On Mo, 2011-04-18 at 18:15 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > On lun., 2011-04-18 at 18:05 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > Basically the apps (SyncEvolution or Evolution) can't and shouldn't know > > whether libecal1.2-7 and libecal1.2-8 are installable in parallel. Same > > for a future libecal1.2-9. That will only be known when that future > > version is ready and gets packaged, at which point a "conflicts with" > > should be added to the new package based on that future knowledge. > > No, I don't think that's a good idea. > > In that *specific* case, evolution is the one updating the gconf schema, > aiui, so I guess a fix would be to add a Breaks: libecal/libebook to > evolution 2.32.
Agreed, I shouldn't have excluded Evolution. It clearly is part of the reason for the backward compatibility break. > I'm still not so sure about the responsibilities in that case, sorry. It's both EDS and Evolution. There is a circular dependency for the upgrade: EDS moves the files and switches to a new URI scheme, Evolution rewrites the gconf keys to match the new URI scheme. So adding a "conflicts with" to either Evolution or EDS would be okay, because they always have to be updated to 2.32 together. -- Bye, Patrick Ohly -- patrick.o...@gmx.de http://www.estamos.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org