Re: Bug#170385: marked as done (libc6 should conflict with wine ( 0.0.20021007-1) and perhaps other packages)
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:54:00PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote: On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:33:19AM +, 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#170385: marked as done (libc6 should conflict with wine ( 0.0.20021007-1) and perhaps other packages)
reopen 170385 thanks On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:54:00PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote: On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:33:19AM +, 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 [...] Which is to say that the changes in glibc broke wine. It doesn't matter whose fault it was, it needs to be fixed so partial upgrades work correctly, and the only way to fix it is to change glibc. 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? On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 07:56:49PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: Simple, we conflict against the popular (i.e. reported) ones. There's no real burden in doing this! Exactly. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.'' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#170385: marked as done (libc6 should conflict with wine ( 0.0.20021007-1) and perhaps other packages)
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: reopen 170385 Bug#170385: libc6 should conflict with wine ( 0.0.20021007-1) and perhaps other packages Bug reopened, originator not changed. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#170385: marked as done (libc6 should conflict with wine ( 0.0.20021007-1) and perhaps other packages)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System) writes: 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. 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. Please let's not have triage mean get rid of RC bugs anyway we can, even it means substituting hand-waving for fixing them. -- James
Re: Bug#170385: marked as done (libc6 should conflict with wine ( 0.0.20021007-1) and perhaps other packages)
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:33:19AM +, 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? Tks, Jeff Bailey
Re: Bug#170385: marked as done (libc6 should conflict with wine ( 0.0.20021007-1) and perhaps other packages)
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:54:00PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote: On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:33:19AM +, 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
Re: Bug#170385: marked as done (libc6 should conflict with wine ( 0.0.20021007-1) and perhaps other packages)
reopen 170385 thanks On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:54:00PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote: On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:33:19AM +, 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 [...] Which is to say that the changes in glibc broke wine. It doesn't matter whose fault it was, it needs to be fixed so partial upgrades work correctly, and the only way to fix it is to change glibc. 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? On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 07:56:49PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: Simple, we conflict against the popular (i.e. reported) ones. There's no real burden in doing this! Exactly. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Processed: Re: Bug#170385: marked as done (libc6 should conflict with wine ( 0.0.20021007-1) and perhaps other packages)
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: reopen 170385 Bug#170385: libc6 should conflict with wine ( 0.0.20021007-1) and perhaps other packages Bug reopened, originator not changed. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
