On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:35:25PM +0100, Tim Cutts wrote: > On 1 May 2005, at 8:53 am, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > >True. However, it does no harm to add the conflicts, while it does make > >it easier for your users. When presented with a bug in another package > >that completely breaks mine (rather than the entire system), usually I > >do add the conflicts: header. > > I think that's a dangerous thing to do. When the bug in the other > package is fixed, the chances are that you won't know about it, and > then you'll end up with two packages which conflict with each other for > no reason.
That's why we have versioned conflicts. Also, when adding a conflicts to another package that is buggy, it would be _extremely_ bad form to not track that other package for when the bug is fixed -- or, at least, to file or reassign a bug to that package. > In this case, that's fair enough, because they're two variants of the > same thing, And, moreover, one of the two is now defunct. > but I don't think this sort of thing should be done in the general > case. It causes no harm, as long as one is careful. And isn't being careful something you should be doing anyway? -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]