James McCoy wrote:
> 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.
Interesting! I didn't realize that.
> Yet others parts of our infrastructure still need updates to handle then
> (e.g., britney).
Ah. So I assume that packages using versioned Provides probably
shouldn't get uploaded to the archive until that happens?
- Josh Triplett
