On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:58:00 +0200 Yavor Doganov <ya...@gnu.org> wrote:
> Karl Goetz wrote: > > > Should x11-common be fixed not to refer to xv? > > > That means recompiling dozens (hundreds?) of packages for no gain > > other then to remove 10 characters from a meta file. > > Why do you think so? I haven't investigated closely, but it seems to > me that rebuilding x11-common with xv removed from its Conflicts: will > be the immediate cure. There should be no other packages involved. Sorry - I had mentally moved to the general case. > On a more general note, I find that many (free) packages in Debian > cater for non-free conflicts, mostly to assist in error-free > transitions stable->newstable. For example, the `xv' issue is a > remnant from the X11 transition that took place during the Etch->Lenny > cycle (AFAIR, at aleast). > I don't think it's the job of an entirely free distro to ensure > flawless upgrade process for those users who have nonfree packages > installed, so I personally do not see any reason to resist these kind > of changes (i.e. dropping useless Conflicts: package relationships). In the case of a conflicts it seems a pointless delta to carry. In a Depend or recommend (or suggest), I entirely agree. kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ gNewSense-dev mailing list gNewSense-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-dev
