Bug#687694: Close?
On 2013-09-08 01:35, gregor herrmann wrote: On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 23:44:12 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Is this the right syntax for the break clause: Breaks: jakarta-jmeter ( 2.8-1), jenkins-instance-identity ( 1.3-1), jglobus ( 2.0.6-1), libitext-java ( 2.1.7-6), libpdfbox-java ( 1:1.8.2+dfsg-1), voms-api-java ( 2.0.9-1.1) I listed only the package that were confirmed to break and required and modification. I'm not sure about versions, should I use ( X) where X is the first version supporting Bouncy Castle = 1.47, or should I use (= Y) where Y is the last version in testing compatible with Bouncy Castle 1.44? The former, i.e. X; it should break everything less than the first fixed version of those packages, since there are broken (pun intended). Cheers, gregor Actually, (being a bit pedantic) you should use X~, so backports cannot satisfy the relation either. In this given case, I don't think it will make a difference, but I believe it is a good habit to have. ~Niels __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
Bug#687694: Close?
On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 08:31:45 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: The former, i.e. X; it should break everything less than the first fixed version of those packages, since there are broken (pun intended). Actually, (being a bit pedantic) you should use X~, so backports cannot satisfy the relation either. In this given case, I don't think it will make a difference, but I believe it is a good habit to have. Ack, thanks for adding this detail! Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Aimee Mann: Video signature.asc Description: Digital signature __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
Bug#687694: Close?
Is this the right syntax for the break clause: Breaks: jakarta-jmeter ( 2.8-1), jenkins-instance-identity ( 1.3-1), jglobus ( 2.0.6-1), libitext-java ( 2.1.7-6), libpdfbox-java ( 1:1.8.2+dfsg-1), voms-api-java ( 2.0.9-1.1) I listed only the package that were confirmed to break and required and modification. I'm not sure about versions, should I use ( X) where X is the first version supporting Bouncy Castle = 1.47, or should I use (= Y) where Y is the last version in testing compatible with Bouncy Castle 1.44? Emmanuel Bourg __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
Bug#687694: Close?
On Sat, 07 Sep 2013 23:44:12 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Is this the right syntax for the break clause: Breaks: jakarta-jmeter ( 2.8-1), jenkins-instance-identity ( 1.3-1), jglobus ( 2.0.6-1), libitext-java ( 2.1.7-6), libpdfbox-java ( 1:1.8.2+dfsg-1), voms-api-java ( 2.0.9-1.1) I listed only the package that were confirmed to break and required and modification. I'm not sure about versions, should I use ( X) where X is the first version supporting Bouncy Castle = 1.47, or should I use (= Y) where Y is the last version in testing compatible with Bouncy Castle 1.44? The former, i.e. X; it should break everything less than the first fixed version of those packages, since there are broken (pun intended). Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Pink Floyd: Run like hell signature.asc Description: Digital signature __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
Bug#687694: Close?
Isn't it time to close this now? Mattias signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
Bug#687694: Close?
On 2013-09-05 10:03, Mattias Ellert wrote: Isn't it time to close this now? Mattias Does bouncycastle now force packages the affected reverse dependencies to be upgraded with it? If not, it will still break partial upgrades. ~Niels __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
Bug#687694: Close?
Le 05/09/2013 10:19, Niels Thykier a écrit : Does bouncycastle now force packages the affected reverse dependencies to be upgraded with it? If not, it will still break partial upgrades. All of the reverse dependencies that were updated in this transition have the correct versionned dependency on bouncycastle. Is it enough or do we have to declare Breaks for the reverse dependencies affected in bouncycastle? Emmanuel Bourg __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
Bug#687694: Close?
On 2013-09-05 11:01, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 05/09/2013 10:19, Niels Thykier a écrit : Does bouncycastle now force packages the affected reverse dependencies to be upgraded with it? If not, it will still break partial upgrades. All of the reverse dependencies that were updated in this transition have the correct versionned dependency on bouncycastle. Is it enough or do we have to declare Breaks for the reverse dependencies affected in bouncycastle? Emmanuel Bourg [...] We generally still need Breaks. The problem is: $rdep version X Depends on $bc = 1.44 $bc version 1.44 $bc version 1.46 - not compatible with $bc 1.44 $rdep version Y Depends on $bc = 1.46 Here, APT or a user can choose to only upgrade $bc to version 1.46 and keep $rdep at version X. In this case, $rdep is broken but APT thinks it will just work(tm) and therefore allow it. On the other hand, if $bc version 1.46 Breaks $rdep Y~, then APT will see that it has to upgrade both or none at all. ~Niels __ This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers. Please use debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.
