On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 23:21:40 +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote:

> On 2013-03-17 22:54, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> >> On 17/03/2013 21:12, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> >>> Is there any reason not to apply Andreas' patch to fix this now?
> >> Yes, see message #49:
> >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=667526#49
> >>
> >> I can still apply it if the release team thinks that it is better than
> >> the current state.
> > 
> > Looks like a no from jcristau:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=62;bug=667526
> 
> I wouldn't take this as a "no", but as "we won't wait forever for
> someone to fix this in wheezy, we can release with some upgrade paths
> being broken".
> 
That would have been wheezy-ignore.  I downgraded it instead because I
don't see a justification for a higher severity.

> Did anyone try the upgrades that fail with my patch applied how they
> behave without the patch, i.e. in the current packages?
> 
> Even if we can't reach a perfect solution (I don't think it is even
> possible at all with the current set of Provides), we should try to
> improve the situation a bit.
> 
Even if some upgrade cases will be fixed by this patch, we don't know
(and won't until it's too late) about the ones that currently work and
will stop working with the patch...

I don't think we should be changing package relationships right now when
they're merely suboptimal, as opposed to causing actual breakage.

Cheers,
Julien

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
Pkg-grass-devel mailing list
Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel

Reply via email to