On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 03:32:27PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > * Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-28 17:29]:
> > The octave3.0 package in unstable has the following provides line: > > Provides: octave, octave2.9 > > I don't see any possible way that this can be correct. Either octave3.0 is > > 100% compatible with octave2.9, and the source/binary package name should > > *not* have been changed for the new upstream version; or it is not 100% > > compatible, and should not have any such Provides since it may cause > > octave2.9 reverse-dependencies to install octave3.0 instead of the real > > octave2.9 and then fail to work. > > In practice, most of the reverse-depends of octave2.9 have versioned > > dependencies on octave2.9, so most of these will refuse to accept octave3.0 > > as a replacement. And octave3.0 also *conflicts* with octave2.9, so they're > > not exactly co-installable either. Something looks very wrong here. > Thanks, your analysis is probably right but we are in the middle of the > octave2.9 -> octave3.0 transition. The octave2.9 series was considered as > pre-releases for octave3.0. We already asked for removal of octave2.9 from > the archive [1] and I think this mess will be cleared up in the near future. Well, note that I don't consider removal of the existing octave2.9 packages to clear it up. The octave3.0 Provides: is still wrong, either because this package does not provide identical functionality or because it's proof of a gratuitous name change that breaks most of the existing reverse-dependencies. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]