severity 407417 serious justification: file clashes without Conflicts between packages thanks
Matthias Klose writes: > Ludovic Brenta writes: >> Proposed solution 3: >> 1) Do not build libstdc++6-{dbg,dev,pic} from gcc-3.4 anymore. > > why? Because we do not build libstdc++6 from gcc-3.4 anymore. >> 2) In gcc-defaults, build libstdc++6-{dbg,dev,pic} that, in etch, >> depend on libstdc++6-4.1-{dbg,dev,pic}. > > maybe, but not anymore for etch. For a cosmetic change it's not worth > touching three source packages. Actually, just two (gcc-3.4 and gcc-defaults), but I'm nit-picking. More importantly, I disagree that it is a "cosmetic change": - the libstdc++6-{dbg,dev,pic} packages in the archive are unusable because there is no matching libstdc++6; normally this would qualify as a "grave functionality" bug. - the libstdc++6-{dbg,dev,pic} contain files clashing with libstdc++6-4.1-{dbg,dev,pic} but do not Conflict with them; see [1]. I believe that that alone qualifies as a "serious policy violation" bug. - The same file clashes apply to libstdc++5-3.3-{dbg,dev,pic}, too. [1] http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_contents.pl?version=testing&arch=amd64&case=insensitive&word=libstdc%2B%2B6-dbg&searchmode=filelist >> I personally vote against solution 2, since we don't build g++-3.4 >> anymore and so the libstdc++6-{dbg,dev,pic} from gcc-3.4 are useless >> anyway. > > huh, we don't build g++-3.4 anymore? thats news. Sorry, that was a thinko; I meant libstdc++6. > g++-3.4 will go away in lenny. I don't see the need to introduce > defaults packages in gcc-defaults. OK, that's an option too; I suggest we just drop libstdc++6-{dbg,dev,pic} from gcc-3.4, and modify gcc-4.1 so that its packages Conflict with the ones from gcc-3.3. I'm willing to do that myself, in the etch branch. -- Ludovic Brenta. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]