On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 05:28:25PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote: > On Fri Aug 28 16:44, Steffen Moeller wrote: > > I had felt that when the user apt-get installs libjgrapht-java, he should > > be asked about > > the version he wants to install. Also, I did not want to disturb packages > > that depend on > > libjgrapht-java today. If I had libjgrapht-java provided by the > > libjgrapht0.6-java package > > and by libjgrapht0.7-java, then an apt-get dist-upgrade would render > > something previously > > working suddenly unusable. > > Well, I'm definitely of the opinion that the user should _not_ be asked > about the version he wants to install and, in fact, the user should > generally not being typing `apt-get install libjgrapht-java'. > > The dependency system should be good enough to handle this without > sudden transitions. If it's backwards incompatible surely you should > change the package name and things should be depending on the old name. > > (For those in the debconf/post-debconf discussions, this is precisely > why I want to reformulate our version handling policies for Java)
+1 The question is about the most evil we could do. Cheers Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
