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.