On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Joseph Carter wrote: > [...] > What I am objecting to is wording in policy to the effect that we should > do something, followed by "don't do this for potato". Especially if it > doesn't really matter if it's done for potato or not.
So maybe we both agree that a policy which is not to be followed is not good, after all :-) > > > [...] > > > Given that your entire objection to this proposal is that you don't want > > > to see anybody implement it YET for some reason either I'm incapible of > > > understanding or you're not explaining, I don't see the problem. [...] > > > > I *did* explain: Lots of *Pre-Dependencies* on base-files. I think this is > > bad, becuse upgrading without apt will make the upgrade to be *painful*. > > > > "Pre-Dependency problem, foo not unpacked because it pre-depends on > > base-files >= bar, base-files >= bar is not installed yet". > > Um, so .... upload a base-files that does this now and let it get > installed into a few mirrors... If the dselect methods cannot handle > this, they are broken. apt can handle it and is AFAIK the default with > potato now that apt has a working cdrom method... I didn't say dselect can't handle this. It can, but if you use a dselect method which does not do package ordering, you will get lots of "errors" and will need several [I]nstall passes. BTW: The same will happen if lots of essential packages in potato depend on libc 2.1. Do we plan to avoid it this time? Thanks. -- "78b68ccdb75773a96ac160402d5dd9b4" (a truly random sig)
