On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:54:00PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote: > On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:33:19AM +0000, James Troup wrote: > > > Err, this is ridiculous; glibc broke partial upgrades so glibc needs > > to fix that (as best it can). > > > There's a precedent for doing this - > > even in glibc (see it's existing conflict lines) and I have no idea > > what potential "grief" you're referring to that would be created by the > > simple fix required for this bug. > > Glibc broke nothing in this case. Wine was written badly and couldn't > cope with other things changing on the system. I would accept this if > this were a package with a static binary that broke because of the NSS > changes. Then it's something that we broke - it's our problem. Wine > doesn't fall into that category. > > The grief I'm refering to is that we then have to decide - Do we add > conflicts for deb's that aren't part of Debian like winex, and all that > various vendor jdks? Where does it stop? Why should we conflict against > every badly written package?
Simple, we conflict against the popular (i.e. reported) ones. There's no real burden in doing this! -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer