On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 05:40:07AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 16:51:33 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 03:59:14PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > > Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > Since "Breaks field" here means "doesn't complain about the Breaks > > > > field", > > > > rather than "honors the Breaks field", these changes look ok.
> Argh, I should have corrected this one, sorry. From the changelog: > * Add initial support for the Breaks field, by parsing but rejecting it. Aha, then you're doing the right thing and I'm just confused. Carry on :-) > There's two ways to introduce it that I can think of now, but I'd opt > for the first one, otherwise we'll need to wait a lot for this. > Fast: > > * etch > - dpkg parse but reject. > * etch+1: > - dpkg full support. > - require to upgrade dpkg first from etch to etch+1. > - packages using the field in the archive (not the ones that dpkg > (pre-)depends on though). Yep, sounds doable to me. Cheers, -- 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]
