessie+1. [...] > So, is it acceptable to keep this workaround for Jessie and work on a > better one for Jessie+1? That way, we hope to find time enough time to work > this in coordination with both upstreams.
I'm not sure "acceptable" is really the right word, and I've argued with myself a bunch over this, particularly given that sinfo+slurm-llnl is basically a closed set for dependency purposes, with a combined popcon of ~100. However, before I change my mind yet again, I'm willing to give this a one-time explicit waiver. This is on the assumption both that slurm-llnl 14.03.9-5 remains releasable for jessie and that this issue really is fixed for stretch in a sane and policy-compliant way, the earlier in the cycle the better. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
