* Russ Allbery [Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:55:34 -0800]:
> > Oooh. Well, (a) that's very sane, since they won't be co-installable,
> > which does not qualify as 'breaks' in my book;
> Well, but libapache-mod-auth-kerb depends on libkrb53, so basically while
> everyone's existing installation will work at the cost of apt-get holding
> back libkrb53, no one would be able to install the package. So it's not
> as bad as it could be, but it is kind of annoying.
Yep; normal behavior in unstable, NotNice™ in testing, I'll agree.
> > and (b) britney will block krb53 from entering testing until l-m-a-k
> > is ready to go, since otherwise the uninstallability count in testing
> > would increase. So far so good. :)
> Huh, really? I didn't think it worked that way -- extra priority packages
> are allowed to conflict with other packages, for instance, and they
> migrate into testing.
Yeah, they conflict with other packages, but not with packages that
depend on them. britney cares about installability of a package, not
about general co-installability, so it only looks at the conflicts on
rdepending packages (as I, heh, painfully learnt learned with [1]).
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-changes/2004/12/msg01132.html
> If that's the case, then libapache-mod-auth-kerb is going to hold up KDE
> as well until we push the whole thing. (The new version is uploaded now.)
Haha. Where do I have to sign to get a kdelibs4c2a transition that
will be held by l-m-a-k, which will at most take 10 days?
Cheers,
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
And don't get me wrong - I don't mind getting proven wrong. I change my
opinions the way some people change underwear. And I think that's ok.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
