Op vrijdag 22 juni 2012 14:46:17 schreef Sander Lepik: > 22.06.2012 13:53, AL13N kirjutas > > > I do agree with you here, except that i'm trying to prevent this from > > happening, because it's not something that can be easily fixed. > > > > 1. package A is backported into X > > 1b. package A-foo is backported into X-foo (subpackage) > > 2. package B is updated into Y at a later date > > 3. package update Y has a new dependency A-foo > > 4. person has X installed; but didn't install X-foo. > > 5. person updates B into Y > > > > result is that Y pulls in as new dependency A-foo > > > > but X conflicts with A-foo > > > > so the update does not happen, and you get an ugly error. > > Yes, that's what happens when you use backports. But this case can be > solved. Person having this problem will install X-foo from backports and > case is probably closed (yes! this is what you have to do if you are using > backports). If not then s/he is still on his/her own as we are dealing with > backports. It's not something you can make bulletproof (and we really > shouldn't waste too much time on it).
which is exactly my point, this is not being "supported" at all...