On Mar 20, 2016 4:31 PM, "Ben Hutchings" <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2016-03-20 at 12:39 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Ian Jackson wrote:
> > >
> > > The Wanderer writes ("Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on
iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr"):
> > > >
> > > > Now, one thing which seems like it _could_ fix this without
requiring a
> > > > MBF would be for firefox and firefox-esr to acquire 'Provides:
> > > > iceweasel'. That seems like a misuse of the system to me, however,
and a
> > > > suboptimal solution at best.
> > > I don't understand what is wrong with this approach.  It seems
> > > perfectly sensible to me.
> > Leaving aside any other reasons: many packages have a versioned
> > dependency on iceweasel, and we don't have versioned provides.
> [...]
>
> Yes we do, since dpkg 1.18.

Yet others parts of our infrastructure still need updates to handle then
(e.g., britney).

Cheers,
James

Reply via email to