On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 02:33:23PM -0600, Adam Majer wrote: > Filipe wrote: > > This package is from sarge, but if someone has this installed in sarge > > and upgrades to etch, then it stay in the system. It provides the > > same functionality that logger.rb from libruby1.8 provides, and it has a > > file > > called application.rb that seems to get in the way of rails. This error > > can be reproduced by installing libdevel-logger-ruby1.8 from sarge (this > > package isn't in etch), and it can be installed without any dependencies > > problem.
> Well, it seems that the old logger was not part of the same source as > ruby. I'm not sure if the conflicts should go to ruby unless the new > ruby also has devel/logger.rb or application.rb. This doesn't seem to be > the case though. Rather than a file conflict, this is a conflict of functionality; a target use for the proposed "Breaks" dpkg field. > I think I'll just add the needed conflicts for Etch and remove it in the > next upload after Etch is released. Seems like that may be the path of > least resistance. While direct upgrades from sarge to lenny won't be supported, it would be more accurate to just leave the Conflicts: in (or change it to Breaks:) because the problem won't have disappeared, it'll just be less likely to be encountered. (Well, maybe ruby1.8 will be deprecated by lenny, I guess that's one possibility. :) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
