Your message dated Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:27:25 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Package conflicts
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 23 Nov 2002 12:20:19 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 23 06:20:18 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from emailhub.stusta.mhn.de (mailhub.stusta.mhn.de) [141.84.69.5]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18FZGk-0004LO-00; Sat, 23 Nov 2002 06:20:18 -0600
Received: (qmail 10133 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2002 12:20:16 -0000
Received: from r063144.stusta.swh.mhn.de (10.150.63.144)
by mailhub.stusta.mhn.de with SMTP; 23 Nov 2002 12:20:16 -0000
Received: from bunk by r063144.stusta.swh.mhn.de with local (Exim 3.36 #1
(Debian))
id 18FZGE-0005UO-00; Sat, 23 Nov 2002 13:19:46 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: libc6 should conflict with wine (<< 0.0.20021007-1) and perhaps other
packages
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.9
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 13:19:45 +0100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0
tests=SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.1-5
Severity: grave
libc6 should conflict with wine (<< 0.0.20021007-1) because earlier wine
packages don't work with glibc 2.3 (see #165323). Technically the usage
of __libc_fork was a bug in Wine. Without a conflict in libc6 many people
doing a partial upgrade from Debian 3.0 to Debian 3.1 will have a new
libc6 together with an old version of wine installed which will result in
a non-working Wine. A conflict in libc6 is the only possible solution to
avoid this.
If there are other packages with a similar problem similar conflicts are
needed.
I set the severity to "grave" since from a user's point of view the new
libc6 package breaks wine. If you disagree feel free to lower the severity.
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 170385-done) by bugs.debian.org; 3 Dec 2002 23:27:26 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 03 17:27:26 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from delta.nisa.net [207.194.212.31]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18JMRq-0004yk-00; Tue, 03 Dec 2002 17:27:26 -0600
Received: from delta.nisa.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by delta.nisa.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) with ESMTP id gB3NRPc4009671
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:27:25 -0800
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by delta.nisa.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) id gB3NRPvw009669
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:27:25 -0800
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:27:25 -0800
From: Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Package conflicts
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.6 required=5.0
tests=SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
I would be really worried that if we did this that we'd be forced to
conflict with every package that at some version relied on undefined
behaviour in glibc. Sadly, I don't think there's a solution to this
that wouldn't result in just as much grief being caused.
Closing this bug.
Tks,
Jeff Bailey
