On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 07:25:15AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Friday 04 April 2008, Frans Pop wrote: > > Note that this still only one reason why we need the acks. Preventing > > breakage is the other. > > Actually, the current klibc migration is a very nice example of this, so let > me elaborate.
> I hope this extended example demonstrates sufficiently why I feel that all > migrations of udebs should be acked by the D-I RM. And that it also > demonstrated that the category "could be handled by britney" is a bit more > complex than the name implies. It does demonstrate that proper dependency support for udebs should be added... > If proper britney support was implemented there _are_ some udebs that could > be done completely automatically, but there will always be cases where > automated checks are insufficient. At least until we completely rework the > dependency declarations in udebs (which would also require adding support > for Conflicts). What is the status of this reworked udeb dependency handling? Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]