On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:56:38AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > am Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 09:03:28AM +0100 hast du folgendes geschrieben: > > This is a case where we tightened up the resolver behaviour in the > > apt and aptitude resolvers. > > I wonder if that shouldn't be the case for such dependencies as outlined here, > i.e. the same package being involved just excluding a few versions in between. > It feels legit, at least for binNMUs.
I would tend to agree--it's not like it's a different package. It could be considered a single dependency, but which is required to be in several parts. We could alter the code that strips out the alternatives to allow any alternative with the same package name as the first. Does this sound acceptable? Thanks, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
