>>>>> "Martin" == Martin Pitt <mp...@debian.org> writes:
Martin> So right now, it seems that reintroducing a transitional
Martin> libkrb5 metapackage to pull in the others is a rather safe
Martin> and robust way, and it should also help apt & friends. What
Martin> do you think?
I'm not sure. We considered and rejected that option but I'm not sure
why rejected it. It may simply have been that we didn't see value in
the transitional package and that technically speaking the transitional
package should not exist because it dosen't actually provide the
libkrb53 ABI.
My conclusions so far are:
1) I don't see why the transitional package is not the best solution we
have on the table
2) The state before I added breaks was better than the current state.
If I have to choose one RC bug to leave in squeeze it will not be this
one.
If I haven't remembered a fatal flaw in the transitional package by this
weekend (when I'm next likely to have time to work on this) I'll go do
that.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
