On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 22:52 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > I like the idea. I am thinking we could (at excuse time) reject > packages with a breaks/conflicts on priority:optional or "higher" > (unless the package is priority:extra).
Is the optional / extra split actually well enough defined these days that "must not depend on a package with a lower priority" works as a means for blocking migration? If we were to adopt such an approach, it would need some refinement. I don't think that a versioned Breaks on a package older than the version in testing should block migration, for example (it might cause upgrade path issues, but that's another bundle of fun). There will also be cases (such as the recent less / man-db issue) where the migration would work if both packages migrated in the same run; at worst that particular case probably degrades to the breaking package not being able to migrate until the run after the new version of the broken package though. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1368276141.7990.25.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
