On 22/06/12 17:00, AL13N wrote:
Op vrijdag 22 juni 2012 14:46:17 schreef Sander Lepik:
22.06.2012 13:53, AL13N kirjutas
I do agree with you here, except that i'm trying to prevent this from
happening, because it's not something that can be easily fixed.
1. package A is backported into X
1b. package A-foo is backported into X-foo (subpackage)
2. package B is updated into Y at a later date
3. package update Y has a new dependency A-foo
4. person has X installed; but didn't install X-foo.
5. person updates B into Y
result is that Y pulls in as new dependency A-foo
but X conflicts with A-foo
so the update does not happen, and you get an ugly error.
Yes, that's what happens when you use backports. But this case can be
solved. Person having this problem will install X-foo from backports and
case is probably closed (yes! this is what you have to do if you are using
backports). If not then s/he is still on his/her own as we are dealing with
backports. It's not something you can make bulletproof (and we really
shouldn't waste too much time on it).
which is exactly my point, this is not being "supported" at all...
Perhaps "tested" is a better word :)
Claire
